Jump to: navigation, search

Talk:Western Rite

16,912 bytes added, 22:11, February 16, 2009
Images under "Congregations" 2
The article on Liturgy, as it is now, says "The majority celebrate the Liturgy of St. Tikhon of Moscow, which is an adaptation of the Communion service from the 1928 Anglican Book of Common Prayer[4]". I earlier questioned the date of 1928. St Tikhon did his preparatory work in the early 1900s. Earlier in the main article it says his work was based on the 1898 (USA) Book of Common Prayer which derived from the Scottish Book of Common Prayer, not the English BCP. The citation given does not seem to support the 1928 date. In addition, one of the professors at the nearby national Episcopalian seminary (Rev Dr Joseph Frary) tells me the Saint Tikhon liturgy is almost completely the same as the 1898 (USA) BCP. Perhaps another citation could be found justifying the 1928 date, or the date changed to 1898. Thanks. [[User:Chrisg|Chrisg]] 02:56, January 26, 2009 (UTC)
I'm not against changing the date to 1898; I am not an expert on the date. But almost every source I read, including the footnote given in that essay, says "1928 Book of common prayer". I am not against putting it at 1898. I am against taking out a date altogether until we revert to the intellectually dishonest "ancient Orthodox use of the English Church", which has happened before, resurrecting the whole blasted fight. I have an idea for a fix.--[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 03:02, January 26, 2009 (UTC)
The Liturgy of St Tikhon was compiled by Fr Jospeh Angwin and was based on the 1928 BCP, which was the use in his parish, the Church of the Incarnation, Detroit. St Tikhon did not produce a liturgy. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 03:04, January 26, 2009 (UTC)
Was that the English 1928 BCP (which parliament rejected)? [[User:Chrisg|Chrisg]] 03:06, January 26, 2009 (UTC)
No, the American BCP. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 03:10, January 26, 2009 (UTC)
So, strictly speaking, it would be wrong to say the Liturgy of St Tikhon was approved by the Holy Synod of Moscow, but more correct to say the Holy Synod of Moscow approved the concept in principal but the rite now in use is based on the (Protestant Episcopal Church of USA) Book of Common Prayer of 1928? [[User:Chrisg|Chrisg]] 03:13, January 26, 2009 (UTC)
That's right. Moscow gave permission to St Tikhon to produce an Orthodox version of the American BCP, but that never happened. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 03:16, January 26, 2009 (UTC)
Could you or Joseph perhaps rewrite the article to clarify those details please? There has been widespread confusion over this for many years now. Thanks [[User:Chrisg|Chrisg]] 03:21, January 26, 2009 (UTC)
Hello, just an fyi... I found this article on the Wikipedia: [[w:Orthodox-Catholic Church of America (OCCA)|Orthodox-Catholic Church of America (OCCA)]]; I do not think I saw a reference to this non-canonical group in this article's section on congregations. Anyways, I was wondering if someone with knowledge of this would be able to clarify who this group is in a succint way and add it to the section on Congregations? Or if it even applies here...(i.e ''Old Catholic'' versus ''Western Rite''??) ?<br>
Cheers [[User:Angellight 888|Angellight 888]] 01:54, February 6, 2009 (UTC)
: This is one of the [[Independent Orthodox churches]] and as such isn't included in our standard articles. &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 12:16, February 6, 2009 (UTC)
== Images under "Congregations" ==
All images should be related to the article's main points. Thus, I deleted the image of the "Old Sarum Rite Missal," which is not being celebrated anywhere within mainline Orthodoxy. (Except, perhaps, in one man's home prayers?) Fr. Alexander Turner was consequential in establishing many, many WRO congregations and seems a more representative image of Western Rite Orthodoxy (in both theory ''and'' practice). However, I kept a link to the image of the non-canonical Milan Synod's authorization of the "Old Sarum Rite Missal" as a footnote, as there had been none.--[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 12:19, February 15, 2009 (UTC)
:Once again we see aggressive promoters of the "Old Sarum Rite Missal" invade the board. I see in retrospect the picture labeled "Synod of Milan Authorisation of Sarum Missal, ed Fr Aidan Keller" does not actually mention the authorization of the OSRM; it's just a picture of the MS Metropolitan Evloghios stuck in the missal. (Of course, the monastery that produced the "Old Sarum Rite Missal" once had [;topic=4012.0 a picture of the Patriarch of Antioch in its vestibule with the words "Our Patriarch" on it], as though they were Antiochian, so this picture doesn't carry much weight for me.) It would be an odd authorization, because Abp. John LoBue did NOT authorize its use in his Eastern USA archdiocese, preferring his own (superior) translation. To my knowledge, the OSRM was not used MS-wide (or widely even within the Western USA archdiocese).
:I should add, '''I'm not sure a missal that is not celebrated anywhere in Orthodoxy''' (with the possible exception of a spare room in one person's sister's apartment) '''is even appropriate to an article on the Western Rite and its "Congregations."''' Since I was [ falsely accused] of [[OrthodoxWiki:Vandalism|"vandalism"]] for editing this page, I could see the uproar if I removed it on my own. But frankly, Orthodox priests use all sorts of things for their private prayers; the moderators may want to consider whether one person's private prayers are material to the page at all. --[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 21:40, February 15, 2009 (UTC)
Fr Aidan's contribution to Western Rite Orthodoxy has been substantial, and while it is controversial to some, it shouldn't be ignored. His work is far from simply "celebrated in a room in his sister's house", and as I can't even see the link you have put up, I see no real reason to believe this bizzare claim about the picture. It should be noted that Fr Aidan's work is occasionally consulted in the Eastern Archdiocese, and the widely popular "Orthodox Prayers of Old England" is considered an invaluable resource by many. As one who has access to both translations, I see value in both of them.
It is an awful shame that you have this amazing disdain for a priest of a sister church of yours that you have gone on this tangent. I find the politicizing of this article on your part totally despicable, and will continue making corrections and now adding information you deleted.
For the record there is no such thing as a "Holyrood/St Petroc liturgy". Holyrood has always-- and continues to use the Milan Synod texts. I also found a better picture for "congregations" to use.--[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 01:46, February 16, 2009 (UTC)
== Images under "Congregations" 2==
::Joseph, it seems your comments meet the OrthodoxWiki definition of [ Uncivil Behavior] in full: ''ad hominem'' name-calling, imputing motives, and attributing an emotional state/ulterior motive to others. It certainly does not promote communication.
:: We have debated this before on other WR Talk pages, but I will reiterate: OrthodoxWiki is not a forum for subjective opinions but an encyclopedia containing objective facts.
::The facts remain clear:
::a) OrthodoxWiki is an encyclopedia of objective fact, not the place to express your opinion of the "value" of various books;
::b) This article has a subhead about WRO "Congregations";
::c) The "Old Sarum Rite Missal" is not celebrated by any congregation;
::d) If one person is praying it privately while celebrating the Byzantine liturgy, it is not particularly relevant to the Western Rite, period. Priests pray a variety of things privately with bishops' approval.
::For some reason, supporters of the "Old Sarum Rite Missal" seem intent on using the internet to equate "true" WRO with the OSRM, but OrthodoxWiki is not a forum for such advocacy.
::Other edits seem incorrect, as well:
::"There is no no such thing as a 'Holyrood/St Petroc liturgy'." Interesting; I'll have to let the hieromonks and faithful associated with Holyrood and St. Petroc know that. They all seem to think otherwise. Fr. Michael would be the first to say the St. Petroc recension of Sarum bears little resemblance to the OSRM.
::"Holyrood has always-- and continues to use the Milan Synod texts." According to Hieromonk David, he celebrates the Mt. Royal Order of Mass, which is available online and is clearly not the Milan Synod text. That would be impossible, since it predates the Milan Synod texts; Mt. Royal was [ received into Orthodoxy in 1962], 35 years before the MS had any Western Rite parishes.
::You state Hieromonk David uses "propers" from the Milan Synod; if true, that would be different than the Ordinary. ''If'' even that fact were true, the fact would remain that no quotation from Hieromonk David substantiates this. Can you provide one?
::Whatever your opinion of Benjamin Andersen's Occidentalis blog, '''it does not does not give you the right to remove it as a source''' for this article. It was/is clearly an invaluable contribution that informed much of this entry.
::You added a nice bit about Villate; I see no reason to take that out. --[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 05:37, February 16, 2009 (UTC)
I would ascribe nothing but malice to spreading an unsubstantiated claim of theft even after repeated attempts at correction. (
You seem to assume that I myself am a partisan of the OSRM in question. I am not. Thus I did not get involved until your behavior seemed motivated by spite.
You are being dishonest about Holyrood. The text is only the text of the invariable parts of the service, which are almost the same as English translations of the Tridentine anyway. ALL the moveable parts come from the Milan Synod usages. Any quote of his usage would be anecdotal. Same on your part. However, I am not against removing mention of him altogether.
RE: the blog-- to whom was it invaluable? Not me; I am not part of the 'club'. I am simply restating a previous complaint.
Unless you can show that what I added was NOT factually correct, please, just stop.--[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 06:01, February 16, 2009 (UTC)
A couple of other points--
1) A major difference between the Milan texts and others is the inclusion of sequences and other parts of the texts that make a major difference in the size of the liturgy. Because of this, a simple Gregorian Mass and Sarum are very different. The ordinary is almost the same across the board. Thus, the liturgy itself would appear as that of a Milan Synod liturgy.
2) I wasn't calling you Torquemada; I meant that again the "Inquisition" mindset was returning, and that this was an argument against using post-schism services.--[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 06:23, February 16, 2009 (UTC)
Gentlemen: Take a deep breath. Enhance your calm. Cease inspiring the administration to just delete every WR article and put a permanent ban on their re-creation.
Thanks! :)
BTW, Mr. Andersen's weblog was indeed used as a source for the original formation of this article (I wrote it). Whether it remains a source or not depends on the current content. OW articles are never set in stone, so their sources can't be, either. &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 15:16, February 16, 2009 (UTC)
::Perhaps as a moderator and original author you could peruse the article as it stands and verify that Subdn. Benjamin Andersen's blog remains a source? (I think it obviously does, but one read would verify it.) Joseph's argument, as far as I can tell, is that the blog should not be listed as a source because he (Joseph) has not been invited to participate in it.
::Otherwise, the matter is simply one of verifiable facts vs. speculation. Generally articles are ill served by replacing sourced statements with unsourced statements and matters that are off-topic.
::I'm not sure anything I've done has shown anything other than calm, good form, and attention to fact/source. '''There is, however, a personal slander of me on this page''' (concerning my blog); as such, I should either answer it or ask that it be deleted. I think the latter would be most appropriate. Please advise.
--[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 18:13, February 16, 2009 (UTC)
I was not the first to make the complaint, though I noted this, this time around, for the same reason: Information which can only be gained through personal access should not be allowed. If we cannot gain access through a library nor even an archeological dig I question its value. Anything could be cited. Can you follow that logic?
As for just following 'good sound form', you realize your contributions can be tracked, right?
And as for the "Torquemada" issue, as anyone can see on recentchanges, I've been given a second warning.--[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 18:28, February 16, 2009 (UTC)
::I was referring to this slander: "I would ascribe nothing but malice to spreading an unsubstantiated claim of theft even after repeated attempts at correction. (" This is off-topic, personal, and wrong. As such, it should be deleted.
::The fact that a blog is "closed" does not mean it did not serve as a source for this article. And Subdn. Benjamin Andersen has always been good about adding people who wish to see his blog, provided he doesn't feel they are acting in bad faith. As for your comparison: we cannot lay our hands on, for instance, private correspondence by historical figures, but historians can -- and they can write about what they see. That does not change the fact that the correspondence serves as a source of their biographies.
::I had not seen the second warning. Section deleted. --[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 18:38, February 16, 2009 (UTC)
You are correct. It *is* personal. Which is why I put it up. I believe your behavior is not based on doing right by the wiki but exacting a continued attack on Father Aidan Keller. (More proof can be found by searching "Keller" on the blog.) In that particular case, I note that you ignored attempts at factual correction (the customer received his book) because at least two attempts were my own. I thought what was done was unethical, and I stand by that. I also have the verbal testimony of Bp Jerome (Shaw) concerning your actions towards his reception in ROCOR.--[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 18:47, February 16, 2009 (UTC)
As for why that is relevant, see here: []
This is simply not the place to continue an argument with Fr Aidan Keller (or about him) on these subjects. If you want to try to have me banned at this point go ahead. But now I am not ascribing a motive. I put up a link. That it *appears* that you have *personal issues* with Fr Aidan is obvious to any objective reader, thus making the motivations behind your deletions suspect.
I put up all sorts of things "I don't like" on this Wiki-- because they are verifiable facts. Where I don't cite, I delete. Simple. --[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 19:09, February 16, 2009 (UTC)
: From the point of view of an (occasional) academic writer, sources that are not publicly accessible are indeed not to be relied on overmuch. A historian might get access to archival material, but one might presume that any historian could probably (given the right credentials) also get such access.
: I'm not really sure why it is Mr. Andersen chose to make his weblog private, but it does put anything based on his writing in the position of needing to be revised, since readers and editors won't have the option of checking the research.
: Anyway, I'm not sure that there's anything of exclusive value on his weblog that can't be sourced elsewhere. And really, why should anyone care where material is cited from, so long as the content itself is present? There seems to be a bit of a sectarian approach in your edits, [[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]]. I encourage you to set aside whatever prejudices for or against certain sources you might have and simply help to make sure that factual content is being presented and cited from reputable, third-party sources. &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 22:11, February 16, 2009 (UTC)
interwiki, renameuser, Administrators

Navigation menu