Talk:Use of Sarum/Archive 1

Sacristies

I note that the current text has an apparent contradiction. In the discussion on the supposedly unique ritual elements of the Sarum Use it states in the first paragraph that vesting takes places at the Altar due to a lack of sacristies, but then in the second paragraph states that the celebrant recites the Last Gospel whilst retiring to the sacristy. I think that use of "often" or "sometimes" would be helpful here, liturgical useage of the time would have been highly variable. Suggestions would be most welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.56.159 (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Helpful Changes

I note that, as well as several helpful changes User:MiguelJoseErnst has made, he has also replaced some of the superfluous links and uses of bold typeface that had been removed earlier, because of their earlier appearance in the text. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that the Wikipedia style guide discourages this (see Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context) and have therefore removed them. I mean no offence, but could people not put them back in until they have carefully checked the style guide. Many thanks. -Vneiomazza 18:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Rebuttal

Apologies. I know that there is a fine line as to what may be considered related and superfluous links. I suppose you're right in that it is better to err on the side of less rather than more so as to make the page appear less cluttered.

I will argue for the use of Protestant Episcopal Church however. I realize that in common use, and as of recently in legal use, that the term Episcopal Church refers to the major Anglican body in the U.S. However, the term Episcopal Church is rather offensive to those of us who belong to other episcopal churches (i.e. those with an episcopacy). I argue for the use of the term Protestant Episcopal Church, since this was formely the most widely used term, is still a current legal term for that body, is used by a few organizations connected with that body (such as the Protestant Episcopal Cathedral Foundation in Washington, DC), and that body still retains legal ownership of that name (as was established somewhat recently in court).

MiguelJoseErnst 05:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Miguel, the name of the denomination is the Episcopal Church in the United States of America. Other churches are episcopal, but it's only used in its capitalised form by certain member churches of the Anglican Communion, many of whom do not see that tradition as being strictly Protestant, rather it is catholic but reformed. That is the reason I reverted (and have again) the characterisation of ECUSA as Protestant. The situation simply isn't as simple as that. Read Anglicanism and Scottish Episcopal Church and that will show you the historical reasons for the name. Adding in Protestant is very much expressing a Point of View

I'm afraid that I do not understand how using the historical name of a religious body is expressing a point of view. I know many Epicopalians both of the Low Church tradition and Anglo-Catholics who would agree with the fact that the historical name of there church is The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. My Low Church friends would says that they are Protestants through and through. My Anglo-Catholic friends would say that this is merely a legal title describing the church as non-Roman Catholic. In fact at one time, I was an Anglo-Catholic and always used the term Protestant Episcopal Church. Please enlighten me and explain how this is a Point of View.

MiguelJoseErnst 22:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Miguel, it is a historical name, not the name it is normally known by now (in fact if you look at discussion at WP:Anglicanism it seems to be adopting simply The Episcopal Church, at least for certain internal contexts) and presumably dropped the regular use of Protestant as part of the name for good reason, trying to resurrect it might seem to imply you don't agree with the that reason. The article name in Wikipedia is Episcopal Church in the United States of America and unless that is changed, it makes things more understandable if links to the article have the same title. Possibly I should have worded my original response to you a little more softly, I was possibly in danger of not assuming good faith, or at least that given your name and user page, you might be coming at things from a different angle than it appears from your last post. David Underdown 10:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Replaced

It's unhistorical to say the Sarum rite "replaced" genuflection with a bow because genuflections had not come into general usage at the time the Sarum was in general use.--146.145.70.200 20:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an "upper division" treatment

For someone who is not familiar with the Sarum Rite or any other rites, this subject needs to add higher-level explanation of what this is all about and how this fits into what Christianity is. If a non-Christian were reading this page, he/she wouldn't have point of referece, as it jumps right into details and provides no 10,000 foot-level orientation first.

Perhaps an explanation of what a "rite" is would be helpful? Even for christians who don't use "rites" or "liturgies" this may be confusing, because it is all very foreign territory. More basic explanation first, please.

Thanks! DK Phelps

24.9.229.97 02:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I did what I could. Better? -- SECisek 05:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Small problem

I'm having some trouble with this line in the text: "The Sarum rite was the first liturgy sanctioned by the newly separated Church of England in the 1530s, and was reintroduced to England under Queen Mary, but was abandoned as the Anglican Church turned decisively to the use of the Book of Common Prayer in the liturgy." Can anyone see what I mean? After the c of e separates the sarum rite is sanctioned, then re-introduced, but never goes anywhere in the first place. Unless it went through some sort of "re-launch"...  :-)

More missing a stage, under Henry VIII we have the initial separation, but liturgy is still in latin (using Sarum). Edward VI we have the first introcution of the BCP (in English), though initially at least the structure of Holy Communion wasfairly similar to the latin Sarum. Mary, back to Rome, latin re-introduced. Elizabeth, english liturgy restored. David Underdown (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of British Isles

A discussion is taking place here. The opinion of editors active on this page would be appreciated. --Snowded ^TALK 17:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Richard III

The Sarum Rite is being mentioned in connection with the intended reburial of Richard III. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It was also suggested for the reburial of the bones of the Mary Rose's sailors. I've asked a question on talk:Mary Rose since it appears that no reburial has ever occurred. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)