1,942
edits
Changes
no edit summary
::Sdn Benjamin's thesis would be an example of citable material, and my viewpoint is that the interviews with Fr Paul Schneirla would suffice. I would strongly encourage the posting of, or linking to, this thesis online (right now, we can say 'according to Andersen, 2006', but I'm not sure how much further we can go). However, the links to the Occidentalis blog can be considered 'privileged' - it appears that it's now a closed blog. — by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''</sup> at 10:02, August 5, 2008 (UTC)
I object to the continued personal attacks on me and mischaracterizations of me by Willibrord. I have nowhere in this article been a "detractor" of the AWRV. That is a libel against me. As I have said before, I have no criticism to make of the AWRV. I am not criticizing their liturgies. I have stuck to (what I take to be) relatively straightforward factual matters. Willibrord acts as if to qualify "all" by the word "almost" makes one a detractor pf the AWRV. He simply can't acknowledge two sinple facts: (1) not all the changes were made -- which is no big deal for several reasons; and (2) that the SASB is an official text of the Antiochian Archdiocese. To point out that the SASB, the edition of which I have in front of me was published a year after the Orthodox Missal, is printed by the Archdiocese and contains a letter from its Metropolitan saying that it is an authorized text, is not to "detract" from the AWRV. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 12:48, August 5, 2008 (UTC)
