|WikiProject Christianity / Catholicism / Anglicanism / Lutheranism||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
This text only provides the popular version of the Liturgical Movement and nothing is mentioned of the true intentions, which were restoration in the beginning and never the introduction of a new rite. Where is the Dom Guéranger is this article?22.214.171.124 19:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Request for information
I would like some elucidation. Dom Gueranger appears in the article. The article notes the intention to restore for instance Gregorian chant. I wonder if the complainant could re-read the article and make specific rather than generalised comments, some of which indicate that it has not been read carefully. It does indeed present a popular version of the story, derived in good part from the Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship. It is true that it presents different points of view and different elements of the movement. It may well be that it lacks sufficient details whicvh can be found in the above book (and elsewhere).
I am happy to look at the article again and shall do so. May I say that it is easier to offer criticisms than to make constructive suggestions which may well indeed improve the balance. I look forwad to some positive suggestions for the repair of omissions. Roger Arguile 8th May, 11.40 am (UTC)
PS The article in the Dictionary was written by H. Elsworth Chandlee Professor or Liturgics at St. Andrew's Theological Seminary, Manila but Fr. J.D Crichton, the English RC scholar was a contributor. Maybe I have misunderstood these writers but insofar as I have understood them correctly, they can hardly be criticised without evidence.
PPS The distinctiveness of the RC and Protestant movements is disputed. Not only did the Anglicans borrow heavily from the Roman Mass, as in the English Missalbut the Ordo Missae was first trialed at the Ecumenical Community of Taizé. I confess that on all of the above grounds I would be minded to remove the claen up tag but politeness forbids. As for Dom Prosper Gueranger, I am sure that a separate article on him would be welcome. Unfortunately I do not have the knowledge to write such an article. Perhaps the complainent would like to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Roger Arguile (talk • contribs)
- Well, I'm removing them. I see no case here, and the italicised intro is inappropriate. I'm moving it here. Paul B 13:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- This article mingles facts from various view points. The liturgical movements in anglican, protestant and Roman Catholic churches are very much distinct and evolved separately. On top of that this article present a one-sided view lacking facts to important early scholars of the liturgical movement. It might have been written from a protestant or Anglican view point, thus lacking foundation in Roman Catholic church history or having a biased view.
I am aware on revisitng this article that it has a number of defects. There is no real ecumenical section; my comments on the Anglican aspect contains disputable statements (from Donald Gray); the Catholic end of things is still thin; there is nothing on France (a desert, I am told) or the United States. The article lends itself to huge distortion by repeating material that is in other articles, something I have attempted to avoid. But, if it any help, I am working on it. I culd write yards on England, but feel that it would distort the article. Roger Arguile 17:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC) PS I note from the paucity of comments here that there are not many folks out there who feel any more confident than I do. Roger Arguile 17:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not think it is appropriate for this article to be tagged as under either Lutheranism or Anglicanism. If it belongs anywhere there it is within the Roman Catholic Church. I hope I have violated no rule by doing this; if I have then I apologise, but, by way of argument, the article is not of mid importance but of huge importance within the western church becasue it affected all of them, but the influence came, largely, from the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps I have misunderstood the tagging system in which case I would be grateful for some assistance.Roger Arguile 19:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree, the Liturgical Movement has been very important, at least in ECUSA, and this article needs more work. -- SECisek 20:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I would very much like evidence of the assertion that 'Malines is a french exonym' and that the English name at that time was mechlin' (in this context). The 'Malines Conversations' (sic) which took place in 1925 under Cardinal Mercier with the Anglicans under Lord Halifax are referred to in Halifix's own recollections (1921-5) and by W.H. Frere in 1935 in his 'Recollections of Malines'. This is of course a later occasion but the significance of this (failed) set of conversations rather defines the name of the place in ecclesiological conversation (though not of course in other contexts). H. Ellsworth Chandlee in his entry in the Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship (SCM) ed J. D. Davies, referring to the 1909 called the place Malines. The significance of this conference cannot be overrated and it is known as the 'Malines Conference'. No doubt like many towns in the region, different names were given by different nationalities but in the absence of contemporary references to the town as 'Mechlin'in the appropriate context (that of liturgical and ecumenical debate), I really think it ought to stand. Roger Arguile 13:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC) PS The language used to describe the Congress might be noted.
The Origins section is marked as maybe-not-neutral. I think it is (after removing an unnecessary "so-called" that might have been misinterpreted as negativist in any direction). I think the neutrality dispute is unmotivated and so safely can be removed, if there are not issues that I'm unaware of... Said: Rursus (☻) 12:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Same for the section Protestant and reformed churches: what are the neutrality issues about. I think I'll propose a policy that unmotivated (here on the talk page) littering with templates (there on the article page) should be punished by simply removing the templates. Said: Rursus (☻) 12:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)