Difference between revisions of "Talk:Liturgy of St. Tikhon of Moscow"
(→Unambiguous facts: new section) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I didn't delete the content on this page, and I have it all in a Word document. For some reason it won't let me put it back in and save it. I did get a warning message about the talk page being very long. Maybe s Sysop could restore the page and archive part of it? --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 21:54, August 5, 2008 (UTC) | I didn't delete the content on this page, and I have it all in a Word document. For some reason it won't let me put it back in and save it. I did get a warning message about the talk page being very long. Maybe s Sysop could restore the page and archive part of it? --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 21:54, August 5, 2008 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Unambiguous facts == | ||
| + | |||
| + | 1. It doesn’t matter whether the Litany is used alone or in conjunction with the office or the Liturgy. The Observations require that invocation of the Theotokos, the Angels, and the Saints be added. They were not added to the SASB version of the Litany. | ||
| + | |||
| + | 2. Willibrord writes, “For the second time I note, the Observations left where invocations of the saints would be added to the BCP under the bishop's authority and nowhere specified they must be added to a specific section of the Liturgy.” But this is plainly false. The concluding paragraph of the Observations is unambiguous: “'''Into all the services''' in general prayers '''must be inserted''' addressed [sic] to the Blessed Mother of God, to Angels and Saints, with the glorification and invocation of them (direct), also prayers for the dead (especially in the Liturgy and the Burial Service).” | ||
| + | |||
| + | 3. Willibrord seems to misunderstand Metropolitan PHILIP’s letter in the 1995 OM. The Metropolitan wrote, “These approved texts are the exclusive use of our Archdiocese.” Willibrord seems to be reading that as saying these texts and only these texts may be used in our Archdiocese, but that isn’t what the sentence says. But in any event, in the very next year, the Metropolitan refers in his letter in the SASB to its texts as “these authorized liturgies and other rites and ceremonies….” So even if one understood the 1995 letter as excluding other texts, one has to acknowledge a reversal in 1996 in that the texts of the SASB are clearly identified as authorized services. | ||
| + | |||
| + | There is no getting around 1, 2, and 3. And pointing out 1, 2, and 3, in no way makes me a "detractor" of the AWRV. I fully support the AWRV and fully support their Metropolitan's right to authorize whatever liturgies he sees fit to authorize, which includes both the OM and the SASB. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 21:20, August 5, 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 22:02, August 5, 2008
I didn't delete the content on this page, and I have it all in a Word document. For some reason it won't let me put it back in and save it. I did get a warning message about the talk page being very long. Maybe s Sysop could restore the page and archive part of it? --Fr Lev 21:54, August 5, 2008 (UTC)
Unambiguous facts
1. It doesn’t matter whether the Litany is used alone or in conjunction with the office or the Liturgy. The Observations require that invocation of the Theotokos, the Angels, and the Saints be added. They were not added to the SASB version of the Litany.
2. Willibrord writes, “For the second time I note, the Observations left where invocations of the saints would be added to the BCP under the bishop's authority and nowhere specified they must be added to a specific section of the Liturgy.” But this is plainly false. The concluding paragraph of the Observations is unambiguous: “Into all the services in general prayers must be inserted addressed [sic] to the Blessed Mother of God, to Angels and Saints, with the glorification and invocation of them (direct), also prayers for the dead (especially in the Liturgy and the Burial Service).”
3. Willibrord seems to misunderstand Metropolitan PHILIP’s letter in the 1995 OM. The Metropolitan wrote, “These approved texts are the exclusive use of our Archdiocese.” Willibrord seems to be reading that as saying these texts and only these texts may be used in our Archdiocese, but that isn’t what the sentence says. But in any event, in the very next year, the Metropolitan refers in his letter in the SASB to its texts as “these authorized liturgies and other rites and ceremonies….” So even if one understood the 1995 letter as excluding other texts, one has to acknowledge a reversal in 1996 in that the texts of the SASB are clearly identified as authorized services.
There is no getting around 1, 2, and 3. And pointing out 1, 2, and 3, in no way makes me a "detractor" of the AWRV. I fully support the AWRV and fully support their Metropolitan's right to authorize whatever liturgies he sees fit to authorize, which includes both the OM and the SASB. --Fr Lev 21:20, August 5, 2008 (UTC)
