Talk:Sarum Use

From OrthodoxWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Adding back first section: must add back in sections)
(St Osmund error)
 
(40 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Well, technically it isn't a tradition of the pre-Schism West, as Sarum Cathedral was dedicated in 1092, and the Sarum as known from the texts dates from New Salisbury in the 13th c. That it is essentially no different than Pre-Schism Frankish and Celtic-Saxon Roman traditions is witnessed to by contemporaries, but the Use itself is definitely post-Schism. All surviving documents of the Sarum use are post-LePoore, in fact.
+
*''[[Talk:Sarum Use/Archive 1|Archive 1]] and [[Talk:Sarum Use/Archive 2|Archive 2]]
+
  
: Noted. --[[User:ASDamick|Rdr. Andrew]] 21:27, 24 Mar 2005 (CST)
+
SARUM RITE SOCIETY
  
Another minor point: the "Old Sarum Rite" is not a version of the Sarum use of the Roman rite. Its relationship is unclear and tenuous to Sarum at this point. If one compares merely the ritual (the printed text) there are many anomalies and differences with the "Old Sarum Rite" that distinguish it from the Sarum Use. Anglo-Roman is a better classification for this rite, as it is in English and is basically a Roman rite. However, its sources vary widely and retain not enough Sarum material to even be considered a 'version'. The ceremonial and much of the rite is based upon finding Byzantine analogues in Western customs that were either quite singular, irregular, or modern misinterpretations of antique material. The wording I used originally was to precisely note this relationship... it is not a version, but a new rite of its own that has never been served outside of the past few decades, and then only in the USA. It is a work of liturgical archaeology, and has not been vetted by liturgists with experience in Western Rite towards whether it does (or can) do what it purports to represent: Anglo-Saxon liturgy of the 9th c. - Aristibule
+
The following society is exclusively using the Sarum Rite http://sarumrite.spruz.com
 +
Someone may wish to add it to the list of external links if it is useful.
  
: Please feel free to note all this information in the article. By using "version," I didn't mean to imply that it was taken from the non-"Old" Sarum Use.--[[User:ASDamick|Rdr. Andrew]] 17:49, 8 Apr 2005 (EDT)
 
  
I would suggest a revert from the February 20, 2006 edit by YBeayf - far from a 'incorrect sentence', the lineage of the English Orthodox liturgies (St. Tikhon's AWRV and the English Rite ROCOR) goes back through both the Scottish-American BCP and English BCP traditions. The former tradition is rooted in the latter, which in itself is a heavily edited version of the Henrician Sarum (the Sarum rite with some items in English, the removal of references to the Papacy, and some later saints.) If someone is going to make a change based upon something being incorrect, they should provide an argument for the 'why' of it. However, we know the liturgical tradition in England went from a multitude of local Cathedral uses, to a majority using Sarum or Sarum-based liturgy, to the direction for Sarum to be used by all churches, to the Henrician Sarum, then to the first BCP based upon the work of the former. The BCP tradition also borrowed elements from other Eastern and Western rites at that time, but there is no reason to believe that its primary source was anything other than the Henrician Sarum already approved for use by the same Convocation. - [[User:Aristibule|Aristibule]]07:13, 22 Feb 2006.
+
== St Osmund error ==
+
  
::No, the English BCP communion service is not rooted in the Sarum mass. It of course contains some of the same elements, but consists of portions common to all Western liturgies combined with texts and rubrics made up from whole cloth by Cranmer. The BCP communion service was not a continuation of the Sarum rite, but a new, thoroughly Protestantized service with a few bits filched from the authentic Catholic rite of England. [[User:YBeayf|YBeayf]] 14:51, March 2, 2006 (CST)
+
Scholarship has moved on since 1886, the date of the source attributing the final form of the Sarum books to St Osmund. The article was correct before. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 18:40, August 27, 2008 (UTC)
+
 
:It seems, to an outsider, that both sides may have justification to their position. Perhaps both views, with their supporting evidence, should be noted in the article (as 'contention', for instance)? -- {{User:Pistevo/sig}} 18:17, March 3, 2006 (CST)
+
== Removing reference to Dom Augustine's caretaker ==
+
 
:One supposes, then one will have to make allowance for all sorts of silliness by way of 'contention'. The facts are that the Sarum Use had become the sole use of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales on the Eve of the Reformation. During the reign of Henry VIII it was edited both for removal of all references to the Papacy, later Roman Catholic saints, and the first translations into English. The First Prayer Book was primarily based upon this use (which was the use of the realm), along with scholarly materials (Lutheran, Spanish, and Oriental liturgies), and the work of Convocation. Cranmer only had a part, not being the primary author of the first BCP, but the second BCP. The 'silliness' comes from the contention that the bulk of the BCP tradition's source material, being the Roman rite, is *not* from the Sarum use when it would have been near impossible to have been from anything else (particularly the 1570 Roman Mass, as the recent weblore has it from those who try to claim no connection between the Sarum Use and the Prayer Book tradition.) It also does not take into account the variety in what is called Sarum Use - a recent blog post by a newly ordained anti-WRO ECUSA minister seems to be the origin of all this 'contention', based upon his comparison of a single version of the ordinary of the Sarum Use with the 1549 BCP, and not taking into account at all the Henrician Sarum (which also contain some of the same deletions as found in the 1549 BCP.) I should also point out that the various Prayer Books changed over time - Rome still considered the Henrician Sarum and 1549 BCP to be 'Catholic rites'. The 1552 BCP, being what Cranmer wanted to begin with (but couldn't get past Convocation on the first try), and later English versions that restored what 1552 deleted still are in the lineage of the 1549 and Sarum. Even the Scottish liturgy, though it was far more changed by further contemporary scholarship; particularly as to the liturgy of St. Clement and St. James. [[User:Aristibule|Ari]] 16:12, March 7, 2006 (CST)
+
While leaving in a reference to Dom Augustine, I removed the reference to him being cared for. I take this to be outside the scope of this article. I have created a link to a (potential) page on Dom Augustine. That would be the place for personal information of this sort. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 19:47, August 27, 2008 (UTC)
+
 
One last point on 'YBeayf''s criticisms. He calls the BCP 1549 "Protestantized service with a few bits filched from the authentic Catholic rite of England." Of course, the authentic Catholic rite of England *is* the Sarum Use. It had been the majority use for 300 years previously (as well as Ireland and Scotland.) As for 'Protestantized', of course, but to be '-ized', one has to have an original to changed. That original would be - the sole authentic Catholic rite readily available to the English: the Sarum Use. [[User:Aristibule|Ari]] 16:22, March 7, 2006 (CST)
+
I agree with this, and with the whole text as is.
+
 
-
+
I would like to suggest that a re-write of the opening paragraph about Gallican antecedents would be a good thing - an expansion - and if there is no disagreement, I would be prepared to draft it and initially post it here in the discussion pages for the ritual tearing to pieces before it was put on the page.  Any thoughts?
:No, I didn't say that. I said "English BCP communion service", without specifying a year. The 1549 Book of Common Prayer is not what first comes to mind to most people when one mentions the "BCP".
+
Dorsetpriest
+
 
-
+
Go for it. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 02:13, August 28, 2008 (UTC)
:I have not seen this blog posting which you reference; rest assured that any contention here is purely of my own making. My objection to saying the BCP (post-1552) is rooted in the Sarum usage of the Roman rite is that the essence of the mass, the offertory and canon, are changed beyond recognition. Of course the general structure of the BCP service mirrors the Sarum usage, but it is IMO rather tendentious to claim this roots the BCP service in the Sarum usage when the most important parts of the Sarum are not carried over, and the framework of the BCP service and the Sarum usage are common to all Latin rites. Nevertheless, I will cease fighting to have that sentence removed. I have, however, added a small clarification, which I hope will be allowed to stand. [[User:YBeayf|YBeayf]] 17:42, March 8, 2006 (CST)
+
 
:: This "...in that the creators of the ''Book of Common Prayer'' used the Sarum missal as a springboard for their reformed liturgy." is not a clarification, but simply redundant repetition of 'primary origin with Sarum use'. They say the exact same thing, but without the colloquialism of 'springboard'. I'm not sure what one means by 'most important parts of the Sarum', but it doesn't change the fact of *primary origin*. See: http://flickr.com/photos/21182585@N00/1434369/ for a chart describing the origins of the rites. The ROCOR English Use is from the 1549 BCP with restorations according to Sarum, York, the Gothic Missal. Answering Fr. Lev's post, the lineage of the St. Tikhon's is not all that far removed. The American 1928 BCP was a more catholicized form of the earlier American Prayer Book, that tradition having its origin with the Scottish Non-Juror liturgy (that which Seabury brought from Scotland to America). The Scottish Non-Jurors use not only had the indirect source of Laud's prayer book, but also has evidence of using the 1549 BCP, Sarum, and other uses (especially the contemporary translations of the liturgies of St. Clement, St. James, etc.) More below... [[User:Aristibule|Ari]] 11:41, March 12, 2006 (CST)
+
==Removing "The English Liturgy" reference: Putting back Milan usage==
+
 
:::No, they don't say the same thing. One implies that the BCP tradition was a simple continuation of the Sarum. The other makes it clear that there was a break, and that the creators of the BCP used the Sarum rite as a template for their own, reformed, heretical liturgy. [[User:YBeayf|YBeayf]] 22:26, March 12, 2006 (CST)
+
Changed my mind after a good night's sleep. Some things shouldn't be glossed.
::::That is reading more into the syntax than is there. 'Primary origin' is precisely what it is. [[User:Aristibule|Ari]] 23:58, March 13, 2006 (CST)
+
 
 +
The "English Liturgy" is not a Sarum liturgy, and therefore does not belong on this page, but on the general "Western Rite" page. As well, the Sarum had been used by the Milan Synod since the late 80's. To remove that is intellectually dishonest.--[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 05:30, August 28, 2008 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
I suggest that the page be locked either at my last revision or Fr. Lev's last revision and that further proposed changes be posted here for discussion before being officially included in the page.
 +
Dorsetpriest
 +
 
 +
HA! Welcome to Wiki, sir. We do not know who you are and you'd best provide some grounds for the changes. Father Michael (Wood), the author of the English liturgy, supports quite a bit of what I wrote.--[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 14:10, August 28, 2008 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
==Protection==
 +
The article is locked.  Please propose all amendments, with evidence, on the talk page.
 +
 
 +
I like to look at things like this with some measure of gratitude - other denominations/religions argue about theology, we did most of that over a millenium ago - but then again, I also like to have talk pages that don't require archiving after two days (!!).
 +
 
 +
This is a pattern that I've observed on OW over my time here - I can't think of an archived talk page in the last two years that hasn't been a WR page (or a sys-op's talk page).  I think that the reason for this amount of argument (it can hardly be termed 'debate') is because each protagonist values the WR greatly. That said, all of the protagonists need to consider these three things - why this is so, what perception this gives to the world (particularly those considering the Orthodox Faith in the Western Rite) and what perception this gives to the broader Orthodox Church (most of which hasn't even heard of the WR). I can tell you right now, it's not a good one.
 +
 
 +
As numerous sysops have said in the past: go and edit other types of articles. &mdash; 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 15:00, August 28, 2008 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
:Hello good afternoon. Understood why this was protectedI agree with your comments above especially in regard to long talk pages and edit wars. However I feel this article needs quite a bit more information before it is complete (and having it locked makes it more difficult for users to get involved). For one, I agree with Dorsetpriest that much more information should be included in the section on the antectedents to the Sarum use, the first section of the article (I would be interested to see what he comes up with).
 +
:I also propose that the last section entitled "Modern Orthodox Usage" be renamed to "Modern Orthodox Revival". Furthermore, there is nothing stated in this section about the dates and details of the Russian Synods which approved its use (although these are mentioned throughout on the archived talk pages). The Orthodox Section should begin with the history of the rites' revival in Orthodoxy, and trace this development; and not just contain which jurisdictions and what printed versions are used. :)
 +
:Cheers, [[User:Angellight 888|Angellight 888]] 20:22, August 28, 2008 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
I am actually glad the edit-warring stops-- the simple fact is that Dorsetpriest was not putting *more* information, but repeatedly removing large amounts of it while adding information on non-Sarum liturgies on the page. I am not going to guess his motives, though I will note his changes were virtually identical to those of another poster who had a long fight with me on the matters disputed, although it seemed to be a debate of saying something happened versus deliberately omitting information.
 +
 
 +
No Russian Synod ever required modification of the Sarum Rite because it is a pre-schism text which clearly proclaims Orthodox theology. The information on Russian-authorized rites (that is, rites that were not original pre-schismatic rituals) is on the [[Western Rite]] page.--[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 23:31, August 28, 2008 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
Since it is generally acknowledged by scholars that the Sarum Use dates to the 13th c., it doesn't qualify for the description "pre-Schism." Also, I don't believe anyone has claimed that Moscow evaluated the Sarum. I take the claim to be simply that the Russian editor(s) of the Sarum utilized the ''Observations'' of the 1904 Moscow commission to amend the text to make it more suitable for Orthodox use. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 02:06, August 29, 2008 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
Without wanting to be a stickler to what I said: '''"Please propose all amendments,''' '''''with evidence,''''' '''on the talk page."'''. &mdash; 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 03:12, August 29, 2008 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
==Sarum: 13th Century or Misnomer?==
 +
 
 +
I don't think the argument can be made that the use itself dates back to the 13th century. Perhaps its fixation as calling it "Sarum" can be traced to Richard Le Poore, but the codification of the texts by Osmund was in the late 11th, and based on practices well-established in the surrounding areas. However, even these local variants were far from massive differences in ritual. Perhaps a better name is simply: the English Liturgy.
 +
 
 +
This reminds me very much of the argument that the Mozarabic liturgy is so called because it has been influenced by Islam. Musically, it was influenced somewhat (and far less than assumed); but the texts were Hispania's use well before the Moors took over. --[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 02:52, August 29, 2008 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
== English Uses, Sarum Rite, and Sarum Use ==
 +
 
 +
There should be some clarification: all local uses of the Western rite in Britain are English Uses. English Use being the commonly used term to describe the diverse but related practices amongst local British uses in ceremonial, ornament, and ritual (including uses of Scotland, Wales, and Ireland.) The Rite of Salisbury is one use, as are Bangor, York, Durham, etc.
 +
 
 +
The Sarum Rite properly refers to the rite of the Cathedral of Salisbury: and it was called a rite properly throughout history. It is a variation of the Gallo-Roman rite, but distinct enough that even the Romans called it a rite. The full Sarum rite without adaptation was adopted by some other local dioceses: Shrewsbury, Dunkeld, St. Andrew's, St. David's.
 +
 
 +
The Sarum Use refers to the use of dioceses that adapted the Salisbury rite, but with some local distinction: e.g. Lincoln, London, Aberdeen or Bangor. There is a misunderstanding in the popular consciousness that because the Sarum is a variant of the Roman rite, that it is merely a use - a confusing term to use considering the common usage of 'Sarum use' to describe local adaptations of Sarum.
 +
 
 +
English uses that are non-Sarum include York rite, Durham (a use of York), and Exeter.--[[User:Aristibule|Ari]] 01:51, March 22, 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:03, July 9, 2010

SARUM RITE SOCIETY

The following society is exclusively using the Sarum Rite http://sarumrite.spruz.com Someone may wish to add it to the list of external links if it is useful.


Contents

St Osmund error

Scholarship has moved on since 1886, the date of the source attributing the final form of the Sarum books to St Osmund. The article was correct before. --Fr Lev 18:40, August 27, 2008 (UTC)

Removing reference to Dom Augustine's caretaker

While leaving in a reference to Dom Augustine, I removed the reference to him being cared for. I take this to be outside the scope of this article. I have created a link to a (potential) page on Dom Augustine. That would be the place for personal information of this sort. --Fr Lev 19:47, August 27, 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this, and with the whole text as is.

I would like to suggest that a re-write of the opening paragraph about Gallican antecedents would be a good thing - an expansion - and if there is no disagreement, I would be prepared to draft it and initially post it here in the discussion pages for the ritual tearing to pieces before it was put on the page. Any thoughts? Dorsetpriest

Go for it. --Fr Lev 02:13, August 28, 2008 (UTC)

Removing "The English Liturgy" reference: Putting back Milan usage

Changed my mind after a good night's sleep. Some things shouldn't be glossed.

The "English Liturgy" is not a Sarum liturgy, and therefore does not belong on this page, but on the general "Western Rite" page. As well, the Sarum had been used by the Milan Synod since the late 80's. To remove that is intellectually dishonest.--JosephSuaiden 05:30, August 28, 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the page be locked either at my last revision or Fr. Lev's last revision and that further proposed changes be posted here for discussion before being officially included in the page. Dorsetpriest

HA! Welcome to Wiki, sir. We do not know who you are and you'd best provide some grounds for the changes. Father Michael (Wood), the author of the English liturgy, supports quite a bit of what I wrote.--JosephSuaiden 14:10, August 28, 2008 (UTC)

Protection

The article is locked. Please propose all amendments, with evidence, on the talk page.

I like to look at things like this with some measure of gratitude - other denominations/religions argue about theology, we did most of that over a millenium ago - but then again, I also like to have talk pages that don't require archiving after two days (!!).

This is a pattern that I've observed on OW over my time here - I can't think of an archived talk page in the last two years that hasn't been a WR page (or a sys-op's talk page). I think that the reason for this amount of argument (it can hardly be termed 'debate') is because each protagonist values the WR greatly. That said, all of the protagonists need to consider these three things - why this is so, what perception this gives to the world (particularly those considering the Orthodox Faith in the Western Rite) and what perception this gives to the broader Orthodox Church (most of which hasn't even heard of the WR). I can tell you right now, it's not a good one.

As numerous sysops have said in the past: go and edit other types of articles. — by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 15:00, August 28, 2008 (UTC)

Hello good afternoon. Understood why this was protectedI agree with your comments above especially in regard to long talk pages and edit wars. However I feel this article needs quite a bit more information before it is complete (and having it locked makes it more difficult for users to get involved). For one, I agree with Dorsetpriest that much more information should be included in the section on the antectedents to the Sarum use, the first section of the article (I would be interested to see what he comes up with).
I also propose that the last section entitled "Modern Orthodox Usage" be renamed to "Modern Orthodox Revival". Furthermore, there is nothing stated in this section about the dates and details of the Russian Synods which approved its use (although these are mentioned throughout on the archived talk pages). The Orthodox Section should begin with the history of the rites' revival in Orthodoxy, and trace this development; and not just contain which jurisdictions and what printed versions are used. :)
Cheers, Angellight 888 20:22, August 28, 2008 (UTC)

I am actually glad the edit-warring stops-- the simple fact is that Dorsetpriest was not putting *more* information, but repeatedly removing large amounts of it while adding information on non-Sarum liturgies on the page. I am not going to guess his motives, though I will note his changes were virtually identical to those of another poster who had a long fight with me on the matters disputed, although it seemed to be a debate of saying something happened versus deliberately omitting information.

No Russian Synod ever required modification of the Sarum Rite because it is a pre-schism text which clearly proclaims Orthodox theology. The information on Russian-authorized rites (that is, rites that were not original pre-schismatic rituals) is on the Western Rite page.--JosephSuaiden 23:31, August 28, 2008 (UTC)

Since it is generally acknowledged by scholars that the Sarum Use dates to the 13th c., it doesn't qualify for the description "pre-Schism." Also, I don't believe anyone has claimed that Moscow evaluated the Sarum. I take the claim to be simply that the Russian editor(s) of the Sarum utilized the Observations of the 1904 Moscow commission to amend the text to make it more suitable for Orthodox use. --Fr Lev 02:06, August 29, 2008 (UTC)

Without wanting to be a stickler to what I said: "Please propose all amendments, with evidence, on the talk page.". — by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 03:12, August 29, 2008 (UTC)

Sarum: 13th Century or Misnomer?

I don't think the argument can be made that the use itself dates back to the 13th century. Perhaps its fixation as calling it "Sarum" can be traced to Richard Le Poore, but the codification of the texts by Osmund was in the late 11th, and based on practices well-established in the surrounding areas. However, even these local variants were far from massive differences in ritual. Perhaps a better name is simply: the English Liturgy.

This reminds me very much of the argument that the Mozarabic liturgy is so called because it has been influenced by Islam. Musically, it was influenced somewhat (and far less than assumed); but the texts were Hispania's use well before the Moors took over. --JosephSuaiden 02:52, August 29, 2008 (UTC)

English Uses, Sarum Rite, and Sarum Use

There should be some clarification: all local uses of the Western rite in Britain are English Uses. English Use being the commonly used term to describe the diverse but related practices amongst local British uses in ceremonial, ornament, and ritual (including uses of Scotland, Wales, and Ireland.) The Rite of Salisbury is one use, as are Bangor, York, Durham, etc.

The Sarum Rite properly refers to the rite of the Cathedral of Salisbury: and it was called a rite properly throughout history. It is a variation of the Gallo-Roman rite, but distinct enough that even the Romans called it a rite. The full Sarum rite without adaptation was adopted by some other local dioceses: Shrewsbury, Dunkeld, St. Andrew's, St. David's.

The Sarum Use refers to the use of dioceses that adapted the Salisbury rite, but with some local distinction: e.g. Lincoln, London, Aberdeen or Bangor. There is a misunderstanding in the popular consciousness that because the Sarum is a variant of the Roman rite, that it is merely a use - a confusing term to use considering the common usage of 'Sarum use' to describe local adaptations of Sarum.

English uses that are non-Sarum include York rite, Durham (a use of York), and Exeter.--Ari 01:51, March 22, 2009 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
interaction
Donate

Please consider supporting OrthodoxWiki. FAQs

Toolbox