Talk:Western Rite Criticism

Deleting Links

I wanted to point out that you keep deleting an External Link that was added by one of the key Sysops of OrthodoxWiki. I have re-added it because I think that if ASDamick added it in the first place there is a reason for it. Besides, you can not delete a link simply because you do not agree with its content - especially since on this page they are stating the FOR and AGAINST arguments ... Regards, -- Vasiliki 16:48, February 12, 2008 (PST)

I believe you are confused on two counts:

1. The link was not added by Fr. Andrew, but by "Juliandelphiki." That's clear if you look in the history. It was added to the original "Western Rite" article by "Ephremsyrianos" -- who also happens to be the proprietor of said blog.

2. I have not deleted this westernritecritic blog because I disagree with it; I disagree with the articles at Holy Trinity Cathedral (Fr. Michael Johnson, etc.), too. I removed it because it is neither a serious nor substantive blog and adds nothing above and beyond the articles already listed. Indeed, it appears to state the Western Rite Vicariate is somehow a harbinger of the "end times" (!). Those who have noticed it have either mocked it or lamented its existence as useless and destructive -- and these are observers outside the Orthodox Church. Let's keep the arguments substantive. -- User:Willibrord.

I believe you are right that I was confused. When I did a History, the way I understood the screen was that it was added by ASDamick. It must be due to my relative newness to the site, I still dont use it 100% yet ... however, you seem to provide a substantial and logical reason for removing it ... so, i apologise for making the comment :-) No harm done in checking each others work ... so dont have taken it personally. -- Vasiliki 17:15, February 12, 2008 (PST)

Willibrord, I was rather hoping that it would end up being a substantive weblog, but it honestly mainly seems to have as its central message "I don't like the WR and its adherents are a bunch of weasels" (or words to that effect). So I think eliminating the link on the grounds that it adds nothing of substance to the article is warranted. (It's also pretty clearly the work of an Agenda, which is rarely useful.) —Fr. Andrew ^talk contribs (THINK!) 18:26, February 12, 2008 (PST)

Liturgical Continuity

Contrary to the edit, many prayers and rites of the Liturgy of St. Tikhon are pre-Schism: the Aufer a Nobis, the Oramus te, the Collect for Purity, the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Nicene Creed, many of the propers, etc., etc. --Willibrord 05:34, February 16, 2009 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. By your definition a Lutheran liturgy is pre-schism.--JosephSuaiden 06:30, February 16, 2009 (UTC)

Joseph, the entire paragraph you are editing is dedicated to saying it is not a dogmatic principle that WR liturgy must predate the Schism (whatever dating we use for that). Please review this topic sentence: "In contrast to this claim, others note that it is not a dogmatic principle of the Church that liturgical traditions can neither be revived nor created. After all, there are whole services even within the Byzantine Rite which are not universally practiced (e.g., the molieben), so they must have been invented somewhere along the way rather than being part of the typikon when it first came into the form we now know it." Thus, your addition is a strange, off-topic statement. And yes, some parts of the Liturgy of St. Tikhon are pre-Schism; that is, "the rites being used by Western Rite Orthodox Christians are not new, but mainly predate the Great Schism." If you dislike the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, that's fine; it's not fine to introduce off-topic, out-of-place comments on the matter. --Willibrord 06:36, February 16, 2009 (UTC)

I give up. Your repeated re-edits to pursue what appears to be an agenda are so obvious I don't have to restate them. That is not the purpose of this wiki, and frankly, I'm too tired to care. I hope the admins do, however.--JosephSuaiden 06:49, February 16, 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Joseph's addition is factually correct but not in the right context. Perhaps it could be added to another paragraph (perhaps a new one). —Fr. Andrew ^talk contribs (THINK!) 15:26, February 16, 2009 (UTC)

No thanks. I'd rather just concede than start a new edit war for which I will invariably be disciplined-- alone. I sense we will soon see a new flurry of new edits inspired by the evening's events. As one warned twice, I am in no position to stop them. --JosephSuaiden 15:30, February 16, 2009 (UTC)

I think it falls under the concept of the "Liturgical Continuity" objection: that WRO has not continued unbroken within Orthodoxy since the Schism and/or that not all WR services are fully carbon-dated from "the Orthodox era." The rebuttal paragraph states services can be renewed and/or created by the Church. It seems odd to tack another form of the complaint (which was stated in the previous paragraph) onto its rebuttal. --Willibrord 17:24, February 16, 2009 (UTC)

Oh! Well, in that case that can be easily fixed.--JosephSuaiden 17:51, February 16, 2009 (UTC)

The overarching issue is that it's unnecessary: the criticism has been made succinctly. And answered.--Willibrord 17:54, February 16, 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no, I think it needs fixing. Thank you for your suggestion!--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." --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.--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." --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.--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. —Fr. Andrew ^talk contribs (THINK!) 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. 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. :) --Willibrord 23:12, February 16, 2009 (UTC)