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 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.Osmund error ==

::NoScholarship has moved on since 1886, the English BCP communion service is not rooted in date of the Sarum mass. It of course contains some source attributing the final form of the same elements, but consists of portions common Sarum books to all Western liturgies combined with texts and rubrics made up from whole cloth by CranmerSt Osmund. The BCP communion service article 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 Englandcorrect before. --[[User:YBeayfFr Lev|YBeayfFr Lev]] 1418:5140, March 2August 27, 2006 2008 (CSTUTC)

:It seems, == Removing reference 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 'contentionDom Augustine', for instance)? -- {{User:Pistevo/sig}} 18:17, March 3, 2006 (CST)s caretaker ==

:One supposesWhile leaving in a reference to Dom Augustine, then one will 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 make allowance a (potential) page on Dom Augustine. That would be the place for all sorts personal information of silliness by way this sort. --[[User:Fr Lev|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. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 02:13, August 28, 2008 (UTC) ==Removing "The English Liturgy" reference: Putting back Milan usage== Changed my mind after a good night'contentions sleep. Some things shouldn't be glossed.  The facts are that "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 Use had become 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 sole use English liturgy, supports quite a bit of Englandwhat I wrote.--[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 14:10, August 28, 2008 (UTC) ==Protection==The article is locked. Please propose all amendments, Scotlandwith evidence, Ireland and Wales on the Eve 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 Reformationlast two years that hasn't been a WR page (or a sys-op's talk page). During I think that the reign reason for this amount of Henry VIII argument (it was edited both for removal can hardly be termed 'debate') is because each protagonist values the WR greatly. That said, all of all references the protagonists need to consider these three things - why this is so, what perception this gives to the Papacy, later Roman Catholic saints, world (particularly those considering the Orthodox Faith in the Western Rite) and what perception this gives to the first translations into English. The First Prayer Book was primarily based upon this use broader Orthodox Church (most of which was the use hasn't even heard of the realmWR). 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>]] ^{''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''} at 15:00, August 28, along 2008 (UTC) :Hello good afternoon. Understood why this was protectedI agree with scholarly materials 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 (Lutheran, Spanish, and Oriental liturgieshaving 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, and the work first section of Convocationthe article (I would be interested to see what he comes up with). Cranmer only had a part :I also propose that the last section entitled "Modern Orthodox Usage" be renamed to "Modern Orthodox Revival". Furthermore, not being there is nothing stated in this section about the primary author dates and details of the first BCP, but Russian Synods which approved its use (although these are mentioned throughout on the second BCParchived talk pages). The 'silliness' comes from the contention that Orthodox Section should begin with the bulk history of the BCP traditionrites's source materialrevival 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, being 2008 (UTC) I am actually glad the edit-warring stops-- the Roman rite, 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* from 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 use when Rite because it would have been near impossible to have been from anything else is a pre-schism text which clearly proclaims Orthodox theology. The information on Russian-authorized rites (particularly that is, rites that were not original pre-schismatic rituals) is on the 1570 Roman Mass[[Western Rite]] page.--[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 23:31, August 28, as the recent weblore has 2008 (UTC) Since it from those who try to claim no connection between is generally acknowledged by scholars that the Sarum Use and 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 Prayer Book traditionSarum.I take the claim to be simply that the Russian editor(s) It also does not take into account of the variety in what is called Sarum Use 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 recent blog post stickler to what I said: '''"Please propose all amendments,''' '''''with evidence,''''' '''on the talk page."'''. &mdash; by a newly ordained anti-WRO ECUSA minister seems [[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 origin codification of all this 'contention'the texts by Osmund was in the late 11th, and based upon his comparison of on practices well-established in the surrounding areas. However, even these local variants were far from massive differences in ritual. Perhaps a single version of better name is simply: the ordinary English Liturgy. This reminds me very much of the Sarum Use with argument that the 1549 BCPMozarabic liturgy is so called because it has been influenced by Islam. Musically, it was influenced somewhat (and not taking into account at all far less than assumed); but the texts were Hispania's use well before the Henrician Moors took over. --[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 02:52, August 29, 2008 (UTC) == English Uses, Sarum (which also contain Rite, and Sarum Use == There should be some clarification: all local uses of the same deletions as found Western rite in Britain are English Uses. English Use being the commonly used term to describe the 1549 BCPdiverse but related practices amongst local British uses in ceremonial, ornament, and ritual (including uses of Scotland, Wales, and Ireland.) I should also point out that 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 various Prayer Books changed over time Gallo- Rome still considered Roman rite, but distinct enough that even the Henrician Romans called it a rite. The full Sarum and 1549 BCP to be rite without adaptation was adopted by some other local dioceses: Shrewsbury, Dunkeld, St. Andrew'Catholic ritess, St. David's.  The 1552 BCPSarum Use refers to the use of dioceses that adapted the Salisbury rite, being what Cranmer wanted to begin but with (but couldn't get past Convocation on the first try)some local distinction: e.g. Lincoln, London, and later English versions that restored what 1552 deleted still are Aberdeen or Bangor. There is a misunderstanding in the lineage of popular consciousness that because the 1549 and Sarum. Even is a variant of the Scottish liturgyRoman rite, though that it was far more changed by further contemporary scholarship; particularly as is merely a use - a confusing term to use considering the liturgy common usage of 'Sarum use' to describe local adaptations of StSarum. Clement  English uses that are non-Sarum include York rite, Durham (a use of York), and StExeter. James. --[[User:Aristibule|Ari]] 1601:1251, March 722, 2006 2009 (CSTUTC)