|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I think it's a bit POV to say that the Novus Ordo mass is widely criticized, so I changed it to criticized by some.
JesseG 15:51, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
I remember seeing some test at Toledo of the two rites, where they were both placed in a fire. The Latin rite fell from the fire, while the Mozarabic rite stayed there but did not burn. Both were then deemed acceptable. Sadly no source. --Henrygb 11:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- In the link to the Catholic Encyclopedia:
- This was resisted by his subjects, and on Palm Sunday, 1077, according to the "Chronicon Burgense", occurred the incident of "El Juicio de Dios". Two knights–"one a Castilian and the other a Toledan", says the chronicle–were chosen to fight "pro lege Romana et Toletana". The champion of the Spanish Rite, Juan Ruiz de Matanzas, who was the victor, was certainly a Castilian, but it is improbable that the champion of the Roman Rite, whose name is not recorded, was a Toledan, and the Annals of Compostella say that one was a Castilian and the other of the king's party. The "Chronicon Malleacense", which alleges treachery, calls the latter "miles ex parte Francorum", and at the later ordeal by fire in 1090 the Roman Rite is called impartially "romano", "frances", or "gallicano". It is said that two bulls, one named "Roma" and the other "Toledo", were set to fight, and there also the victory was with Toledo.
- But, in spite of the result of the trials by battle, Alfonso continued to support the Roman Rite, and a Council of Burgos (1080) decreed its use in Castile. In 1085 Toledo was taken and the question of rites arose again. The Mozarabic Christians, who had many churches in Toledo and no doubt in the country as well, resisted the change. This time another form of ordeal was tried. The two books were thrown into a fire. By the time the Roman book was consumed, the Toledan was little damaged. No one who has seen a Mozarabic manuscript with its extraordinarily solid vellum, will adopt any hypothesis of Divine Interposition here.
- --Error 01:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Are you sure that Mozarabs suffered so much in Al-Andalus? As far as I know, they were tolerated as dhimmis. In specific occassions they were persecuted, but not in the beginning, unless they provoked. (There are cases of priests blasphemying against Muhammad looking for martyry as a prophetic call to those Mozarabs that got too close to Islam). --Error 01:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- What I've usually heard is that it varied. The Umayyads were generally okay to Christians. Or in least as tolerant as anyone back then was to any non-establishment religion. Some Umayyad rulers were better than others and reverting to Christianity after converting to Islam was cause for execution as an apostate. Later I think things declined with the coming of the Almoravides and then eroded further with the Almohads. The article as written doesn't quite make that clear and sort of treats the Islamic period as sort of just all the same.--T. Anthony 11:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- The opinion expressed that religious natives were treated exceptionally harshly, and that "Islamic rule is normally more systematic than Christianity at placing other faiths in an inferior political position" flies in the face of almost every comparative analysis of ancient occupying traditions that I have seen. The Ummayyads were far from altruistic, but their tendency toward ill-treatment of their subjects pales in comparison to the treatment of non-catholics in the post-Islamic period, or even Christian minorities in other Christian dominions. This is a totalizing evaluation, and would need much more stastical support in order to challenge the conventional view of Mozarabic life.--User:David 9:29, 26 May 2006
- I was actually toning it down from what it was before. I think it is fair to say Islam more clearly has a political status in mind for non-Muslims and that status is inferior. Christianity didn't have any political power for its first two to three centuries so the persecutions by Christian kingdoms more evolved from historic events. Muhammad held political office in his lifetime and so had rules from fairly early on about non-Muslims. In many cases this made Islam more tolerant than Christianity of the same era. Still in a way I think it is fair to say they were more systematic to non-believers in that they had an actual system.--T. Anthony 03:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure that the rite has parts in Arabic? The usual tongues of Mozarabs and Muladis would be Mozarab languages. Arabic was a language of culture, but I doubt that they would hold mass in it. The linked Catholic Encyclopedia article has quotes in Latin and Greek but no Arabic. --Error 01:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Can you explain this? The most precise use of the term "Mozarabic rite" is for that liturgy followed by the Spanish who submitted to Islamic rule. St. Isidore of Seville (d. 636),' who was influential at the Fourth Council of Toledo 633, according to the wishes of that Council, gave the Mozarabic rite its final form before the invasion of the Muslims.'
How can be a Mozarabic rite without the Arabic influence? How can a rite be called Mozarabic (633?) before the invasions of the Moors and the Sirians (ca. 750)? Is there something going on with the date?
- The name "Mozarabic" came later. It was also named "Hispanic". --Error 20:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- Isn't "Hispanic" an American coined term, a bastardization of "Hispano" ... derived from the Latin "Hispanum" used to describe the Iberian Penensula and its cultural regions, therefore should the term "Hispanic" be deleted for the term "Hispano" instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 06:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Widely reputed to be spiritually fulfilling?
Huh? That's really surprising for a religious practice. Let's try giving just a little more editorial content and judgment in the first paragraph of an "objective" entry! Maybe we should put that same comment in as boilerplate for all religious articles!
- I also find the statement rather un-encyclopedic. Could we at least have a source for it? Failing that, perhaps it would be best to remove it. Adso de Fimnu 17:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I concur. Could it be rephrased with exactly WHO had the opinion that it's "liturgy is particularly apt as a spiritual defense during Islamic rule, and is widely reputed to be spiritually fulfilling." Reverend Mommy 02:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)candlemb
Can someone verify the statement about Mary as a "co-redemptrix"? I'm not sure that use of that term is theologically correct in this context. Majoreditor 22:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
More information about the liturgy?
I come from a completely non-Catholic church background, and am interested in the rite and liturgy that supposed to be discussed in this article, however, after reading it I have no clear picture whatsoever of what a typical liturgical meeting would look like. Perhaps some more examples, or at least some further reading links? Batman080580 21:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's a great idea. I would also like to see a little of the history of the rite with examples as it developed of what the elements looked like. Reverend Mommy 02:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb
Having read the piece myself, I'd like to also get more detail on how Anglicans were studying the Mozarabic rite, and sources if any. Renpaul 13:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Is it in Arabic?
Is there not a mass celebrated in Arabic in Toledo?
Words of institution
The text says: "...though the Roman was included in the footnotes and was the one used in actual practice (the new Missal contains the Roman words of institution within the text itself)." As far as I know, the new Missal restituted the Mozarabic words of institution not those of the Roman Missal, it says: "Accípite et manducáte: Hoc est Corpus meum quod pro vobis tradétur. Quotiescúmque manducavéritis, hoc fácite in meam commemoratiónem." and: "Hic est calix novi testaménti in meo Sánguine qui pro vobis et pro multis effundétur in remissiónem peccatórum. Quotiescúmque bibéritis, hoc fácite in meam commemoratiónem." Maybe that passage should be rewritten to clarify.--DaniloVilicic (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I concur to the usefulness of a skeletal outline of the Rite itself; either a link to a site with the full rite spelled out (there must be one somewhere) or a short outline (Introit...Gradual...etc.) with a brief note as to the similarities and differences with Roman and Gallican. (Ditto Unites, etc.)
Also, the main lacuna is any mention at all of 'los seises' the dance observed twice per year at Toledo and Seville under this rite. See Lynn Matluck Brooks' book, pp. 93 et passim, for the references to this; the documentation begins with the re-establisment of the rite under Cardinal Cesneros in 1504.Dellaroux (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)