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 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 source attributing the Sarum mass. It of course contains some 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 correct before. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 18:40, August 27, 2008 (UTC) == Removing reference to Dom Augustine's caretaker == While leaving in a continuation reference to Dom Augustine, I removed the reference to him being cared for. I take this to be outside the scope of the Sarum rite, but this article. I have created a new, thoroughly Protestantized service with link to a few bits filched from (potential) page on Dom Augustine. That would be the authentic Catholic rite place for personal information of Englandthis sort. --[[User:YBeayfFr Lev|YBeayfFr Lev]] 1419:5147, March 2August 27, 2006 2008 (CSTUTC) :It seemsI 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 outsiderexpansion - and if there is no disagreement, that both sides may have justification I would be prepared to their position. Perhaps both views, with their supporting evidence, should be noted draft it and initially post it here in the article (as 'contention', discussion pages for instance)the ritual tearing to pieces before it was put on the page. Any thoughts? Dorsetpriest Go for it. -- {{[[User:Pistevo/sig}} 18Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 02:1713, March 3August 28, 2006 2008 (CSTUTC) ==Removing "The English Liturgy" reference:One supposes, then one will have to make allowance for all sorts of silliness by way of 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 sole use of EnglandMilan Synod since the late 80's. To remove that is intellectually dishonest.--[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 05:30, ScotlandAugust 28, Ireland 2008 (UTC) I suggest that the page be locked either at my last revision or Fr. Lev's last revision and Wales on that further proposed changes be posted here for discussion before being officially included in the Eve of the Reformationpage. During the reign of Henry VIII it was edited both for removal of all references Dorsetpriest HA! Welcome to the Papacy, later Roman Catholic saintsWiki, sir. We do not know who you are and you'd best provide some grounds for the first translations into Englishchanges. The First Prayer Book was primarily based upon this use Father Michael (which was Wood), the use author of the realm)English liturgy, along with scholarly materials (Lutheransupports quite a bit of what I wrote.--[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 14:10, SpanishAugust 28, and Oriental liturgies2008 (UTC), and the work of Convocation ==Protection==The article is locked. Cranmer only had a part Please propose all amendments, not being the primary author of the first BCPwith evidence, but on the second BCPtalk page. The 'silliness' comes from the contention that the bulk  I like to look at things like this with some measure of the BCP tradition's source materialgratitude - other denominations/religions argue about theology, being the Roman ritewe did most of that over a millenium ago - but then again, is *not* from the Sarum use when it would have been near impossible I also like to have been from anything else talk pages that don't require archiving after two days (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  This is called Sarum Use a pattern that I've observed on OW over my time here - I can't think of an archived talk page in the last two years that hasn't been a recent blog post by WR page (or a newly ordained antisys-WRO ECUSA minister seems to be op's talk page). I think that the origin reason for this amount of all this argument (it can hardly be termed 'contentiondebate') is because each protagonist values the WR greatly. That said, based upon his comparison of a single version all of the ordinary of the Sarum Use with the 1549 BCPprotagonists need to consider these three things - why this is so, and not taking into account at all what perception this gives to the Henrician Sarum world (which also contain some of particularly those considering the same deletions as found Orthodox Faith in the 1549 BCP.Western Rite) 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 perception this gives to begin with the broader Orthodox Church (but couldnmost of which hasn't get past Convocation on even heard of the first tryWR). I can tell you right now, and later English versions that restored what 1552 deleted still are it's not a good one. As numerous sysops have said in the lineage past: go and edit other types of the 1549 and Sarumarticles. Even the Scottish liturgy, though it was far more changed &mdash; by further contemporary scholarship; particularly as to the liturgy of St. Clement and St. James. [[User:AristibulePistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] ^{''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|Ari<font color="red">complaints</font>]] 16''} at 15:1200, March 7August 28, 2006 2008 (CSTUTC) One last point on 'YBeayf''s criticisms:Hello good afternoon. He calls the BCP 1549 "Protestantized service 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 few bits filched from bit 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 Sarum use, the authentic Catholic rite first section of Englandthe article (I would be interested to see what he comes up with). :I also propose that the last section entitled " Of courseModern Orthodox Usage" be renamed to "Modern Orthodox Revival". Furthermore, there is nothing stated in this section about the authentic Catholic rite dates and details of England *is* the Sarum Use. It had been the majority Russian Synods which approved its use for 300 years previously (as well as Ireland and Scotlandalthough these are mentioned throughout on the archived talk pages).) As for 'Protestantized', The Orthodox Section should begin with the history of course, but to be '-izedthe rites'revival in Orthodoxy, one has to have an original to changedand trace this development; and not just contain which jurisdictions and what printed versions are used. That original would be - the sole authentic Catholic rite readily available to the English: the Sarum Use. ):Cheers, [[User:AristibuleAngellight 888|AriAngellight 888]] 1620:22, March 7August 28, 2006 2008 (CSTUTC) I am actually glad the edit-warring stops-- :Nothe simple fact is that Dorsetpriest was not putting *more* information, I didn't say thatbut repeatedly removing large amounts of it while adding information on non-Sarum liturgies on the page. I said "English BCP communion service", without specifying a year. The 1549 Book of Common Prayer is am not what first comes going to mind guess his motives, though I will note his changes were virtually identical to most people when one mentions those of another poster who had a long fight with me on the "BCP"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 Rite because it is a pre- :I have not seen this blog posting schism text which you reference; rest assured clearly proclaims Orthodox theology. The information on Russian-authorized rites (that any contention here is purely of my own making. My objection to saying the BCP (post, rites that were not original pre-1552schismatic rituals) is rooted in on the Sarum usage of the Roman rite [[Western Rite]] page.--[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 23:31, August 28, 2008 (UTC) Since it is generally acknowledged by scholars that the essence of Sarum Use dates to the mass13th c., it doesn't qualify for the offertory and canondescription "pre-Schism." Also, are changed beyond recognitionI don't believe anyone has claimed that Moscow evaluated the Sarum. Of course I take the general structure of the BCP service mirrors the Sarum usage, but it is IMO rather tendentious claim to claim this roots be simply that the BCP service in the Sarum usage when the most important parts Russian editor(s) of the Sarum are not carried over, and utilized the framework ''Observations'' of the BCP service and 1904 Moscow commission to amend the Sarum usage are common text 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 standmake it more suitable for Orthodox use. --[[User:YBeayfFr Lev|YBeayfFr Lev]] 1702:4206, March 8August 29, 2006 2008 (CSTUTC) Without wanting to be a stickler to what I said:: This '''"...in that the creators of the Please propose all amendments,''' '''Book of Common Prayer'' used the Sarum missal as a springboard for their reformed liturgy." is not a clarificationwith evidence, 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 ''on the Sarumtalk page."'', but it doesn't change the fact of *primary origin*. See&mdash; by [[User: httpPistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/flickr.comdev/photosnull|<font color="red">complaints</21182585@N00font>]]''</1434369/ for a chart describing sup> at 03:12, August 29, 2008 (UTC) ==Sarum: 13th Century or Misnomer?== I don't think the origins of argument can be made that the rites. The ROCOR English Use is from the 1549 BCP with restorations according use itself dates back to Sarum, York, the Gothic Missal13th century. Answering Fr. Lev's post Perhaps its fixation as calling it "Sarum" can be traced to Richard Le Poore, but the lineage codification of the Sttexts by Osmund was in the late 11th, and based on practices well-established in the surrounding areas. Tikhon's is not all that However, even these local variants were far removedfrom massive differences in ritual. The American 1928 BCP was Perhaps a more catholicized form better name is simply: the English Liturgy. This reminds me very much of the earlier American Prayer Book, argument that tradition having its origin with the Scottish Non-Juror Mozarabic liturgy is so called because it has been influenced by Islam. Musically, it was influenced somewhat (that which Seabury brought from Scotland to Americaand far less than assumed). The Scottish Non-Jurors use not only had ; but the indirect source of Laudtexts were Hispania's prayer book, but also has evidence of using use well before the 1549 BCP, Sarum, and other uses (especially the contemporary translations of the liturgies of St. Clement, St. James, etc.) More below..Moors took over. --[[User:AristibuleJosephSuaiden|AriJosephSuaiden]] 1102:4152, March 12August 29, 2006 2008 (CSTUTC) == English Uses, Sarum Rite, and Sarum Use == There should be some clarification:::No, they don't say all local uses of the same thingWestern rite in Britain are English Uses. One implies that English Use being the commonly used term to describe the BCP tradition was a simple continuation diverse but related practices amongst local British uses in ceremonial, ornament, and ritual (including uses of Scotland, Wales, and Ireland.) The Rite of the SarumSalisbury is one use, as are Bangor, York, Durham, etc.  The other makes Sarum Rite properly refers to the rite of the Cathedral of Salisbury: and it clear that there was called a breakrite properly throughout history. It is a variation of the Gallo-Roman rite, and but distinct enough that even the creators of the BCP used the Romans called it a rite. The full Sarum rite as a template for their ownwithout adaptation was adopted by some other local dioceses: Shrewsbury, Dunkeld, reformedSt. Andrew's, heretical liturgySt. David's. [[User The Sarum Use refers to the use of dioceses that adapted the Salisbury rite, but with some local distinction:YBeayf|YBeayf]] 22:26e.g. Lincoln, March 12London, 2006 (CST)::::That Aberdeen or Bangor. There is a misunderstanding in the popular consciousness that because the Sarum is reading more into a variant of the syntax than Roman rite, that it is there. merely a use - a confusing term to use considering the common usage of 'Primary originSarum use' is precisely what it isto describe local adaptations of Sarum. English uses that are non-Sarum include York rite, Durham (a use of York), and Exeter. --[[User:Aristibule|Ari]] 2301:5851, March 1322, 2006 2009 (CSTUTC)