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)
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.
- 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)
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)