Talk:Sarum Use

From OrthodoxWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Protection)
(St Osmund error)
 
(6 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
*''[[Sarum Use/Archive 1|Archive 1]] and [[Sarum Use/Archive 2|Archive 2]]
+
*''[[Talk:Sarum Use/Archive 1|Archive 1]] and [[Talk:Sarum Use/Archive 2|Archive 2]]
 +
 
 +
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.
 +
 
  
 
== St Osmund error ==
 
== St Osmund error ==
Line 39: Line 45:
 
: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. :)
 
: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)
 
: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 15:03, 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