Talk:Anglo-Catholicism/Archive 1

BVM
I changed a reference to the Virgin Mary. While she is prayed to as 'Blessed Mary, ever virgin', that is not her formal title. It is in fact the 'Blessed Virgin Mary' (BVM) or the Virgin Mary. JTD 07:22 Dec 24, 2002 (UTC)

"High Church"
I see that High Church is simply a redirect to this page. Not my religion, and I don't claim expertise, but I've always been under the impression that, while Anglo-Catholics are necessarily High Church, one can be High Church without being an Anglo-Catholic. Can someone with more expertise clarify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmabel (talk • contribs) 07:14, 27 June 2004 (UTC)


 * The Oxford Movement which ave birth to Anglo-Catholicism itself grew out of the High Church movement, which pre-dated it. They were conservative in politics and against emotion in worship, hence gaining the name "High and Dry." Indeed many High Churchmen were appalled at the enthusiasm shown by the young Tractarians, Newman and Froude. Of course the High Church article now links to the High church article. MnJWalker —Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Ascension and St Agnes
What is so special about this parish? If we're going to have a link to it in this article, why not link to the hundreds of other Anglo-Catholic parishes in the world as well? -- Claudine 05:44, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anglo-Catholic Central
Okay, the contention is that Anglo-Catholic Central is too exclusive to the conservative, Forward in Faith-style of Anglo-Catholicism. However, I put the link there in the first place, and I am definitely of the Affirming Catholicism school of Anglicanism. The reason for the link was that a number of people were cluttering the External links with hyperlinks to skillions of different individual Anglo-Catholic parishes, and ACC provides, to my knowledge, the most comprehensive directory. So basically, instead of having links to fifteen different parishes, we could link to one directory of many more than that. The reasoning for this was elucidated in the conversation above between myself and EconomistUK, under the heading "Links". Please discuss. Carolynparrishfan 13:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why or why not Anglo-Catholic Central lists or does not list certain parishes that are in the Anglo-Catholic tradition, but I think a more genuine link would be one that lists all Anglo-Catholic parishes. To me, it would be the Anglican thing to do. I have seen other posts in Wikipedia with numerous links, with no custodian cleaning things up for them. I suppose that we who, like the ECUSA and the Anglican Church in Canada, are welcome to come but are told to be quiet just have to do so. I hope that people who go to the parishes allowed to be named in Anglo-Catholic Central will some day visit my parish, one not deemed worthy to be named, yet focused on the Lord's vision of justice, and joyfully Anglo-Catholic Thurifer 19:54 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Merge
shouldn't Anglican Catholic Church be merged here? Sam Spade 19:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really. The Anglican Catholic Church is a denomination which formed in protest to the ordination of women in the Episcopal Church/Anglican Communion.  Anglo-Catholicism is a movement with a primarily liturgical and theological focus; there are many Anglo-Catholics and Anglo-Catholic parishes within the Anglican and Episcopal Churches, who do not support further schism.  In addition, many Anglo-Catholic churches are quite politically liberal; I attend an Anglo-Catholic church with several female priests and a Gay Christians Reading Group, neither of which (I think) would be welcome in an Anglican Catholic parish. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok! I'll have to be careful then. Is there a page which discusses these distinctions at length? Sam Spade 09:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure, actually; my response above is based mostly on my knowledge of Anglo-Catholicism and the Anglican Catholic Church page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Upon reflection, though, there probably should be a link in the "see also" section. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Links to Ritualism
User:Pgg7 has, along with many useful contributions to this article, been linking a number of terms and phrases to ritualism. I think it's sufficient to have one explicit link within the article and a mention in the "see also" section, but perhaps we should open the discussion to other opinions. I don't see the advantage in linking "worship and ceremonial" or "despite the opposition of the press and of the Government" to ritualism, but perhaps that's just me. What do other people think? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Not only do I think its disadventageous, such links smack of POV-ness, since "ritualism" is a somewhat perjorative name for Catholic ceremonial. Fishhead64 03:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The Mass and the priesthood
The article presently says "Anglicans share with Roman Catholics a belief in the sacramental nature of the priesthood, the sacrificial character of the Mass, and the Real Presence in the Eucharist, but Anglo-Catholics lay great stress on these points to counter the tendency of Evangelicals to try to promote ideas such as lay presidency at the Eucharist".

This is misleading and wrong. The belief in the sacrifice of the Mass is not a belief of middle-of-the-road Anglicanism. The belief is specifically denied in the 39 articles and was unknown in Anglicanism until the Oxford Movement - Newman writes in his "Apologia" of a well-meaning typical Anglican who wrote a letter to correct Newman's use of the phrase "Sacrifice of the Eucharist" in a tract, which he assumed must have been a printing error in place of "Sacrament of the Eucharist". As for the sacramental priesthood and the Real Presence (in any Catholic sense), one cannot say that these are accepted Anglican teachings. The large Evangelical party in the Anglican church has never accepted either of them (and indeed the original reformers reduced the sacraments to two (Baptism and the Lord's Supper) on the model of the Continental Reformation). I am a Roman Catholic from Sydney and you would be hard-pressed to find an Anglican here in this Low church city who would believe any of these things. The article gives a false impression by presenting these doctrines as ordinary Anglican doctrines which the Anglo-Catholics merely put more emphasis on - rather, in large part they are doctrines held only by the Anglo-Catholic party in the Anglican church. This seems to me rather obvious bias to prop up the Anglo-Catholic position that the Church of England can be considered a branch of the Catholic Church (justifying their own existence within it) rather than as essentially Protestant. (User: Casaubon) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casaubon~enwiki (talk • contribs) 14:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I have altered the section in question. (User: Casuabon). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casaubon~enwiki (talk • contribs) 14:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Links to Affirming Catholicism
In the name of comepleteness, I added the links in the "See also" section to Affirming Catholicism and Society of Catholic Priests. These links were removed. I've readded them once again. I'm not trying to be political, just complete. Javasmith 15:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Anglicanism
A new WikiProject focussing on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion has just been initiated: WikiProject Anglicanism. Our goal is to improve and expand Anglican-reltaed articles. If anyone (Anglican or non-Anglican) is interested, read over the project page and consider signing up. Cheers! Fishhead64 06:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph on Anglo Papalists
This states that "A minority of Anglo-Catholics (sometimes called Anglo-Papalists) consider themselves under Papal supremacy.." and that "A significant portion of Britain's present Roman Catholics are former Anglicans or their descendants." I do not think that the second sentence is meaningful or belongs with the first. A significant portion of Roman Catholics in Britain will descended from former Anglicans but whether those former Anglicans were originally Anglo Papalists is questionable. The paragraph seems to suggest that the Catholic church in England contains a large number of people who were, or whose familise were, originally Anglo-Papalists. This seems unlikely. Is there a citation for this?

Unless there are any objections, I am goint to remove this sentence. Glow worm64 19:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted it. Glow worm64 11:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Links
I removed some external links because they were related to links already in the article Anglican devotional society. To also simplify the problem of having lists of anglo-catholic parishes on this article I have created List of Anglo-Catholic Churches.--Lord Balin 13:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Cut
This material was deleted by an anon. IP. I am uncertain if it should be restored or not:

The Liturgical Movement, ignited by Anglican divine Dom Gregory Dix with his book, The Shape of the Liturgy shaped the sweeping simplifications and standardizations in liturgical practice of the Roman Catholic Church after Vatican II, as well as of the churches in the Lutheran World Federation and the Old Catholic Churches of the Union of Utrecht and the Independent Catholic Churches derived from them. What little distinction is left in the Western liturgy has to do with the Anglican recourse to the customary of the Sarum Rite.

-- SECisek 21:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That was probably a good cut. Some of those statements aren't factually correct, and even if they were, they probably don't belong in an article about Anglo-Catholicism. Dgf32 19:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Links
Can I suggest we cut down the number of parish links on this page - Wikipedia is not a link repository and the list is almost getting longer than the article. EconomistUK 09:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I have deleted all the links but Project Canterbury, and put in a link to Anglo-Catholic Central which has an extensive, if not exhaustive, listing of Anglo-Catholic parishes, religious orders, and devotional societies. Carolynparrishfan 17:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That's much better. EconomistUK 17:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Should there be any links to the Continuing Anglicans in an article about "Anglo-Catholicism"? Perhaps this should be removed as it seems a wider link than the article intended?Spiorad (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Papist
I removed a gratuitous reference to "papist doctrine." That term is the moral equivalent of the N-Word. That Anglicans are still using this term is disgraceful.EastmeetsWest (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It was in quotes, and I think deliberately so. I certainly haven't heard any Anglicans use the word "Papist", except perhaps as a joke. You will hear "Anglo-Papalist" (non-pejorative) used for a certain stream of Anglo-Catholicism (q.v.) but it's a specific technical term. Comparing it to the N-word, however, would overstate your case. (I certainly would never use the n-word under any circumstances, but I might jokingly refer to myself as "papist"). Carolynparrishfan (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Pope Benedict
Many Anglo-Catholics are hopeful that with the recent election of Pope Benedict XVI new chances of reunion with the Holy See may be made possible, since Pope Benedict appears to share the same sense of unity as the late Pope John Paul II.

This surely is POV? Many also don't or don't care or don't think Benedict can deliver the goods. Gerry Lynch 18:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It was even more POV before I tried to tone it down; but upon reflection I don't think it needs to be in the article at all. Anyone disagree? --Josiah Rowe 23:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Right. Out it goes. &mdash;Josiah Rowe 14:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

It might be POV but there seems to some truth to it none the less.. remember reading something about it in Irish Press a while ago and got this by googling  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.188.151 (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Succession
The article states "Today, however, all Anglican bishops have been consecrated in succession with Old Catholic or Orthodox episcopal lines..."

I dispute the factual accuracy of this statement. I have added the "citation needed" tag. While I cannot "prove a negative" that all Anglican bishops have not been so consecrated, I have consulted several Anglican priests (no bishops, sorry) and none of them have heard of this. Unless someone can supply a citation, I will remove this and related sentences.

In addition, the lack of valid succession is not the only historical reason that the Roman Catholic church has regarded Anglican Orders as invalid; the view of the priesthood and Eucharist is also fundamentally different.

Chevalier3 (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The offending sentence is still there. Shall I remove it, or is there consensus to keep it? Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"laxity in theology" Should to be Changed to "unorthodox practices"
In the first sentance of the third paragraph, under the heading "Background," the words used are "laxity of theology." Despite the aukwardness of the sentance structure, I do not believe this is how Catholics, Orthodox, or "High Church" Anglicans would describe the state of things described in this article. What the author is trying to convey is the situation where some members are displeased with the Anglican church, at large, over situations like the admission of women and openly homosexual persons to major orders, the admission of married men into the episcopal ranks, acceptance of contraception, etc.

These are not situations where the "theology is lax," meaning none of this is addressed, specifically, in any of the four Gospels. These situations are instead unorthodox, in that they have never been acceptable by any particular (orthodox and catholic) church until the 20th century. The most broad view of what is "orthodox" is what is found in the Gospels, the Pauline letters, and the traditions of the early church. Theology, on the other hand, is what is found within The Word itself and, to a lesser extent, how it is explained by the Church Fathers, including The Acts and the Letters.

I make this point because Protestants, by and large, focus on "The Word," and how this is something a particular person understands and acts on. (In the prior sentance, "Protestant" focusses largely on particular churches without any espiscopal tradition, such as those among the evangelical movement, and not necessarily those in the Anglican and Lutheran movement, per se.) This entire orientation is entirely unorthodox in its nature, since it has no regard to the traditions and teachings of any church.

Hence, my discertation concerning how to describe the actions of the Anglican Church as "unorthodox" and not lax in their theology. Tear me apart, people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.82.125 (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"branch" of the universal Catholic Church
The article says: "The theological basis of Anglo-Catholicism - that the Anglican Church is a "branch" of the universal Catholic Church, with valid bishops, priests sacraments - has never been accepted by the other two putative branches of the Church, the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, since each claims that it itself is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church". However, don't RCC and EOC reognise that their respective bishops, priests and sacraments ARE valid? And so, do they not reciprocally recognise themselves as "branch" of the universal Church, their position toward the Anglican Church being quite different? To say that "each claims that it itself is the One" is so not entirely correct in that specific context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.168.72.28 (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You are misataken, the article is correct. The EOC does NOT recognize the RCC bishops, priests and sacraments as being any more or less than those of the Anglican Church. A convert from the RCC is treated exactly the same as convert from Anglicansim. -- Secisek (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

But aren't you Protestants?

 * Mumford152 mistakenly added the following comments into the article itself, and Fremte correctly removed them at this edit. I thought they should be copied here. Moonraker2 (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

But aren't you Protestants? The terms 'Protestant' and 'Catholic' are often used and very often misunderstood!

Firstly one must understand that to be 'Catholic' one doesn't necessarily have to be 'Roman' Catholic despite what some in the Roman Church may claim. The Orthodox Churches of the East and in other places are Catholic Churches but not in communion with the Pope. The term protestant is equally often misunderstood.

The Catholic Church of England separated from the Roman Catholic Church during the sixteenth century. However, although a Protestant Reformation was taking place on the Continent the English Reformation was fundamentally different in nature and intention. Primarily the reasons for its formation were political. King Henry VIII, whilst wanting to be independent of Rome, was not a Protestant in intention, although his reasons for separation were not especially honourable.

Of course there are Anglicans who have wanted to be Protestant (in the way that continental reformers meant), just as there are Anglicans who want complete union with Rome. However, the Church of England was not formed in the same way as the Continental Protestant Churches. The Continental Reformation was primarily German, under the leadership of Martin Luther; French, under John Calvin and Swiss, under Ulrich Zwingli. The Continental Reformers accepted the principle called Sola Scriptura, that is, Scripture alone as the basis for faith and practice. However, the English Reformers appealed to Scripture as interpreted by the ancient Church, especially through the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church. The Continental Reformers also almost unanimously rejected or dropped the principle of apostolic succession. That is, bishops, by virtue of their consecration, being successors of the apostles, tracing a straight link back to them through history. But the English Reformation retained apostolic succession.

Since the Continental Reformers rejected the apostolic succession of bishops and indeed developed a different understanding of the priesthood, they lost a 'valid' ordained priesthood. But at the English Reformation, the Church of England deliberately retained the title 'priest', because it contained a real truth and intention. Christ is the perfect priest. The Church is His body. The organ of a priestly body cannot be less than priestly.

The Church of England maintained its apostolic ministry of bishops, priests and deacons. Its form of worship, though translated into English and somewhat reformed, nonetheless stood in continuity with the Church's historical worship. The goal of the English Reformation was to reform the practice of the Church and return to the ancient and Catholic faith of the Undivided Church. Mumford152 (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"Anglo-Papists"?!
The article currently says


 * Anglo-Papists (those Anglicans who had been seeking union with Rome as Anglican Catholics) and other separated Christians were invited into unity with the Holy See…

This is supposed to say Anglo-Papalists, isn't it? Marnanel (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The recent attempt at a cleanup
I've reverted this change:. It changed


 * The terms Anglo-Catholic, Anglican Catholic and Catholic Anglican describe people, beliefs and practices within Anglicanism which affirm the Catholic heritage and identity of the various Anglican churches, rather than the churches' Protestant heritage.

to


 * The terms Anglo-Catholic, Anglican Catholic, and Catholic Anglican describe people, beliefs, and practices within Anglicanism that affirm the Catholic, rather than the churches' Protestant, heritage and identity of the various Anglican churches.

So "the churches'" is now within the comparison, which means that the Anglican churches are inherently Protestant and the A-Cs are an exception. This is a change to the meaning of the text and not a cleanup.

In addition, please don't switch "which" and "that": that's an American English hangup and this article is written in UK English. Marnanel (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Marnanel. Thanks for the note left on my user talk page. I'm not sure what you mean by "which" and "that" being an "American English hangup"; but, using British and Commonwealth English, I don't (consciously) use American English.


 * I'm going to edit the page to direct links to the University of Oxford. Thanks for your understanding (in advance). --Qwerty Binary (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Arguing in the text?
Removed The eastward position is, however, no longer the standard Anglo-Catholic practice in most countries. (or, rather, revivals of dormant practices) As both points are merely trying to turn an article into an inline argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.138.35.25 (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

T. S. Eliot
T.S. Eliot is often mentioned as an Anglo-Catholic. Should he be mentioned here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.89.140.11 (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Catholic Church naming conventions RfC
There is currently an RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Catholic_Church) that may be of interest. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 23:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Mystifying
This article is mystifying. As a person who reads it as one would read any encyclopedia article - to obtain a précis understanding of a subject - I come away with few questions answered and more posed. How do these people get off, after not only the Dissolution of the Monasteries and the creation of the Church of England but also after the hideous long-distance spectacle of the Thirty Years War? And then, the Glorious Revolution and so forth? What's the point of maintaining a "state religion" if the state can't dictate to the local Pooh-Bahs in their C of E cathedrals, in no uncertain terms, what's what and who's in charge, already? I.e., that it's NOT the Bishop of Rome? I mean, British people can (for a long time, now) sign up with the actual Roman Catholic Church and attend their services in quite nice buildings all over the U.K. without getting dragged into the street and burned or anything. Why must they instead romp around in the Anglican Communion declaiming in Latin, and so forth? Please explain, for the sake of the article.

The institutions and enterprises of religion are puzzling enough. Religious people on the other hand seem always to be true cyphers. Rt3368 (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)