Changes

Well, technically it isn*'t a tradition of the pre-Schism West, as '[[Talk:Sarum Cathedral was dedicated in 1092, Use/Archive 1|Archive 1]] and the [[Talk: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./Archive 2|Archive 2]]

Another minor point: The following society is exclusively using the "Old Sarum Rite" is not a version of the Sarum use of the Roman rite http://sarumrite.spruz. Its relationship is unclear and tenuous comSomeone may wish 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 add 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 list of antique material. The wording I used originally was to precisely note this relationship... external links if 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 cuseful. - Aristibule

I would suggest a revert from == St Osmund error == Scholarship has moved on since 1886, the date of the February 20, 2006 edit by YBeayf - far from a 'incorrect sentence', source attributing the lineage final form of the English Orthodox liturgies (Sarum books to StOsmund. The article was correct before. Tikhon--[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 18:40, August 27, 2008 (UTC) == Removing reference to Dom Augustine's AWRV and 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 English Rite ROCORscope of this article. I have created a link to a (potential) goes back through both page on Dom Augustine. That would be the Scottishplace for personal information of this sort. --American BCP [[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 19:47, August 27, 2008 (UTC) I agree with this, and English BCP traditionswith the whole text as is. The former tradition  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 rooted no disagreement, I would be prepared to draft it and initially post it here in the latterdiscussion pages for the ritual tearing to pieces before it was put on the page. Any thoughts?Dorsetpriest Go for it. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 02:13, August 28, which in itself 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 heavily edited version of Sarum liturgy, and therefore does not belong on this page, but on the general "Western Rite" page. As well, the Henrician 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 Sarum rite with some items 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 English, the removal of references page.Dorsetpriest HA! Welcome to the PapacyWiki, sir. We do not know who you are and you'd best provide some later saintsgrounds for the changes.Father Michael (Wood) If someone , 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 going locked. Please propose all amendments, with evidence, on the talk page. I like to make look at things like this with some measure of gratitude - other denominations/religions argue about theology, we did most of that over a change based upon something being incorrectmillenium ago - but then again, they should provide 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 argument for archived talk page in the last two years that hasn'whyt been a WR page (or a sys-op' s talk page). I think that the reason for this amount of argument (itcan hardly be termed 'debate') is because each protagonist values the WR greatly. However That said, all of the protagonists need to consider these three things - why this is so, we know what perception this gives to the world (particularly those considering the liturgical tradition Orthodox Faith in England went from 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 multitude good one. As numerous sysops have said in the past: go and edit other types of local Cathedral usesarticles. &mdash; by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] ^{''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''} 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 majority using Sarum or Sarum-based liturgybit 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 direction for 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 by all churches. :):Cheers, [[User:Angellight 888|Angellight 888]] 20:22, August 28, to 2008 (UTC) I am actually glad the edit-warring stops-- the Henrician simple fact is that Dorsetpriest was not putting *more* information, but repeatedly removing large amounts of it while adding information on non-Sarumliturgies on the page. I am not going to guess his motives, then though I will note his changes were virtually identical to those of another poster who had a long fight with me on the first BCP based upon the work 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 formerSarum Rite because it is a pre-schism text which clearly proclaims Orthodox theology. The BCP tradition also borrowed elements from other Eastern and Western information on Russian-authorized rites (that is, rites at that timewere not original pre-schismatic rituals) is on the [[Western Rite]] page.--[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 23:31, August 28, but there 2008 (UTC) Since it is no reason 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 its primary source was anything other than Moscow evaluated the Sarum. I take the claim to be simply that the Russian editor(s) of the Henrician Sarum already approved utilized the ''Observations'' of the 1904 Moscow commission to amend the text to make it more suitable for Orthodox use by the same Convocation. -- [[User:AristibuleFr Lev|AristibuleFr Lev]]0702:1306, August 29, 2008 (UTC) Without wanting to be a stickler to what I said: '''"Please propose all amendments,''' '''''with evidence, 22 Feb 2006''''' '''on the talk page."'''.&mdash; by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] ^{''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''} 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:No, the English BCP communion service Liturgy. This reminds me very much of the argument that the Mozarabic liturgy is not rooted in 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 mass. It of course contains Rite, and Sarum Use == There should be some clarification: all local uses of the same elementsWestern 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, but consists and ritual (including uses of portions common to all Western liturgies combined with texts Scotland, Wales, and rubrics made up from whole cloth by CranmerIreland.) The Rite of Salisbury is one use, as are Bangor, York, Durham, etc.  The BCP communion service Sarum Rite properly refers to the rite of the Cathedral of Salisbury: and it was not called a rite properly throughout history. It is a continuation 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 newmisunderstanding in the popular consciousness that because the Sarum is a variant of the Roman rite, thoroughly Protestantized service with that it is merely a use - a few bits filched from confusing term to use considering the authentic Catholic common usage of 'Sarum use' to describe local adaptations of Sarum. English uses that are non-Sarum include York rite , Durham (a use of EnglandYork), and Exeter. --[[User:YBeayfAristibule|YBeayfAri]] 1401:51, March 222, 2006 2009 (CSTUTC)