Well, technically it isn't a tradition of the pre-Schism West, as Sarum Cathedral was dedicated in 1092, and the 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.
- Noted. --Rdr. Andrew 21:27, 24 Mar 2005 (CST)
Another minor point: the "Old Sarum Rite" is not a version of the Sarum use of the Roman rite. Its relationship is unclear and tenuous 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 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 of antique material. The wording I used originally was to precisely note this relationship... 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 c. - Aristibule
- Please feel free to note all this information in the article. By using "version," I didn't mean to imply that it was taken from the non-"Old" Sarum Use.--Rdr. Andrew 17:49, 8 Apr 2005 (EDT)
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. - Aristibule07:13, 22 Feb 2006.
- No, the English BCP communion service is not rooted in the Sarum mass. It of course contains some of the same elements, but consists of portions common to all Western liturgies combined with texts and rubrics made up from whole cloth by Cranmer. The BCP communion service 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 England. YBeayf 14:51, March 2, 2006 (CST)
- It seems, 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 'contention', for instance)? -- — by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 18:17, March 3, 2006 (CST)
- One supposes, then one will have to make allowance for all sorts of silliness by way of 'contention'. The facts are that the Sarum Use had become the sole use of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales on the Eve of the Reformation. During the reign of Henry VIII it was edited both for removal of all references to the Papacy, later Roman Catholic saints, and the first translations into English. The First Prayer Book was primarily based upon this use (which was the use of the realm), along with scholarly materials (Lutheran, Spanish, and Oriental liturgies), and the work of Convocation. Cranmer only had a part, not being the primary author of the first BCP, but the second BCP. The 'silliness' comes from the contention that the bulk of the BCP tradition's source material, being the Roman rite, is *not* from the Sarum use when it would have been near impossible to have been from anything else (particularly the 1570 Roman Mass, as the recent weblore has it from those who try to claim no connection between the Sarum Use and the Prayer Book tradition.) It also does not take into account the variety in what is called Sarum Use - a recent blog post by a newly ordained anti-WRO ECUSA minister seems to be the origin of all this 'contention', based upon his comparison of a single version of the ordinary of the Sarum Use with the 1549 BCP, and not taking into account at all the Henrician Sarum (which also contain some of the same deletions as found in the 1549 BCP.) I should also point out that the various Prayer Books changed over time - Rome still considered the Henrician Sarum and 1549 BCP to be 'Catholic rites'. The 1552 BCP, being what Cranmer wanted to begin with (but couldn't get past Convocation on the first try), and later English versions that restored what 1552 deleted still are in the lineage of the 1549 and Sarum. Even the Scottish liturgy, though it was far more changed by further contemporary scholarship; particularly as to the liturgy of St. Clement and St. James. Ari 16:12, March 7, 2006 (CST)
One last point on 'YBeayfs criticisms. He calls the BCP 1549 "Protestantized service with a few bits filched from the authentic Catholic rite of England." Of course, the authentic Catholic rite of England *is* the Sarum Use. It had been the majority use for 300 years previously (as well as Ireland and Scotland.) As for 'Protestantized', of course, but to be '-ized', one has to have an original to changed. That original would be - the sole authentic Catholic rite readily available to the English: the Sarum Use. Ari 16:22, March 7, 2006 (CST)
- No, I didn't say that. I said "English BCP communion service", without specifying a year. The 1549 Book of Common Prayer is not what first comes to mind to most people when one mentions the "BCP".
- I have not seen this blog posting which you reference; rest assured that any contention here is purely of my own making. My objection to saying the BCP (post-1552) is rooted in the Sarum usage of the Roman rite is that the essence of the mass, the offertory and canon, are changed beyond recognition. Of course the general structure of the BCP service mirrors the Sarum usage, but it is IMO rather tendentious to claim this roots the BCP service in the Sarum usage when the most important parts of the Sarum are not carried over, and the framework of the BCP service and the Sarum usage are common to all Latin rites. Nevertheless, I will cease fighting to have that sentence removed. I have, however, added a small clarification, which I hope will be allowed to stand. YBeayf 17:42, March 8, 2006 (CST)
- This "...in that the creators of the Book of Common Prayer used the Sarum missal as a springboard for their reformed liturgy." is not a clarification, but simply redundant repetition of 'primary origin with Sarum use'. They say the exact same thing, but without the colloquialism of 'springboard'. I'm not sure what one means by 'most important parts of the Sarum', but it doesn't change the fact of *primary origin*. See: http://flickr.com/photos/21182585@N00/1434369/ for a chart describing the origins of the rites. The ROCOR English Use is from the 1549 BCP with restorations according to Sarum, York, the Gothic Missal. Answering Fr. Lev's post, the lineage of the St. Tikhon's is not all that far removed. The American 1928 BCP was a more catholicized form of the earlier American Prayer Book, that tradition having its origin with the Scottish Non-Juror liturgy (that which Seabury brought from Scotland to America). The Scottish Non-Jurors use not only had the indirect source of Laud's prayer book, but also has evidence of using the 1549 BCP, Sarum, and other uses (especially the contemporary translations of the liturgies of St. Clement, St. James, etc.) More below... Ari 11:41, March 12, 2006 (CST)
- No, they don't say the same thing. One implies that the BCP tradition was a simple continuation of the Sarum. The other makes it clear that there was a break, and that the creators of the BCP used the Sarum rite as a template for their own, reformed, heretical liturgy. YBeayf 22:26, March 12, 2006 (CST)
- That is reading more into the syntax than is there. 'Primary origin' is precisely what it is. Ari 23:58, March 13, 2006 (CST)
- No, they don't say the same thing. One implies that the BCP tradition was a simple continuation of the Sarum. The other makes it clear that there was a break, and that the creators of the BCP used the Sarum rite as a template for their own, reformed, heretical liturgy. YBeayf 22:26, March 12, 2006 (CST)
The Book of Common Prayer and Sarum
The Liturgy of St Tikhon used in the AWRV is based upon the 1928 Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church, which is quite a distance from the first BCP,the English Prayer Book of 1549. When some thought the 1549 patient of a Catholic interpretation, Cranmer revised it in 1552 to exclude such Catholic interpretation. Under Queen Elizabeth I, who desperately wanted unity in her kingdom, the 1559 edition came out as a compromise book that would be something between the "Catholic" 1549 and the "Protestant" 1552.
Four centuries later, the American BCP of 1928 had precious little that could be said to partake in the heritage of the pre-Reformation Sarum. A goodly amount of the Liturgy of St Tikhon is borrowed from the Tridentine. This is not in any way a criticism of the AWRV usage -- I am simply saying that the historical connections between the Liturgy of St Tikhon and Sarum are pretty thin. --Fr Lev 21:29, March 8, 2006 (CST)
The 1552, and 1559 editions have nothing to do with the Orthodox Prayer Book derived liturgies. And important point to note with the American 1928 is that it doesn't have 'more distance' between it, but returns far closer to older forms than intervening American BCPs. Saying 'pretty thin' and 'precious little' are pov, while the fact that the 1928 American BCP has a lineage with a primary origin in the Sarum Use of the Roman rite is non-pov. Ari 11:41, March 12, 2006 (CST)
In the first place, since this is a "talk" page, I would assume that one may express a POV. Second, Ari's proitests not withstanding, the American 1928 is part of the tradition of the 1552, 1559, etc. A simple and example: the 1928 uses the compromise 1559 formula for administering communion. The 1549 used "The body of our Lorde Jesus Christe whiche was geven for thee, preserve thy bodye and soule unto everlasting lyfe." In order to deny the Real Presence, the 1552 was changed to: "Take and eate this, in remembraunce that Christ dyed for thee, and feede on him in thy hearte by faythe, with thankesgeving." Queen Elizabeth's 1559 version, which was designed to be a book that both "Catholic" and "Protestant" Anglicans could use, simply put the two contradictory formulas together: "The bodie of our lord Jesu Christ, which was geven for the, preserve thy body and soule into everlastinge life: and take and eate this in remembraunce that Christ died for thee, feede on him in thine heart by faith, with thankesgevynge." And this is what you find in the 1928: "The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving." Third, this can't fairly be described as POV -- it simply reflects the scholarship on the Anglican Prayer Book tradition. One could point out other such differences. One more that comes to mind is that the Psalter of the 1928 moved even further away from the LXX in favor of the Masoretic Texts. It is simply false to claim that the 1928 has its primary origin in Sarum. --Fr Lev 12:40, March 12, 2006 (CST)
It is no false claim - the lineage is clear, and the BCP tradition as a whole descends from the Sarum Use of the Roman rite. It really isn't that difficult a concept. That the American BCP is further down the line isn't the contention: of course it is. However, ultimately the trail leads back to the Sarum Use.... in the case of the American BCP tradition, through the Scottish BCP tradition, the Non-Jurors liturgy, etc. And - most importantly, whomever 'Fr Lev' is he is conflating the Orthodox Prayer Book derived liturgies with the American 1928 BCP: they are not one and the same. Ari 23:58, March 13, 2006 (CST)
I suppose it is some small sign of progress that Ari has gone from saying "And important point to note with the American 1928 is that it doesn't have 'more distance' between it, but returns far closer to older forms than intervening American BCPs" above to now acknowledging the 1928 to be "further down the line." Yes, there are a number of influences and sources in the 1928 revision, but it is far removed from Sarum in text and theology. I gave a very specific example of how the theology of real presence was watered down after the 1549 through the formula for administering communion. That, at least, was reparied in the SASB version. But the St Tikhon liturgy of the SASB was based firstly on the 1928 BCP (as are many other elements of the SASB). --Fr Lev 08:52, March 14, 2006 (CST)
- I think this is some good conversation, with some very interesting detail. Just a word to keep things civil - please avoid ad hominem attacks like "whoever so-and-so is" -- these aren't necessary or helpful! Let's focus on history and fact, presenting arguments based on evidence. Please provide as full citations as possible. The talk page is the proper place to note POV's and divergences of opinion.
- Finally, I'm not sure why Western Rite topics are some of the most contentious on the wiki. From the outside, it doesn't seem like much of a big deal. Authenticity doesn't need to be based on an esoteric historical trail of influence, but follows episcopal blessing and acceptance by the Church. Then again, I don't have a personal stake in any of this, and I realize WR people may feel that they are fighting hard to keep alive a particular vision of the catholicity of the Church. Peace to you! — FrJohn (talk)
- Fr. John, the issue is that what we have is outsiders here presenting a view that is rather political (and not academic - I am presenting an academic view, and most often the current state of scholarship, as well as the actual use of the Western Rite Orthodox.) The goal of these constant re-edits seem to be the smearing of the Western Rite as actually used in the Church, and arguments towards its replacement. Hence the focus on the 'SASB' (again, not the book the Metropolitan, Vicariate, or Liturgical Commission have insisted as the 'official texts' repeatedly), and rather ignorant statements on our ROCOR Western Rite use as well (which at present includes not only Sarum and Benedictine Roman uses, but BCP derived English use, and the Neo-Gallican approved under St. John the Wonderworker). As such, these are acts of vandalism - which brings back to another point I think we've made before - that anonymity is unhelpful to this project, and the importance of veracity of sources. Ari 23:06, March 26, 2006 (CST)
- If you're referring to me in this paragraph, you're way off-base. I'm a huge proponent of the Western Rite; I merely strongly dislike Anglican usage (hey, I'm Irish-Italian -- it's in my blood) and think Roman usage should form the basis of an Orthodox WR. I'm also far from anonymous -- this username is the only one I use online, and plenty of people know me under it. If you want, I have no problem giving my name (Michael M.) and affiliation (Antiochian). YBeayf 16:13, March 27, 2006 (CST)
Ari needs to be careful when he imputes bad motives to people, as well as when he mis-states facts. I haven't fopcused on the SASB -- I merely corrected the false statements made that the book is not authorized for use and that it is used by only one parish in the AWRV. I have said nothing negative about the SASB, nor do I have the slightest interest in "smearing" the Western Rite. Moreover, I've provided EVIDENCE. Anyone can check the SASB (it is available as a download from the parish in Whittier) and confirm that I have correctly quoted the Metropolitan's letter of authorization. I have provided the names of three AWRV parishes that use the SASB; anyone can contact them to confirm their use of the book. I have provided "veracity of sources," while Ari simply remains in denial. I don't see what the problem is with the SASB. The reference to the restored Gallican rite is inaccurate. Not only have I pointed out why "Neo-Gallican" is an inappropriate label, the rite was first authorized by the Patriachate of Moscow more than a decade before St John of Shanghai and San Francisco, along with Metropolitan Anastassy, approved its use within ROCOR. I would appreciate it if Ari would clarify exactly whom he is calling a vandal. --Fr Lev 08:44, March 27, 2006 (CST)
Ari, I don't appreciate you calling my edit "vandalism". The "Liturgy of St. Tikhon" doesn't have its primary origin with the Sarum Rite, or with the '49 BCP, either. Saying it has its primary origin in the Sarum Rite, without further qualification, is misleading and inaccurate. YBeayf 11:55, March 14, 2006 (CST)
- None of this is vandalism. Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to disrupt the wiki. This is instead a content dispute. Please keep to the issues rather than characterizing disagreement as vandalism. Vandalism is when we get ads or obscenities posted here, not arguments over content and POV. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 14:14, March 27, 2006 (CST)
- Father Deacon, I would respectfully note that it *is* vandalism. St. Tikhon's is *not* descended from the 1552 (the true prayer book of Cranmer). The lineage is Sarum, to 1549 BCP, to the Non-Juror liturgy, to the American BCP's (the 1928 restoring much that was removed in intervening American editions.) However, a pov without basis continues to be inserted linking St. Tikhon's to 1552! That simply isn't so! The primary origin of the 1549 BCP, and of all descending from that rite, is the Sarum use. YBeayf claims no vandalism, but continues edits with false information due to a 'strong dislike' for 'Anglican usage' (by which he means, the majority *Orthodox* Western Rite use.) "Fr.Lev", however ignores the statements of the authorities of the AWRV as to the official texts (one can easily check with the AWRV as to its veracity). The motives are not 'imputed' they are *latent* in the pov - the goal is obviously derision of the Orthodox Western Rite as it exists, and the attempt to smear it as 'Zwinglian'/'Cranmerian', etc. - sure, zeal not according not according to knowledge, but also definitely vandalism. - Ari 18:04, April 10, 2006 (CDT)
- Vandalism, as defined by the administration, is when (as recently happened) an article gets renamed to "Eutychius of Constantinople on Wheels!", not when editors disagree over what an article should contain. Please feel free to disagree on content and work out a consensus amongst those interested in editing the article, but calling such disagreements vandalism doesn't help anything. This is a content/POV dispute, not vandalism.
- That aside, if this dispute cannot be resolved, then we can protect the article until it can be worked out, reduce its content to something agreeable (and documentable) to all parties, or detail the variant views in separate sections. (My preference would be the last option.) Whatever happens, though, imputing motives to other editors (true or not) doesn't help anyone, and generally can tend to inflame passions and not improve articles. Let us all keep to discussions of fact, and not whether a particular editor has some hidden agenda or not. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 20:57, April 10, 2006 (CDT)
Ari, if you would, please trace the Liturgy of St. Tikhon back to the Sarum rite, giving all intermediate steps. YBeayf 16:02, March 27, 2006 (CST)
- YBeayf, You can find the whole in Subdeacon Benjamin Andersen's thesis for his MDiv at St. Vlad's Seminary, hopefully to be published soon (from Lancelot Andrewes press). From comparing notes, its says the same as the research we have: the St. Tikhon's is an Orthodox version of the Anglican/American Missal service (a Catholic restoration of the 1928). The 1928, in its turn, was a heavily Catholicized revision of the more protestant 1892 BCP. They in turn have their origin (as the whole American BCP tradition does) with the liturgy of the Scottish Non-Jurors 1718. The Non-Juror liturgy used the 1549 BCP, the Sarum (which was the national Scottish use), and Primitive/Eastern liturgies as its source documents (primarily that of St. Clement and the liturgy of St. James.) Also important were the ceremonial survivals of the Scottish Episcopal Church (which never had the puritanizing tendencies that occurred in the Anglican Church, and retained Sarum customs and even the 1549 BCP until the attempt to impose Laud's book, over which the 1718 was a vast improvement.) So - to put it simply: late Sarum> Henrician Sarum > 1549 > (Laud's )> 1718 Non-Juror > (American BCP tradition (1789,1892,1928)) > American/Anglican Missal > St. Tikhon's. IMPORTANT TO NOTE: this is not a history of 'continual degradation', but many of the latter steps are returns to much that intervening forms removed. In parentheses are intermediate steps which are technically intermediate, but have minimal bearing on the final liturgy! Important to note as well: that the Syriac, Greek, Old Roman, Gallican, Mozarabic all were liturgical influences on various stages in the development as well. To say that the St. Tikhon's is simply American 1928 BCP, of course, is an understatement - properly, St. Tikhon's is an Orthodox form of the *Anglican Missal*. I post this in hopes you might learn something, rather than spreading more erroneous information like that found on 'Orthodox forums'. (I should note, our ROCOR English Rite also has the 1549 BCP & 1718 Non-Juror rites as texts, as well as those uses of Sarum and York - not to be confused with the Sarum Use we have as well.) However, the *primary source document*, the original on which the tradition is based *is* the Sarum use. Part of the issue we have with detractors is because they spread the *same* misinformation over and over again - not knowing whereof they speak. I'm pretty sure that if you knew anything about our Orthodox use of the Roman rite (AWRV and Christminster), you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss 'Anglican Use'... you might be surprised at the provenance of that use as well, and how *alike* they are (especially in AWRV). - Ari 18:47, April 10, 2006 (CDT)
This account is only partially true. (1) The Liturgy of St Tikhon is not based on the Anglican Missal. Fr Joseph Angwin based it upon the 1928 American BCP. The Roman elements were taken from the Liturgy of St Gregory so that the two rites would match on those particulars. As it happens, the Anglican Missal used those same Roman elements (that have always been foreign to official Anglican liturgies). But the actual lineage isn't to the Anglican Missal. (2) In any event, the latter was never an authorized liturgical book within official Anglicanism. (3) I have never seen any scholar claim that ‘the 1928, in its turn, was a heavily Catholicized revision of the more protestant 1892 BCP.' Please name several specific ways in which the 1928 is a Catholic advance over the 1892. (4) The claim that the Sarum is the primary source of the 1549 is misleading. The anaphora is rather different, not to mention the ritual. (5) It is a gross overstatement (at best) to say that the American BCP tradition has its origin in the non-Jurors liturgy. Most of the 1789 BCP was a slightly edited version of the 1662, although there is influence from the Scottish BCP. --Fr Lev 20:48, April 10, 2006 (CDT)
As I wrote elsewhere, the Liturgy of St Tikhon, being based on the 1928 BCP, shows elements from the English BCP tradition, including the 1552 BCP. One example is the exhortation, 'Ye who do tuly and earnestly repent you of your sins....' In the 1549, this came after the canon; in the 1552, it is moved to before the sursum corda. This 1552 position is used in the Orthodox Missal. In the canon itself, the 1549's prayer that the bread and wine 'may be unto us the body and blood' is changed in the 1552 to 'may be partakers of the body and blood,' a change Cranmer made to 'remove any suspicion of transubstantiation.' The Orthodox Missal follows the 1552. So to claim that the 1552 is not a source for the Liturgy of St Tikhon is clearly false. --Fr Lev 21:02, April 10, 2006 (CDT)
- Regarding the claim: "later editions were heavy revisions of each antecedent text, reflecting post-reformation thought and practice" It should be noted that the history of the various editions of the BCP is not necessarily linear, nor a clear progression. The most Protestant BCP (1552) was the only work that can be clearly pinned on Cranmer, was only approved by Parliament, and never widely used for the few short months between its adoption and the reintroduction of Sarum use. The 1662 BCP, while still very Anglican in its vagueness, was still a step more catholic-wards than 1552. The 1928 English BCP, approved by Convocation (the English Synod) but not by Parliament, was itself a return to principles closer to the first English BCP. The Scottish Non-Jurors who sought union with the Orthodox themselves either used the 1549 English BCP, or the Scottish Liturgy which itself had some origin with the 1549. So - such general sweeping statements about the history of the BCP are bound to create more confusion than clarity about centuries worth of sometimes poorly related liturgies. The American BCP tradition does owe more to the Scottish liturgy - particularly the 1928 American, which was a small improvement on the 1892 American (that which St. Tikhon asked the Holy Synod's Commission on Anglican and Old Catholic affairs to evaluate for adaptation and use by Western convert communities.)Aristibule
Sarum, 1549, etc.
The 1549 BCP was a distinct change in text and theology from the Sarum Usage -- toward a Reformation point of view. There were further changes made in the 1552 to make it more "Protestant," which are reflected in the Liturgy of St Tikhon. There were further changes made in the 1559 (as a compromise), which are also reflected in the Liturgy of St Tikhon. This shouldn't be surprising, as the Liturgy of St Tikhon was taken primarly from the American 1928 BCP, which drew on the long Prayer Book tradition of the Church of England and therefore includes elements of the 1549, 1552, 1559, etc. I know this from having taught Anglican liturgy, having made a detailed study of the relevant BCP's, etc. That the Liturgy of St Tikhon was primarily based upon the 1928 BCP is not only clear to anyone who has used both texts, but I was also told this by the priest who prepared the Liturgy of St Tikhon. The Liturgy of St Tikhon was based upon the 1928 with certain "Anglo-Catholic" adaptations. This was a pastoral decision to meet the needs of converts to Orthodoxy who were used to using the 1928 (with Anglo-Catholic and Orthodox amendments). While there isn't space on this discussion page, sometime in the next couple of months I will produce a comparison of the eucharistic prayers of Sarum, 1549, 1552, 1559, and the American 1928. --Fr Lev 11:54, March 28, 2006 (CST)
- This would be very interesting to see Fr.. Also, I wanted to quickly note something here. Not sure if this will help clarify things, but I did a quick page by page comparison of the following two texts (linked on this article): 1) "The Divine Liturgy of Sarum as used in the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, from the website of Saint Petroc Monastery"; and 2) "The Liturgy of the Church of Sarum, together with the kalendar of the same church. Translated from the Latin, with a preface and explanatory notes by Charles Walker, with an introduction by T.T. Carter. London J.T. Hayes (1886)" -- linked in the External Links section.
- I recall that they were very similar in most places. The 1886 book (Latin translation) is available for complete downlaod - about 16MB in PDF format. I had located it in the University of Toronto's Robarts Reference Library originally. Since it is apparently so close to the St Petroc document (except in those places where changes were made to make it Orthodox), I am wondering if the original Latin translated in this 1886 book from London was the original Latin Sarum Use, or one of these later derivations spoken of above (1549, 1552, etc)? I cannot tell from the introduction. But I think it woukld be good to verify if this 1886 edition is a translatuion of the original and true Latin Sarum Use.
- If it is original, and if I am right that it closely matches the Sarum Liturgy published by St Petroc, then it speaks to its veracity? (Not sure if this will help the discussion but I wanted at least to draw attention to the similarities).
- Angellight 888 23:21, August 26, 2008 (UTC)
Angellight 888, I can help you out here. The altar missal that forms the base document for the ROCOR Sarum is the "Sarum Missal in English" translated by A. Harford Pearson. Google Book "Sarum Missal in English", PearsonThe changes made are according to the Moscow Synod's ukazes of 1869 and 1870/71. Pearson's "Sarum Missal in English" has long been held as the standard English translation. There are several others, including Walkers, Freres, Lightfoot, Mascall, an anonymous Scottish translator, etc. Pearson's text for his translation was the "Missale Sarisburiensis" published at Burntisland, Scotland in the 1861, which itself was simply a reprinting of the printed Sarum Missal from 1526. The editing of the work followed the Russian Ukazes (because, it is the RUSSIAN Orthodox Church Abroad) - and were also edited in comparison with related pre-schism English missals. Material was removed that was non-Orthodox, or connected with the Crusades. So the short definition of ROCOR Sarum is a Sarum use in English following the standard English translation of the last standard Latin printing of Sarum proper adapted according to the canonical directives of the Russian Holy Synod, and with the more ancient pre-Schism English and Celtic material restored in favor of late Medieval Norman. Fr. Michael has discussed this in several forums online - the closest to accurate online information one can get. Saint Colman Prayer Book, of course, only contains part of the ROCOR Sarum use - the rest of the material is to be published in the Ceremoniale, Proprium & Lectionary, a supplemental volume, etc. The short title, to quote the primary document (SCPB) again is "The Divine Liturgy (Sarum) Usus Cascadae" - though the traditional way of writing the same should have been "The Divine Liturgy - Cascades Use, after the use of Salisbury" (ad usum Sarisburiensis, as many other local Northern uses of the Roman rite were noted - The (insert local cathedral/monastery here) Use, after the use of Salisbury. --Ari 23:44, August 26, 2008 (UTC)
"Old Sarum Rite" removed, and why
The text said this. For reasons I will go through right now, there were so many errors and accusations I removed the text.
"Another liturgy using a similar name is the Old Sarum Rite,"
This is false. The Monastery of the Holy Name usually just refers to it as "Sarum Rite", and this is simply made up.
This is also false. It has some details from minority texts of *local Sarum usages*, but its base text is solely the Sarum rite.
"It is a modern construction (deemed a reconstruction by its supporters),"
It is absolutely not deemed a "reconstruction" by any partisan of the Milan Synod. The author of the above must be talking about the Gallican rite, or flatly lying.
"and it has been criticized as being a pastiche rather than an actual revived liturgy. This liturgy is not in use by any mainstream Western Rite Orthodox."
Because it (a) is simply the Sarum rite with occasional, local pre-schism English variations (which can be confirmed by simply checking the text itself) then logically (b) it is virtually identical to the Sarum usage on the part of the ROCOR, something only a few within ROCOR deny, the majority of Western rite members of ROCOR agreeing that Milan partisans are using the exact same text.
There were so many problems with this paragraph I simply removed it. To "debate" whether a name is being used when it isn't, in any substantial capacity, to claim something is "claimed to be a reconstruction" when no one has claimed anything to be a translation, and to deliberately misrepresent facts has no place in an encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joesuaiden (talk • contribs) .
Joe - the facts were not misrepresented, you simply misunderstood them. The "Old Sarum Rite" is not the rite of Archbishop John. The "Old Sarum Rite" was the work of Fr. Aidan Keller at St. Hilarion's Monastery, and differed from that of Archbishop John. There was, in fact, some disagreement between Keller's approach and Abp. John's approach. As such, the former version should be restored as it referred to the SHP version - which is as described. The differences between Milan Synod's Sarum (Anglo-Roman) rite and the formerly St. Hilarion's "Old Sarum Rite" are many. Fr. Cuthbert could explain some. However, our ROCOR Sarum rite is not the exact same as that of Archbishop John (LoBue)'s and was never intended to be. The Russian Western Rite depends on precise canonical acts, and is not dependent on Milan Synod's Western Rite - and was never expected to be. Now - Keller's "Old Sarum Rite" afaik, is not in use anywhere in Milan Synod anymore. The section could be updated to reflect that. But, I believe that Abp. John had not described his rite as Sarum rite until recently - a revision perhaps? Aristibule
No, the facts were not properly represented.
Fr Aidan did not create a "Sarum rite" by pastiche, but simply used some local practices within the English tradition. It's just that simple. Where he may have included local practices *within the same ritual family* from different areas, they were still local practices, most of which he points out have differences. You are correct that the Sarum ritual translated by Father Aidan differs from the New York/New Jersey Archdiocese and the ROCOR's in a few (very few) places. However, the truth is that the base text of all these liturgies is the same. Fr Aidan took a number of liberties in translation to English, and is neither the first nor the last to do so.
I find it hard to believe that Abp John "revised" the liturgy to call it "Sarum", considering the abbey took almost two decades to translate the full body of services. In any case, we should not confuse the two Russian Western rites. There is a ROCOR Western Rite, which is actually a *pastiche* based on the old Roman usage, and a ROCOR Sarum rite. I've just frankly grown sick of the anti-Father Aidan "agenda", because the base texts of his work, and that of Holy Name Abbey, and even that of ROCOR, just don't look that different. At least not compared to the liturgy of St Tikhon, which is being claimed here to be "Sarum", which is a flat-out untruth (unless you really want to stretch it....) --JosephSuaiden 21:56, July 18, 2008 (UTC)
I have now corrected the second version of what was written. Fr Aidan did not create an "Old Sarum Rite" and to present a translation, however poor as such is dishonest at its core. This is like saying that if I do a translation of the liturgy of St John Chrysostom, mix Greek, Russian, and Syrian tones, and call it "Godly" instead of "Divine" on the cover, it's a "pastiche" or a "new liturgy". It isn't. It's a poorly done translation of the LJC. That said, Fr Aidan's liturgy wasn't THAT bad. --JosephSuaiden 23:42, July 18, 2008 (UTC)
That is a better version. However, there is no "anti-Father Aidan "agenda" - simply defense against attacks on our Western against a "pro-OSRM agenda". ROCOR WRITE has no agenda, career ambitions, or publishing profits. Regarding the OSRM's composition, it was a bit more than Sarum rite with other local English practices. There was also some continental material, as well as Byzantine (the whole setup of the chancel and altar, for instance.) The translation was also eccentric in its idiolect. That the OSRM does not reflect any usage previously in practice justifies the criticism of it being a modern pastiche. It reflects an approach contrary to that taken by the Russians (who have canonical acts of Synod for everything we do), or even by Milan Synod. Even odder, in that for such a minority event it garners so much interest. Quality judgements on whether the OSRM usage "wasn't THAT bad" is rather a 'curate's egg' (good in parts?) - especially as it never gained support of traditional Western Rite Orthodox, but to the contrary. At its basis - it does not reflect the canonical Russian tradition for Western rite. (And a note: the ROCOR Rite of St. Gregory is no 'pastiche' - but depending on the local body, is either the Overbeck translation, 11th c. Anglo-Benedictine, or the 11th c. Carthusian/Grenoble use.) Aristibule
I am not any more pro-OSRM than any other legitimate Western Orthodox liturgy. But there is simply nothing I see that is illegitimate.
"There was also some continental material, as well as Byzantine (the whole setup of the chancel and altar, for instance." -- I thought this was (if I remember correctly) because it was designed to be used in an Eastern or Western style chapel. However, in the Sarum text himself he puts out, there is nothing of the sort. http://allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/Sarum%20Liturgy%20Priest%20Book.pdf
Outside of the placement of the choir outside the screen as opposed to inside which is explained the page before ("in favor of common parish practice, where the choir is situated west of the Rood Screen"), I don't see what you are talking about. Nor do I understand what you mean by "that the OSRM does not reflect any usage previously in practice justifies the criticism of it being a modern pastiche"-- every usage in the text was previously in practice in Orthodox England. The importation of a neighboring local use in a text is not justification to call a liturgy a "pastiche" of any sort. A pastiche is a patchwork of different texts, whereas the base text of the OSRM is simply the standard Sarum rite.
That "the translation was eccentric in its idiolect" was perhaps unnerving to many Western Orthodox used to perfectly good translations they knew before coming to Orthodoxy, but certainly is comforting to many Orthodox of Eastern rite, who could see the commonality of the concepts defined therein. That said, I agree that such was unwise because of the backlash it engendered. But the translation introduced many Orthodox converts, such as myself, to the Orthodox Western rite and was very helpful.
Ultimately, it's not meant to be a "representation of what the Russian acts of Synod were meant to do" at all. It's meant to be, and is, a translation of pre-schism use. Our Synod understands where ROCOR is coming from, having used the Western liturgy according to the Russian norms. But it wasn't a pre-schism text! And *Overbeck* understood this when he compiled the liturgy, expecting the older liturgical forms to eventually return. Both the liturgies you mentioned later were still modifications of the post-schism Roman rites.--JosephSuaiden 04:33, July 19, 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but it was a pastiche - material was interpreted along revisionist lines to appear more Byzantine than it ever was. The placement of the choir being one (common parish practice in the Isles was that monastics were the choir inside the Rood screen - hence even the Anglo-Saxon churches having the 'quire' within the chancel. Also - incorrect in having a credence/table of preparation on the north wall of the chancel, or square Byzantine altars, or 'Deacon's doors' in the Rood screen.) Not every use in OSRM was previously in practice in Orthodox England - I can think of at least one item from a Swiss source. The details do not need hashed out here. Simply ask the ROCOR clergy serving Western Rite for an analysis of OSRM. (Admittedly, part of the resistance was the continued posturing of OSRM by its authors and fans as being 'far more Orthodox/correct' than any Western Orthodox liturgy in use. There is also the question of its status with the only hierarch to every approve it - in Austin.) As for Overbeck, he was Russian Orthodox, one of us - we in ROCOR are his heirs (note, Overbeck never served or approved anything - it was the Holy Synod that made the canonical directions, which were first carried out by Fr. Eugene Popoff of the Russian Embassy in London. Overbeck was just a good PR man, and visionary layman.) We know what he wrote (more than is available online), without having it reinterpreted for us. The Holy Synod, however, approved a specific text as a standard (used by ROCOR still) - the Roman rite *as in use* corrected to pre-Schism norms. The same canonical act is the basis for the use of the Sarum rite - which again is corrected to pre-Schism norms. The Mount Royal liturgy - again, not post-Schism, but from the pre-Schism liturgy of Grenoble (adopted by the founder of the Carthusians.) The bottom line - as Orthodox we liturgize following our bishops (the Synod being the sobornost of our bishops): none of which has authorized OSRM. For any individual to campaign for the adoption of liturgy not directed by our episcopate, is acting contrary to them: we must either have the ukases, or liturgy that was never suppressed by ukases (here I would say, St. James and St. Mark - both approved in ROCOR, the Celtic rite after Stowe - approved for future publication in ROCOR WRITE and in use by the MP, or the Mozarabic rite - which I think you know more about than I.) Creating a boutique liturgy outside of the involvement of the bishops, then trying to import it into the Church as a revision/replacement of already approved liturgy - that is a very bad pattern. It hasn't stopped some from trying, unfortunately. Aristibule
"Sorry, but it was a pastiche - material was interpreted along revisionist lines to appear more Byzantine than it ever was"-- that's not a "pastiche" at all, then.
"Also - incorrect in having a credence/table of preparation on the north wall of the chancel, or square Byzantine altars, or 'Deacon's doors' in the Rood screen." -- it says it's adapted for use in a typical Orthodox Church, which is *Eastern*. As well, "square altars" are not Byzantine at all. They are pre-schism Western, including in Spain. They certainly weren't stuck to the wall, a post-schism innovation.
"Not every use in OSRM was previously in practice in Orthodox England - I can think of at least one item from a Swiss source"-- does this mean it wasn't in England? That's like saying because they had iconostases in Greece they couldn't have them in Macedonia.
"As for Overbeck, he was Russian Orthodox, one of us - we in ROCOR are his heirs"-- true for some, not for others; to be an heir of that sort in Orthodoxy, you must be part of the family of faith. Saying "we are in ROCOR, we are his heirs" is a poor argument. I don't get the same spirit I do from Overbeck, except with some exceptions, such as Fr John Shaw, who does not take nearly the hard line against Fr Aidan's work that others do.
"note, Overbeck never served or approved anything - it was the Holy Synod that made the canonical directions, which were first carried out by Fr. Eugene Popoff of the Russian Embassy in London"-- HE COMPILED and TRANSLATED THE LITURGY they approved.
"The Mount Royal liturgy - again, not post-Schism, but from the pre-Schism liturgy of Grenoble (adopted by the founder of the Carthusians.)"-- Tell me, where does the name Mt Royal come from? It's relevant. And the Carthusian liturgy's "adoption" was post-schism, but it's neither here nor there. It's still the 1570 rite.
"The bottom line - as Orthodox we liturgize following our bishops (the Synod being the sobornost of our bishops): none of which has authorized OSRM."-- I see where you're going with this... back to justifying the LOST. Not acceptable. No Synod can authorize, say, a Protestant rite (not that the ROCOR uses are false, but the LOST is, and it is *gaining acceptance in some quarters of ROCOR*), and guarantee that the mysteries are still "just fine".
"Creating a boutique liturgy outside of the involvement of the bishops, then trying to import it into the Church as a revision/replacement of already approved liturgy - that is a very bad pattern. It hasn't stopped some from trying, unfortunately. "-- We couldn't agree more.--JosephSuaiden 05:34, July 19, 2008 (UTC)
- To answer in order:
- Pastiche is an art term: from a KSU website [docs.ksu.edu.sa/DOC/Articles19/Article190588.doc] "Pastiche: French for 'imitation' . an attwork in the style of, or using assorted visual' ideas from, another artist - the ideas are 'recombined' as a work which could have been made by the original artist. Distinct from a forgery; more like a parallel or borrowed artwork." OSRM is an imitation of Sarum, but borrowed from its traditions in part.
Regarding altars: altars against the wall, and of long shape, are a long pre-schism tradition: East and West. Some of the original churches in the two Syrias had a shelf used as an altar against the Eastern wall. One can still find some small churches in Greece of this type. In England, the altar against the Eastern wall was not a post-schism innovation. The free-standing altar was not unknown, but was never of square shape (the 'square shape' was first introduced into Britain by the Protestant Reformers.) And yes - just because they did something in Switzerland, Spain, or Rome ... doesn't mean they did it in England, or should do it now (in England, North America, or Australia.) The British Isles have a distinct ecclesiastical history from Spain, Italy, the Gauls, etc.
I don't understand your argument about Overbeck - but repeat, he was the first Russian Orthodox of Western Rite - we Russian Orthodox of Western Rite are his heirs. It began there, and has continued since. Of course his translation was published - however, the text approved by the Holy Synod was not the English translation, but the Latin text which was held as a standard for future implementation of Orthodox Western Rite. Bishop Elect Fr. John R. Shaw has of course encouraged Fr. Aidan towards Orthodoxy - but also is not Western rite in practice - which is the point (there are more than a handful of ROCOR clergy who are - talk to them.)
Mount Royal is a short term for the Monastery of Our Lady of Mount Royal. It was the name of the Old Catholic community received into the Moscow Patriarchate in 1962. It lost its property in 1963 when W.H.F. Brothers took the property back to Old Catholicism (we have photographs of the original church in Woodstock titled Our Lady of Mount Royal.) The monks and brotherhood stayed in the Russian Orthodox Church and moved to the Cathedral in NYC. Later they moved to other places in New England, and once even to Denver, CO in the 1980s, before Dom Augustine retired to his birthplace in Florida (where the chapel for Our Lady of Mount Royal is maintained.) Other versions I've seen of the history online seem confused as to the who, what, when, and where.
- As for the 'Liturgy of St. Tikhon gaining acceptance in some quarters in ROCOR'? Hogwash. As they say in Missouri 'Show Me'. None of our clergy serving Western Rite are interested in it - I have that first hand. Aristibule
Gentlemen, this really is all quite interesting (it is!), but let me remind you that the Talk pages for OrthodoxWiki articles are not for the purpose of discussing the subject of the article but for discussing how to improve the article. Please direct your conversations in that direction, and please also take note of our policy on controversial topics and original research. Thanks. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 11:22, July 19, 2008 (UTC)
Ok, Father, I will stick with what is relevant. I would prefer to discuss this someplace else anyway, since this isn't a debate board. However, I will stick only to what is relevant to the article. My sense is that if this wasn't public, we wouldn't be having this discussion anyway. That said:
I corrected the claim that it *is*, factually, a "pastiche" and changed to "people claiming it is a "pastiche" for the obvious reason that no objective party has claimed it is a pastiche at all. Those who have, have done so for a reason usually unrelated to the text itself (no one would seriously argue that a diagram at the front of a liturgical text outside the rubrics clearly labelling itself as an adaptation for modern Orthodox churches makes it a pastiche, but an adapted text). I am simply stating that fact-- that the claim is made without arguing on my part whether it is right or wrong. I would hate to then have to go into the pros and cons of a text of great interest to many Orthodox, but with very limited practical value. The rest-- which I'd be glad to discuss *someplace else* and which have no bearing to the topic, I shall leave to Aristibule to decide whether or not to continue. However, it's logical they should be continued in another place-- AND NOT HERE.--JosephSuaiden 20:16, July 19, 2008 (UTC)