Dear All: Where precisely do the two differ? Soes one tend to be more ornate than the other? Charles
Sarum vs. Roman
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 oldhighchurch |
Sarum vs. Roman |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 131 (04/26/05 15:10:40) |
|
||
|
Aristibule |
Re: Sarum vs. Roman | ||
|
Posts: 1329 (04/26/05 15:27:52) orthodox-okie.blogspot.com |
It depends on how one defines Roman... if you mean Tridentine, yes there are differences. If one simply means Roman as a general term, then Sarum is the Roman rite of the English church (initially in the South, eventually even for the Scots, Irish, and Welsh.) We had another thread with this same title in the Chapter House.
The Sarum represents the Medieval mass (much more towards the Gallican side than the Tridentine, though not as Gallican as the Ambrosian). Differences between the Sarum and Tridentine include differences in the calendar, chant, different collects, different names for many of the liturgical books, rubrics differed, liturgical colours differed, an icon was in use as a Pax-Brede (Dr. Daniel Rock in fact says that the interior of the church decorated with iconography is the norm for this rite), the use of columba pyx or aumbry rather than tabernacle, the set-up of the altar, and that vestments and choir dress are more appropriately the Gothic/Medieval forms. Sarum ceremonial is more elaborate, yes. Also, the Sarum has the Veni Creator Spiritus at the vesting, followed by the Collect for Purity (why the BCP has the same collect at the beginning of the Holy Communion.) Sarum has its origins in the rites of Gaul/France and England/Brittania. It was first compiled from local and Norman rites by St. Osmund, then organized by Richard Le Poore. There are many different Sarum books, so that usually it is described as 'after the use of Sarum' there being no one exact or standardized Sarum use (only in that the 19th c. A-C's decided upon the last Sarum books of Douai as their standard, being the texts propagated by Queen Mary.) See: this article for a primer. "The Church of Our Fathers" by Daniel Rock DD, and the various editions or studies printed in the early 20th c. or in the 19th c. are good for further study (ie, Legg, the Wordsworths, Warren, Frere, etc.) www.orthodoxresurgence.co.uk
-------------- You must give people what is good and they will come to like it - Percy Dearmer |
||
|
FrMichangel |
Re: Sarum vs. Roman | ||
|
Posts: 641 (04/26/05 19:21:55) orthodoxresurgence.co.uk |
Quote: This is a bit of a throw-away line which fails to do justice to the fact that Sarum was more than somewhat influenced by the preceding (and briefly co-existing) Liturgy of the Church in the British Isles, a Gallican family Liturgy with itself, borrowings from Rome. Mass in a Sarum church certainly looked different (even to the untrained eye) from the Tridentine. The Tridentine in my view, formalised a lot of church ceremonials and decorations which had been used in various places outside of the British Isles. Fr. Myghal www.orthodoxresurgence.co.uk/Petroc |
||
|
PD |
Re: Sarum vs. Roman | ||
|
Posts: 2273 (04/26/05 22:23:10) prescott-anglican.org |
Sarum was just one of the English Uses, but it was also by far and away the most widespread. They generally had a family resemblance to one another and were part of the Anglo-French (for want of a better term) family of rites. Of these Dominican Use was the most recent survivor. It still hasn't been fully suppressed as there are still a few priests that use the old Latin Mass according to the Dominican Use(1).
The Tridentine Missal and Breviary are is basically Curial. The 1571 revision was based on the Missal and Breviary printed for the Roman Curia from the late fifteenth century, and it is noticeably less florid than the Dominican and Sarum Uses. It was even more austere in 1571 before some of the Gallican inspired ceremonies were restored and feasts were added in the 17th and 18th centuries. Not to mention the "lace and tat". The history of the Western Liturgy has tended to be a dialogue between florid Gallican and the austere Roman traditions. The basic forms eventually ended up being Roman, but a lot of the details were Gallican. would advise reading Jungmann or some other good liturgical scholar to understand how the liturgy sent out by Rome enriched by the Gallican North and then sent home. This has happened several times through the history of the Church. Unfortunately, the present revision of the Roman Missal has stripped away many the Gallican "accretions", and mucked around with some of the ancient Roman elements that were left. I believe that both painful trendiness and the desire to return to the old Mass both spring from a desire compensate for a Mass that is impoverished when compared to its immediate predecessor of 1962 Fr Peter (1) The Anglican Catholic Dominicans in Coos Bay, OR adapt the 1928 BCP along Dominican lines. Also, the Fraternity of St. Vincent Ferrar uses the traditional Dominican Rite (if I translated the French correctly). |
||
|
Unregistered(d) |
Re: Sarum vs. Roman | ||
|
Posts: 0 (05/21/05 22:52:06) |
The Fraternity of St. Vincent Ferrar uses the traditional Dominican Rite, true.
As for Sarum, I cannot comment, it is one of many areas that I can proclaim to be completely ignorant of, however I will offer to anyone who can wait a week or two Archdale King's, Liturgies of the Past, which covers the Celtic and Medieval English Rites, as two of the chapters. I have yet to read it, but I got a photocopy of the book and will be scanning all 476 pages over the next week or two. I'll be scanning it to pdf format. Even zipped it will take quite a bit of space, so I may have to scan it into three or four sections, in order to send it out in chunks that my and other email programs will accept. |
||
|
Aristibule |
Re: Sarum vs. Roman | ||
|
Posts: 1329 (05/22/05 08:54:30) orthodox-okie.blogspot.com |
An important note to remember is that the local English uses like Sarum and York were not displaced by the canons of Trent, but were protected for the same reasons as the Milanese and Mozarabic rites: they had the required antiquity. What Trent was correcting were local and recent liturgical changes, many in part due to the chaos of the Reformation.
www.orthodoxresurgence.co.uk
-------------- You must give people what is good and they will come to like it - Percy Dearmer |
||
|
Unregistered(d) |
Re: Sarum vs. Roman | ||
|
Posts: 0 (05/22/05 11:19:56) |
The argument could be made that Sarum et aliae where not abrogated, however the provision was to be applied to those rites that had been in consistent use for two hundred years or longer. Ergo a rite could have been five hundred years old, but not consistently used in the prior two hundred years, it would not fall under the provisions.
The English rites where still used in secret, and to a lesser extent on the continent by the English seminaries, but they where soon supplanted (on the continent) by the Pian Missal. Regardless of the claims, (I make no assertions to the truth or falsity of these claims) by any on the board that their families kept these practices in secret, when the Roman Hierarchy was restored in England the old Sarum and other English rites where dismissed at the very least in order to show fidelity to Rome by the newly established hierarchy. An added proviso it I did not mention it above. While Rites of the Past is offered for free, I would not mind anyone who obtains a copy putting a copper coin or two in the treasury here at the York Forum to help keep it online. (This paragraph has not been previously endorsed, required or discussed with the moderator, or his chamerlingo.) |
||
|
FrMichangel |
Re: Sarum vs. Roman | ||
|
Posts: 641 (05/22/05 21:46:12) orthodoxresurgence.co.uk |
Dear Fr. Xxxxxxx,
I wonder if we could come to an agreement: That I will undertake not to pronounce upon the liturgical history of the RCC in the United States, if you will undertake not to pronounce upon the liturgical history of England. The Council of Trent was opened on 13 December, 1545, and closed there on 4 December, 1563. The Church of England, in communion with the Roman Pope, had used the Sarum Use (and the other Uses of England) of the western Liturgy, in more or less its then current form continuously for four hundred years. At the time of the split between the English Parliament and Bishops, with the Bishop of Rome (1534), the Sarum (and similar local Uses) were still in use - and they continued in use in the now separated Church of England until 1544 when the Convocation of Canterbury replaced all local Uses in England with the Sarum Use. At the same time the remnant of the suppressed RCC in England continued to use the Sarum Use since that was the only legal Use for them. Whether anyone likes it or not, the Sarum Use was current in England when Trent opened (and remember, the protestants were invited to Trent - and given safe passes to attend, since no one at that stage expected the protestant split to be beyond remedy - which was precisely why both protestants and Roman Catholicvs had been calling for a Council to be convened) and in resumed RCC use in England under Queen Mary until 1558 and remained in use in England among the recusants for some time thereafter, at very least, widely into the 1580s. There is no doubt therefore, that the Sarum Use fell under the exceptions allowed by Trent. Sarum was certainly in use in other places - under other names - in Ireland and France at the time of Trent and therafter in Ireland. Yes, the incoming bishops at the time of the restoration of the RCC hierarchy in England (particularly the ultramontanist Wiseman) did, in some cases, want to earn brownie points with Rome by not claiming the Tridentine exception, nevertheless, there was a substantial party which adamantly wanted to retain the English Use (Sarum) which they had been using - not "secretly" but quite openly since the eighteenth century. As I have pointed out on this Forum before, the noted English ecclesiastical architect Augustus Welby Pugin was busily designing RCC churches specifically for the Sarum Use in the nineteenth century. The RCC historian Dr. B. Andrews lists 18 RCC churches built in England between 1839 and 1859 as "Sarum Rite". At that time also, the colony of Tasmania was very much under the English bishops and its first RCC Bishop, Robert Willson upon arrival from England promptly built churches there specifically for Sarum Use. It would have been foolish and irresponsible to waste money building a church with a Rood Screen, an Easter Sepulchre and most particularly, a recessed stepped sedilia - which latter could not be used with the Tridentine rite, if that was what was the rite to be used. So yes, while Sarum ultimately lost the battle of rites in England in the late nineteenth century, it was certainly around in full legal use at the time of Trent and had been for the four hundred years prior to that in many hundreds of English churches and beyond, and insofar as it matters to modern Roman Catholics, it was a legitimate subject of the Tridentine exceptions. Fr. Myghal www.orthodoxresurgence.co.uk/Petroc Camerlengo's edit. See my comments "down the thread." |
||
|
LatinMan |
Re: Sarum vs. Roman | ||
|
Posts: 1895 (05/23/05 04:47:01) Counter-Reformed Catholic |
Quote: Please explain. (This is not an invitation to combat; this is a simple request for information and clarification.) Dan
(Counter-Reformed Roman Catholic) |
||
|
PD |
Re: Sarum vs. Roman | ||
|
Posts: 2273 (05/23/05 07:02:27) prescott-anglican.org |
Let's take the heat out of this by sticking to what we can reasonably deduce.
1. Sarum became the sole Use in England in 1544. This decision was endorsed by Mary I and Cardinal Pole in 1556. 2. Sarum was covered by the 200 years clause of the Bull setting forth the 1571 redaction of the Roman Missal as the standard. 3. Under Elizabeth I, and subsequent monarchs Sarum was used by the recusant Catholic community in England. However from the late 16th century onwards it was very gradualy replaced by the standard Roman books. 4. Pugin (and others) designed churches with Sarum elements in them, and, even if Sarum was not widely used in the 1830s, Pugin and others hoped for its revival and built churches in that tradition. 5. The English hierarchy - when restored in 1850 - came down firmly in favour of the Roman Rite as reformed after the Council of Trent. 6. The attempt to revive Sarum for the newly build Westminster Cathedral was canned by the Cardinal-Archbishop. Fr Peter |
||
|
Unregistered(d) |
Re: Sarum vs. Roman | ||
|
Posts: 0 (05/23/05 12:41:13) |
Quote: Fr. M: A review of my posting in question from Roman eyes would reveal to someone not ready to pounce without surveying the lay of the land would reveal that I was speaking of those who remained with the Old Religion exclusively. That I admitted that the Sarum Use continued underground. Implicit in the posting was that it may have remained until the Restoration (of the Roman Clergy above ground,) I also wrote that I neither dismiss or accept the family histories of it's survival, or partial survival on face value. You will note in reviewing my posts I tend not to act as commentator on, nor do I pronounce wickedly on Anglican or Orthodox liturgy or doctrine inside or outside the USA, therefore I don't see where I am commenting on English (non-Roman,) or Anglicania. I don't think myself to be a supporter of any secular government, and disagree with many things that most secular governments including the that of the USA. Having lived in Japan, Central America, and visited extensively throughout Europe and the UK on several long visits over many decades. I would not claim to be an expert on each, but at the same time do not attack them off hand. What I have done is stated what the Roman view is, plain and simple, leaving it at that, without claiming (at least here) them to be superior or more correct than the other views posted. I have when it comes to Anglicans and Orthodox, attempted to put away any presuppositions I learned in the Roman Seminary, or through Roman authors and asked the local Anglican and Orthodox what the opinion is from their side. I usually keep my comments on the Novus Ordo to a minimum as I have never celebrated the rite, and only on occasion have assisted at it but not con-celebrated. In the same manner that I have assisted at the Eastern Rites, sometimes invited behind the iconostasis but not vesting or con-celebrating even when offered, as I do not have faculties to celebrate other rites. All in all, I am not nor do not know enough about Anglican or Orthodox teaching or practice that I care to pontificate about either how it is carried out, or denounce them as being evil or heretical. But I have rather made it clear in the past that I speak, or rather write based on the opinions taught to me in a pre-vatican II seminary setting. They may and I am sure do have a Roman bias, but then we all do. As a case in point, I had an aunt who married a Greek, he was a student in a Greek seminary, and while this caused problems as even though she converted, she was not Greek. He was eventually ordained, on a visit he was expressing some of what he learned in the seminary on the subject of how Orthodoxy was superior to Rome. His most hilarious point was as follows... "You Romans hide your relics in the altar, we Orthodox put them on top where we know where they are. You could hire a stone cutter to slice a Roman altar a half inch at a time from end to end, and never find the relics because they are shamefully hidden." Well educated, and well meaning, he really believed what he was telling me. I would seek information on Roman belief and practice from him, (if he where still alive, Eternal Memory) as quickly as I would from anyone outside of Rome, or from a modernist or sede vacantest priest. If Anglicans or WRO wish to make the claim that they continued Sarum, and are the sole arbitrators of what Sarum is, that is fine. However there is another opinion, and that is the Roman opinion, which in this forum may not hold as the one true and only opinion, but if the others are to be respected should too should the Roman slant on things be respected. It may help all of us find out where, why and how silly some of our pre-suppositions are. The west has made errors in judgment, Popes Pius IX and XI both decried the savage way that Eastern Catholic Liturgies where westernized and ordered not only the actions to be stopped but for the accretions to be reversed. What happened as a result of local prejudices from Latin Bishops is lamentable, as is what happened to Latins in Eastern lands. Easterners are not without blame, nor if you read the Anti-Roman polemics of some Anglican Divines are the Anglicans without guilt. The point, (I sometimes have one.) is that there will always be more than one point of view, and discussing them is important, however imposing them (at least here) is not cricket. |
||
|
FrMichangel |
Re: Sarum vs. Roman | ||
|
Posts: 641 (05/23/05 15:52:40) orthodoxresurgence.co.uk |
Quote: The Roman Rite sedilia required the priest to sit flanked by his deacon and sub deacon whereas the Sarum Sedilia was typically built corresponding to the footpace, deacon and sub deacon steps, with the priest sitting closest to the Altar, the deacon next and lower on his left and the sub deacon on the deacon's left and lower again. My reference to Dr. Andrews' papers was not that Pugin built Sarum churches in the fond hope that the rite would be revived, Andrews differentiates between churches built in the Sarum style and those which he refers to as "Sarum Rite" - that is, using the "Sarum Rite". I confess that I am really not at all sure what the majority of Fr. Xxxxxxx's latest posting is about. His previous posting seemed to me to be somewhat dismissive of the Sarum Use, and his dismissiveness seemed to me to be based on incorrect historical fact regarding the status of the Sarum Use at the time of the Council of Trent. At that time it was one of, if not the widest used of the local Uses in north-western Europe. Its influence extended to Scandinavia, the Low Countries, western France and Ireland. While there were certainly other Uses in the British Isles, Sarum was the liturgical arbiter for a lot of Europe up to and at the time of the council of Trent. By whom, and to what extent it was used thereafter aside, the point that I was interested in was that they had licence to use it, and it is therefore very unsafe to assume that because the seminaries on the Continent thereafter taught the Tridentine rite, that such was forced upon the recusants in England. Especially is this so since we know that the Sarum survived among the English recusants to the extent that it was still in use by some of them at the time of the restoration of the RCC hierarchy, and the English desire to retain their distinctive Liturgy as a recognition of their fidelity through all the centuries of persecution, led to an unseemly dispute. Certainly some English bishops at that time used the Sarum Rite (we know that Willson used it) and that the Tridentine party was not therefore, exclusively supported by the new hierarchy. I rather suspect that had the incoming hierarchy been wiser and supported Sarum and resisted the temptation to import Irish clergy, the RCC would have made much greater headway much faster in England. I suspect that this subject may well be played out here, we have dealt with it several times and the facts ought to be clear. The original question as to the differences between Sarum and the Tridentine, is perhaps best answered by pointing to the architectural space which had developed in to house the Liturgy, and by suggesting that the text of the two liturgies be pasted into two side-by-side columns - for preference in Latin - then the textual and rubrical divergences can be easily seen. The liturgical space and the ceremonial resulted in a somewhat different visual and general ambience to that of the (especially later) Tridentine churches. Sarum was truly a quintessentially English expression of the common faith. In the current state of western Christendom, that is probably an interesting point. In my view, western Christendom needs to concentrate upon recovering the authority of Scripture and Tradition, and expressing that publicly, calling our societies back to Christianity. In my view, the experiments in the west of the past century have failed. Now, whether the relatively recent vision of a single liturgical expression throughout the whole western world is supportive of such a recall, is open to legitimate discussion on this Forum, and it might be a productive discussion. I can see where local Uses might well be better than a single rigidly enforced text. However, I am wondering here about the efficacy in the home mission context. Fr. Myghal www.orthodoxresurgence.co.uk/Petroc Camerlengo's edit. |
||
|
Unregistered(d) |
Like it or not I'm back | ||
|
Posts: 0 (05/25/05 23:01:40) |
I confess that I am really not at all sure what the majority of Fr. Xxxxxxx's latest posting is about. His previous posting seemed to me to be somewhat dismissive of the Sarum Use, and his dismissiveness seemed to me to be based on incorrect historical fact regarding the status of the Sarum Use at the time of the Council of Trent.
You will excuse me for rambling in that posting, it was in the middle of my seeking the enlightenment of the Buddha. Well not directly or intentionally, I was still under the influence of some wonderful concoction given to me for pain, after having a liver biopsy, I think I now understand why someone would seek to attempt to escape reality in Eastern (Asian) religions, rather than face reality in Christianity. Living in delusion is much more colorful than facing ones sinfulness, and striving to overcome it. Now firmly back in reality, (or as firmly as I can be) I will address some of the issues and non-issues Fr. Anthony has brought up. Firstly- I started the posting with, The argument could be made that Sarum et aliae where not abrogated. How anyone can misconstrue that as dismissive of Sarum is beyond me. It rather points out that there is some merit to the argument that the rite was NOT abrogated. But since Fr. A was so quick to feel I was on the attack with inaccurate history, lets look at the Romans who are of the opinion that Sarum is a thing of the past. For those who hold to this opinion, (Which I again point out I did not assert,) the Use, at least in the public forum, disappeared for over two hundred years, it would be by many considered dead, at least among some in communion with Rome. As to other timelines, Fr. M states, Whether anyone likes it or not, the Sarum Use was current in England when Trent opened Nobody denies that, however the Bull Quo Primum was issued JULY 13, 1570, well after Trent, and for those who accept the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it was that and not the calling of the Council that abrogated some rites and retained others it was Quo Primum. If you deny the authority of the Pope of Rome counts for anything, then no rites have been abrogated by anyone, or at least anyone not in communion with Rome. Fr. M. also states, The Council of Trent was opened on 13 December, 1545, and closed there on 4 December, 1563. The Church of England, in communion with the Roman Pope, had used the Sarum Use (and the other Uses of England) of the western Liturgy, in more or less its then current form continuously for four hundred years. At the time of the split between the English Parliament and Bishops, with the Bishop of Rome (1534), the Sarum (and similar local Uses) were still in use - and they continued in use in the now separated Church of England until 1544 when the Convocation of Canterbury replaced all local Uses in England with the Sarum Use. At the same time the remnant of the suppressed RCC in England continued to use the Sarum Use since that was the only legal Use for them. In 1529, the divorce proceedings between the King, Henry VIII, and the Queen, Catherine of Aragon, May 1533 Cranmer declared Henry's marriage invalid; Anne Boleyn was crowned queen a week later. The Pope responded with excommunication. Prior to this in February of 1531 the Commons acknowledged the king as their "only and supreme lord and, as far as the law of Christ allows, even supreme head." In the Act of Supremacy* of 1534, the caveat "as far as the law of Christ allows" was deleted. So even before the Pope excommunicated Henry, he already had broken the communion. The first break with Rome occurred before the opening of the Council. In the brief years of Edward's reign (1547-1553) Cranmer (I've seen his name spelled two ways, is there a preference for one over the other?) carried forward the project of reform in his own terms. He promoted Biblical preaching in a Book of Homilies and, what he argued was, more Biblical worship in the Book of Common Prayer of 1549 and 1552. By July 19 1553, Jane Grey had been deposed and Mary was the undisputed Queen. Her official coronation came on November 30, 1553, until her death on November 17, 1558 the old religion was restored, and communion with Rome with it. November 17, 1558 Elizabeth I is now queen and a Protestant Restoration takes place, while not formally excommunicated yet, the country is no longer (Roman) Catholic. Protestantism, and Schism is reinstated a full five years before the close of the Council. Elizabeth was not formally excommunicated until April 27, 1570, England had been Protestant once again since 1558 when she was named the head of the Church of England. Now the one of the important ideas here (for Romans) is who Quo Primum was speaking to. If those in England still using the Sarum Rite are Church or England, in schism with Rome, they deny the Pope as a foreign bishop to have authority over them, and are not effected. Those Romans who are now for all intents illegally practicing the Old Religion, may hang onto many or all of the old Rites at first publicly later in secret. Now since most if not all went into hiding, it is hard to prove one way or another who held out with Sarum, and for how long. Then we have the restoration of the Roman Hierarchy in England. We all know that for whatever reasons, not the point of this argument they went along with the Tridentine Reforms and not the old Sarum Rites. So for Rome and Romans, even if the Sarum use was not suppressed at the time of Quo Primum, it ends with the restoration of the Roman Hierarchy and can only be reinstituted to use for Romans by an action. So while I hope I have cleared up the matter that I was not in fact dismissive of Sarum, that there is a case within the limits of those in communion with Rome that it was or is suppressed for us. This still does not effect Anglicans or WRO who do not recognize Rome as having authority over them, and can implement any rite they see fit. As for the rest of the ramblings in my drug induced thread, they refer back to (although I did not at the time note as such.) Fr. Ms statements in the past about Americans, which I assume in the haze I was in I must have thought I was clearly addressing. His attempt at coming to a compromise that I stay away from English History, and he will leave the RCC in the US alone, (although note not US bigotry, superiority or anything not dealing directly with the RCC in the USA alone.) My history of travel was I am also assuming in order to assert that not all Americans can be stereotyped as Bush backing, non thinking Cretans (sorry if we have any ancient peoples from Crete here) as some would have all Americans, (or Bush all supporters for that matter) believe. The tale of my uncle by marriage a Greek priest was I think to point out that we all have heard untruths about each other, and hold as true ideas about each other that may not be based on reality. If any of these are stereotypes of Fr. A and his opinion, they too are probably in part due to my opiate induced trip to a place that was almost as confusing to me as my posting seems to have been to Fr. M. Edit note. I must still have some remnant of the medication as I erroniously refered to Fr. M as Fr. A. I have edited the posting to reflect the change to Fr. M. Well there go my claims to infallibility. |
||
|
PD |
Re: Like it or not I'm back | ||
|
Posts: 2273 (05/26/05 06:28:36) prescott-anglican.org |
My basic attitude to the Sarum Use is that it died out sometime after 1600, and that all subsequent attempts to revive it in the Roman Catholic Church have failed. If the Western Rite Orthodox wish to revive it they are quite welcome, and given their theology and liturgical praxis Sarum is legitimate of the Church's heritage and the ancient Use of much of the English Church.
From the point of view of Roman Catholicism and most Anglo-Catholics we are bound by the liturgies that are authorized and there seems to be no desire to return to Sarum. It belongs to the past and is an historic rite one drags out for things like the interment of the remains of those who went down with the Mary Rose in 1545, or the 450 anniversary of the Pilgrimage of Grace. That isn't a judgement on its merit but a reflection of the sad fact that the Sarum Use's world went overwhelming Protestant and when Catholicism was reintroduced it tended to be - apart from a few survival here and there that eventually died out - reintroduced in the contemporary Roman form. Yours, Fr Peter |
||
|
St Salvatore |
Re: Like it or not I'm back | ||
|
Posts: 46 (05/26/05 10:00:22) |
As a small matter of clarification. The largest, at this point in time, Western Rite Orthodox body belongs to the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America. There are numerous vaganti WRO groups about but the Antiochian is the only Canonical Orthodox Jurisdiction. I believe the Rumanian, Bulgarian and Serbian Orthodox Churches have had or may be contemplating forays into the WRO field. Also ROCOR has two WR monastaries which have a Sarum oriented usage. The Antiocian WR Vicariate uses only the Gregorian or Tridentine Rite with an explicit epiklises and minus the filioque or an Anglican derivative of the Gregorian Rite. Liturgical modifications of the latter are based on the 19th Century Anglican Ritualist modifications of the 1662 English BCP and simular subsequent liturgical modifications of the US BCPs of 1892 or 1928. Theological corrections are based on the 'Russian Observations Upon The American Prayer Book' of 1904. Sarum Usage is not permitted in the Antiochian WR Vicariate. Question: Is Latinopadre addressed by another name in the chatroom? Thanks
|
||
|
Aristibule |
Re: Like it or not I'm back | ||
|
Posts: 1329 (05/26/05 10:10:21) orthodox-okie.blogspot.com |
From some of the comments on my blog post on the English Use:
Quote: From: www.orthodox-okie.blogspo...h-use.html I'm surprised that no one will admit to some of the details: that Sarum books did survive (were in print quite late), that most of the Continental Roman books coming in were French from the hey-dey of the Neo-Gallican liturgical movement, that the Jesuit liturgical books heavily depended upon the Sarum more than the Curial use, and that the secular clergy of the Catholics in England did keep the 'Old Religion' so much so that the first Breviary printed for their use after the Emancipation was a Latin Sarum Breviary (and yes, that some English Catholics revived the use and its services were used at Grace Dieu among others.) www.orthodoxresurgence.co.uk
-------------- You must give people what is good and they will come to like it - Percy Dearmer |
||
|
Unregistered(d) |
Re: Like it or not I'm back | ||
|
Posts: 0 (05/26/05 10:22:55) |
Quote: I don't know of any chatroom? Unless you are referring to the Forum. This is the only place I post anything. I have gone by the username Latinopadre since I first started posting. Aside from private emails to the moderator and his camerlingo, Fr. Peter, and one member who knows our Tasmanian priest, I have not used my name in public postings, not that I am ashamed of it. Fr. M referred to me as Fr. Xxxxxxx, my real name, which while I was not hiding it, had never come up before. Does this answer the question? Edited by the Camerlengo. |
||
|
Unregistered(d) |
Re: Like it or not I'm back | ||
|
Posts: 0 (05/26/05 10:34:31) |
Quote: I'll take it as a recommendation for continued study. I am not familiar with this book, I'll add it to my list of reading. What is the publication date, is it commonly available? Aside from a quick mention in seminary as a dead use, All I have seen from Roman sources is Archdale King, who I am told is well respected as a scholar by both Roman and Anglican Authorities. At the very least he draws from resources from both camps. |
||
|
Aristibule |
Re: Like it or not I'm back | ||
|
Posts: 1329 (05/26/05 11:24:41) orthodox-okie.blogspot.com |
Morison, Stanley. English Prayer Books: An Introduction to the Literature of Christian Public Worship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1943.
Archdale King's work is a bit dated (though from the same period as the above) and proposes some overly skeptical theories that are no longer generally accepted. A good resource to have, but his views on the Gallican/Celtic rites should be taken with a grain of salt. I haven't reviewed his writings on the English uses lately: though I should, if only to pinpoint where some borrowed opinions come from. Morison contradicts himself - he suggests a replacement of Continental forms for the Sarum, then notes several instances that seem to contradict that opinion. I'm guessing that the period around WWII being the height of liturgical historian revisionism, that it was the newly accepted 'orthodoxy' of Sarum death/Tridentine uniformity that held sway, even when speaking of details that showed things to be a bit more complicated. www.orthodoxresurgence.co.uk
-------------- You must give people what is good and they will come to like it - Percy Dearmer |
||
|
jbc1949 |
Re: Like it or not I'm back | ||
|
Posts: 6151 (05/26/05 11:56:52) Camerlengo |
Quote: I would suggest to all concerned that we stick to a YFer's handle vs. real name in the public discussions on this forum. This is to protect the individual from trolls, hecklers, and other sorts of nefarious scum (e.g., IRS?  ). PM communications are a different matter as they are offline essentially. I will ask Leo to edit those few posts with Latinopadre's name spelled out that I may have missed (in other threads) just for safety's sake. For those who use their real names in their handles or like, me, use their real first names with no last name or just an initial, then I suggest we go with that. Thanks, Jim C. . . . "C" stands for crusty! |
||
|
St Salvatore |
Re: Like it or not I'm back | ||
|
Posts: 46 (05/26/05 13:12:42) |
Please excuse my Forum faux pas. I plead ignorant to knowledge of the difference between a forum and a chatroom. As far as using names, some one addressed a msg to Fr Anthony on this thread (correct term?) and I could not determine who Fr Anthony was and that it might be a second name for Latinopadre. I was not attempting to ascertain anyone's true identity. Again please accept my most humble mea culpa for my multiple transgressions. I am going to attempt to put a repentant face at the end.
|
||
