221
edits
Changes
→Liturgical Continuity
Oh! Well, in that case that can be easily fixed.--[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 17:51, February 16, 2009 (UTC)
::The overarching issue is that it's unnecessary: the criticism has been made succinctly. And answered.--[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 17:54, February 16, 2009 (UTC)
Oh, no, I think it needs fixing. Thank you for your suggestion!--[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 18:06, February 16, 2009 (UTC)
::The trouble is it is highly dubious that the Sarum Rite is "pre-Schism," much less in any of the translations being celebrated within Orthodoxy. I suspect any Ambrosian Rite that is approved also contains elements that post-date 1054 A.D. I am not certain, off the top of my head, that the entire Ordinary of the Liturgy of St. Gregory is pre-Schism (that is, before 1054 -- although nearly all of it was/is). The general idea is best conveyed succinctly in the article already: "Even then, the rites being used by Western Rite Orthodox Christians are not new, but mainly predate the [[Great Schism]]." --[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 18:20, February 16, 2009 (UTC)
If you doubt that the Sarum Rite is pre-schism, please address it on the Sarum rite page. The general understanding of virtually all historians on the rite is that it is easily traced to the 11th century.--[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 18:32, February 16, 2009 (UTC)
::Actually, the [[Sarum Use]] page addresses that: "The Sarum rite as known was probably arranged by Richard Le Poore, who moved the See from Old Sarum to New Sarum (Salisbury) in the 13th c." Fr. Andrew Damick has written about this subject on this board himself, as I recall. It's hardly a new objection, much less is your pre-Schism claim "the general understanding of virtually all historians." --[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 18:40, February 16, 2009 (UTC)
Then you are ignoring the corpus of historical research for modern Anglican scholarship. This, however, can be fixed.--[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 18:51, February 16, 2009 (UTC)
: As a point of fact: I have never written about the Sarum Rite, since I have virtually no knowledge on the subject. —[[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> 21:59, February 16, 2009 (UTC)
::I knew I had seen Fr. Damick's signature associated with the contention that the Sarum is not pre-Schism. [http://orthodoxwiki.org/Sarum_Use/Archive_1 Here it is]; it ''is'' your signature under the contention -- but only because you were breaking into comments made by another user (an expert on Sarum, has or is working on a Master's degree on the subject). Since you broke in, your signature appears after these comments, with his at the bottom. Sorry, my mistake. A photographic memory is only as good as what it sees. :) --[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 23:12, February 16, 2009 (UTC)
