Jump to: navigation, search

Talk:Sarum Use

3,656 bytes added, 11:41, August 25, 2008
Am I being accused of a hidden agenda?
Reverting to earlier edits.--[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 03:01, August 25, 2008 (UTC)
:1. To quote Fr. Michael accurately, "The fact remains that the Usus Cascadae text as mentioned above, is over 90 percent the authoritative translation of Pearson, rather than a pastiche of byzantine-compatible oddities picked out of obscure versions of Sarum and other non-Sarum Continental/ Roman missals." That is, he's saying his ROCOR-approved text of Sarum is not a pastiche (and the OSRM is), though he acknowledges critics could ''wrongly claim'' it is. This is a long way from saying he wrote they could "rightly" claim it is.
:2. A distaste for the OSRM is not confined to those in the "Western Rite."
:3. If he no longer considers himself a part of the Milan Synod, and he was not received in ROCOR in orders, then he is not a hieromonk, whatever the MS says. St. Hilarion no longer exists and is thus a "former monastery" and he is a "former hieromonk."
:4. The link you added only features him twisting my words, not showing his missal is not a pastiche. (And I e-mailed him, I think more than a year before he wrote this trash, telling him so.) Actually, that link shows that it '''''is''''' a pastiche: that he slammed together bits-and-bobs from whatever he liked (and even his strawman argument leaves a ''lot'' of the OSRM text unsourced; basically, it's "trust me").
:5. Scholars, the kind with degrees, haven't sung the praises of the OSRM. If we only cited "scholars" who did not have their own liturgy to sell, we would find no one who praises the OSRM to my knowledge. Moreover, we could not cite the NY/NJ criticisms -- although I understand Abp. John gives away his texts to clergy, instead of charging $350 or $500 for the set, as in the case of the OSRM. I think the former action is praiseworthy and decent.
:6. You yourself edited this page to state the MS ''had'' abandoned the OSRM, so apparently you consider this accurate. If it's not, please specify where it is being used as a regular Sunday observance within the MS (with a third-party source).
:7. I've been told you commented on another list that some MS parishes observe the Western Rite only "occasionally." If this is not the case, please clarify.
:8. Fr. Michael states not all the sources for the OSRM are English; some are Continental. I think this has been acknowledged by its compiler, so labeling it as hailing from "English rite" sources is inaccurate.
:9. I've never seen a scholarly examination of the NY/NJ Sarum texts, and I haven't given them more than a cursory look myself. (My personal, meaningless opinion on a two-minute scan is that they are much preferable to the OSRM but not nearly as good as ROCOR's approved text -- but again, I barely looked at them.) But that isn't directly related to this section, unless you wish to note the MS criticism of the OSRM. I suppose that would be topical.
:10. Beyond that, my edits add a great deal more specific information that is useful for evaluating the topic: the rationale for the three items Fr. Michael adds and JJ Overbeck's blessing of one of them.
:11. I don't much appreciate being accused of an "agenda" in your "summary" comment when you post these comments, and making such accusations violates the Uncivil Behavior code of OrthodoxWiki.
:At any rate, the "rightly" and the off-topic (quasi-slanderous) link have no place in this, neither does any subjective statement about whether the missal is "useful" or not. If you can demonstrate where OSRM is being celebrated every week, that portion of this edit would be factually inaccurate, and then should be revised. But it would have to be from a citable, third-party source. --[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 11:41, August 25, 2008 (UTC)

Navigation menu