Changes

: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: "n 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. --[[User:Willibrord|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.--[[User:JosephSuaiden|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). &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] ^{[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]} <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> 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. --[[User:JosephSuaiden|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. --[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 17:24, February 16, 2009 (UTC) 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. &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] ^{[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]} <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)