Talk:Catholic Church in England and Wales

Numbers
You know... I'd really love to know how big is the Catholic community in England. This Subject was discussed for hours in the bar I work. We have quite of a few English people as custumers and that was disagreement when the conversation came to catholics and protestants in england. If anyone could help me with statiscs and other stuff I would be very glad. Thank you for the attention.


 * Perhaps this website would help . Bonus bon 15:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The third paragraph begins "In the last UK census in 2001, there were 4.2 million Catholics in England and Wales, some 8 per cent of the population. ... The percentage of Catholics was at its highest in the 1981 census, with 8.7 per cent." This statement makes no sense: a question on religion appeared on the census for the first time in 2001, and in England and Wales the only relevant option was 'Christian'. No data on Catholic numbers are available from the census (except in Scotland and Northern Ireland).

'Roman Catholic'
If no-one objects, I will move this page to 'Catholic Church in England and Wales' instead, because the Church in Eng. and Wales never calls herself 'Roman Catholic' - | c.f. official Church website - because this neglects the fact that the Eastern Catholic Apostolic Exarchate for Ukrainians exists. Ghfj007 16:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As a Ukrainian Eastern Catholic, I very much agree with you :) ASN1988 15:28, 24 March 2007
 * It was moved back to reflect common practice here at WP. --Secisek (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I very much object to be called a 'Roman' Catholic. Wikipedia wouldn't accept terms of abuse being used for other groups, so I see no valid reason why it should be though acceptable here. The main article on the Church is now called, correctly, the Catholic Church with a reference to usage of the term 'Roman Catholic, which should apply here as well, unless there is a valid reason why you should be allowed to offend. 90.193.97.18 (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Given that the main article has been renamed from "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church" should this one not follow suit? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I do object. If this article were moved to Catholicism in England and Wales, then it would need to cover all forms of Catholicism in England and Wales, including Anglo-Catholicism, losing its obviously intended focus on the principal Catholic Church.
 * Wikipedia now has its article on what Encyclopedia Britannica calls the Roman Catholic Church at Catholic Church, but I can see no argument for that article to be written in British English, whereas this one should be. There is nothing abusive in "Roman Catholic", a term which is sometimes used by the church itself and which among other things recognizes that there can be claims of catholicity outside the principal Catholic Church. For instance, the Church of England still considers itself to be a Catholic church and thus uses the Nicene Creed in its liturgy, referring to "one holy, catholic, and apostolic church" (the four Marks of the Church). Users here may or may not agree with the Anglican point of view, and Roman Catholics generally don't, as most of them believe the word 'Catholic' belongs to them and no one else, but it seems to me that good encyclopedic practice should be more about recognizing what is standard academic English in the UK than about where the doctrinal correctness lies. Moonraker2 (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Please add more info on medieval time
There is pretty much nothing at all on the time between the original missionaries and the age of Henry VIII. Surely there were some Church-related events during these times? -- 85.183.208.42 11:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've started adding some things on monasteries. Angelamaher 11:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Error on the page
There is a mistake on the part concerning the Tudor Era...The article says that the reign of Mary I lasted from 1553 to 1559, but later it's written "Elizabeth I became Queen in 1558". Now I can't edit the page from this computer, but I thought I'd just let you know because I'll probaby forget because I don't have internet access from my dorm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.23.114.250 (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not very NPOV
I think this article might need clean-up to make it more neutral. I've made an attempt on the section dealing with the Tudors to add some sources and make the language less inflammatory. Angelamaher 11:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I also think that it needs to be more neutral in the section dealing with the revolution of 1688. Given the number of anti-Catholic riots at the time, it seems implicit that the population was generally not in favour of Catholics, i.e. the 'Protestants' were in effect the vast majority of the population. Angelamaher 16:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to make the bit covering the "reformation" period a little less POV - while trying VERY hard to avoid going the other way. An encyclopedia article must try to be fair and neutral - this is no place for an official church line (either way)! Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The whole article reeks of the worst kind of pompously written contentious polemical POV comments and assertions. Although I would like to spend time addressing this problem I expect that more ideologically fanatical editors would only revert things without any attempt to discuss or justify this and insist on their own POVs as the only acceptable ones. This article does absolutely no credit to the subject matter as it currently stands. Afterwriting (talk) 08:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Try and address content issues rather than hurling abuse at other editors. As far as I can see you edits this morning were taking an anglo-catholic stance in several areas and ignoring some key historical facts.   I could be wrong, but you need to make the case here.  --Snowded (talk) 08:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Key historical facts"? Is this some kind of joke?  This is one of the worst POV articles that I've ever come across.  What is the point of my trying to "make the case here" when blatantly POV editors insist on phrasing things in unecessarily contentious and polemical ways?  Do you really think this is acceptable?  I'm not going to waste my time and energies trying to deal with the multiple POV issues of this so-called "article". Afterwriting (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (I indented your comment for you). If you think its a bad article then list what you think is wrong, other editors will support you if you properly address content issues.  Simply asserting that something is POV without saying why helps no one.  --Snowded (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ...Which is why I don't get anywhere when I have edited certain articles as of late. My accusers paint a broad brush to smear and spackle me in (so I have no room but to fall into their trap, cornering me by cooperative bullying), always changing their cause for disrupting my edits, but don't get to the heart of the matter (dancing about, beating around the bush), only to make ad hominem attempts in controlling my input, because "I am a wrong person".  How fine is it to see you feel this way about how to hand issues with this article, Snowded, although in truth, such a noble approach could have averted much argument, providing more energy and space for debate on different editors' parts, with respect to British Isles.  Mayhap it occur to you, to avoid what happened earlier, if at any future time, some misunderstanding may arise, in which I am involved and you be a witness to it.  I find it insulting that for all of my interest in an article and calling for people to back off from one another, I am bashed to avoid the specifics I addressed most poignantly.  It is as though, there is nothing but waste and loss, for all the efforts.  Sink or swim, it makes no difference, when some people act the way they do around me.  Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

RCism in Wales
This article doesn't have much information regarding the RC Church in Wales, at least in recent times. Why was it felt necessary to have an omnibus "England and Wales" article in the first place? aliceinlampyland (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Because the Church organises on the basis of the legal entity England and Wales. Also there are hardly any Catholics at all in Wales, only a couple of thousand and most of them are either English or Irish immigrants. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry! There ARE said to be some 43,000 Roman Catholics in Wales. Most of us ARE Welsh! How insulting to presume we are recent "immigrants". Some are indeed English or of Irish origin, if that should matter, but NOT the vast majority. Such people often identify as Welsh, second generation. Only our British nationality is defined in law! I am really angry to read this rubbish! There are said, in this very article, to be over 27,000 in the Mineva Diocese alone. Do the numbers!?


 * The Catholic Encyclopedia gives the number as 150,000. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15532a.htm Tigerboy1966 (talk) 10:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Problems with the article
The article is quite flawed in parts and seems to have been written by Anglicans (?) who do not seem to have much understanding of Catholicism. There are also contradictions: The intro tells the story of the "Celtic Church" and the "Roman Church" in terms of the Anglican understanding (the "Celtic Church" as "independent" from Rome), while the actual paragraph discussing this topic is written from a more Catholic (and, in my view, also more historically accurate) perspective. The part on mediaeval Catholicism in England is extremely superficial. It should be expanded and amended. Lumendelumine (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Typo?
From the section "The Catholic Revival in the Nineteenth Century", it says, "In the few cases where a Catholic diocese bears the same title as an Anglican one in the same town or city (e.g. Birmingham, Liverpool, Portsmouth, and Southwark) — this is the result of the Church of England ignoring the prior existence there of a Catholic see."

I'm assuming the last word is a typo since it doesn't make sense. Was it supposed to say seat? That would make more sense, but in that case, I think the sentence should be restructured to better help people understand what "seat" means (i.e. people with no background knowledge of the Catholic church). Killiondude (talk) 06:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not, in fact a typo. It is the correct term for the area in which a bishop serves. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopal_see "An episcopal see is, in the usual meaning of the phrase, the area of a bishop's ecclesiastical jurisdiction." Perhaps a link would make that more obvious, though.151.170.240.200 (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Poles having their own section
I don't believe they are significant enough to have one. There are many nationalities which have made Catholicism a presence in England, but the only ones to have a really significant impact, have been the natives, Irish and perhaps the French, because of the Norman connection. Even the Irish and French influence was not exactly the same as Catholicism, because of the Orangists and Huguenots. Poles, Lebanese, Italians, Spaniards, etc...have all been rather minor influences upon English attachment to the RCC. Catterick (talk) 03:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess they will be significant enough when the 2011 census shows an increase of 0.5m in the number of Roman Catholics living in the UK? --BozMo talk 11:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Date of establishment
Prattlement seems to want to date to establishment of Catholicism in England and Wales to 597, the time of the Gregorian mission. As the article demonstrates later on this is just plain false. Catholicism (or Western Christianity in communion with the Bishop of Rome) was established in Britain from the first centuries AD. The claim that Catholicism did not begin in Britain until that point, and that the Christianity that had been flourishing there for centuries was some "other" kind of Christianity, has been a popular trope since at least Henry VII, but it is not historically accurate. As such, the date needs to stay out of the intro, lest the article give contradictory and misleading information.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Prattlement, please see WP:PRIMARY regarding this issue (also, please forgive me if my tone came across as a bit harsh, that was not my intention at all!) You seem to be trying to take quotes from individual Church leaders and use them to back up a statement that "church leadership" believes the RCC began in England and Wales with the Gregorian mission. However, primary sources can't be used for this kind of interpretation; you'd have to find a secondary source that makes that specific claim to use as a source. Moreover, most of the quotes don't even mention the establishment of the church. Even if you did find a source, I'd challenge it, since the article demonstrates down below that Christianity had been established in Britain for centuries before Gregory ever came. Please respond here before editing that part of the article again.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There were earlier problems with the same author on Anti-Catholicism, it may be time for less charity and a 3RR report. --Snowded (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is never time for "less charity" Mr. Snowded! Gavin (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * there are times for the Church Militant ... --Snowded (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes militancy is the most convenient form of Charity though- do you not think? Gavin (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Now you are talking, Albigensian crusade methods maybe? the Lord will look after his own .... --Snowded (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Copy from Snowded page
Puzzled by your edit summary of "not sure excommunication means communion was broken"? When you excommunicate the head of a church doesn't it de facto break communion with the church? Or is there some subtlety I haven't spotted... the period when the C of E and C of R were back in communion is 1555 to 1570 surely? I agreed that the Pope declaring ELizabeth's reign illegal because of his view of her illegitimacy implies the relationship wasn't rosy but... "Briefly" surely isn't factual anyway it is to try to imply the reunion wasn't "proper", which breaks WP:POINT even though it is verbatim copied from "Catholicism for Dummies" (which seems to be an uncited source for other bits too?) --BozMo talk 20:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a bit cyptic. My point was that other monarchs had been excommunicated so that was not the point at which the Anlican Church became "other".  In practice James achieved that before Mary with the 39 articles.  Mary was a temporary reversion -- Snowded  TALK 20:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Both Statutes of Repeal were worded as definitive and revoked previous legislation definitively. It is therefore very hard in fact to argue that their nature was temporary, although they failed to endure certainly. Furthermore the reunion with Roman was recognised by Rome in 1554 (when Cardinal Pole was sent) and I am pretty sure that was worded as definitive by Rome as well. When you trace backwards from the current broken communion the last time the Roman and Canterbury branches were in communion was 1570, when they had been . That was therefore the definitive break. Saying that anything prior to that was "temporary" or "brief" is arbitrary, you could equally argue that Henry's break was temporary and that Elizabeth's break was definitive. --BozMo talk 09:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that is a more elaborate version and something along those lines is fine. The wording I objected to was the "excommunication so ...."  -- Snowded  TALK 10:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. Are you happy if I move this to the relevant talk page? That is probably the right place to propose some wording. --BozMo talk 10:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea -- Snowded TALK 10:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Question about Irish influx
Neither reference seems to support the text that: "this is primarily due to the large influx of British Irish after the 1800 Act of Union, in which Ireland became part of the newly-created United Kingdom.[6][7]" and I was taught at school that the main influx was a the time of the Great Famine (Ireland) which seems in line with Great_Irish_Famine although leaving Ireland obviously does not equate to settling in England. --BozMo talk 15:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"Celtic flavor"?
"thousands of Irish also migrated across the channel to England and Scotland (never leaving their country), and established communities in cities there, including London, Liverpool, and Glasgow, but also in towns and villages up and down the country, thus giving English Catholicism a Celtic flavor and a huge numerical boost."

Does that not need further explanation? Because asides from not really knowing what a Celtic flavour is - it's a bit vague, I'm not sure as a reader whether it is a reference to the Irish culture the immigrants would have had (in which case I don't see its relevance), or whether it implies that Irish Catholics brought unique practises or beliefs over which previously weren't already part of the Catholic Church in England.

Elizabeth I Persecutions
The article states that: "Elizabeth didn't believe that her anti-Catholic policies constituted religious persecution, finding it hard to distinguish between those Catholics engaged in conflict with her from those Catholics with no such designs." This seems rather confusing and biased, knowing that she sentenced to death Catholics who recognize her as the legitimate queen of England. Read the article about Edmund Campion.82.154.83.224 (talk) 15:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Move to "Catholic Church in England and Wales"
I strongly object. Such a move was discussed above and not agreed. Please return the page to where it was - any such move should be agreed on the Talk page first. The Roman Catholic church is not the whole Catholic church in England and Wales, and I find it surprising that anyone should seek to monopolize the word 'Catholic'. Moonraker2 (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is the result of a well-considered discussion at the main page, which resulted in the move from Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church. It's now percolating its way down through the related articles. For what it's worth the discussion revolved mostly around what usage was the most typical in reliable sources, and the general consensus was that the best title for the article on churches in communion with the Holy See is "Catholic Church". I don't have a strong opinion, though I can say I'm Catholic, and "Roman Catholic" is not a term we normally use.--Cúchullain t/ c 03:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As Cuchullain says, the reason I moved the page is to standardise usage with the main wikipage which is now called Catholic Church. You could argue that should be called RCC but given the Church describes itself as the CC - and the Church here as the CC in England and Wales - I see no basis for doing so.Haldraper (talk) 09:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your replies. Please consider carefully what I said in the discussion above: "Wikipedia now has its article on what Encyclopedia Britannica calls the Roman Catholic Church at Catholic Church, but I can see no argument for that article to be written in British English, whereas this one should be. There is nothing abusive in "Roman Catholic", a term which is sometimes used by the church itself and which among other things recognizes that there can be claims of catholicity outside the principal Catholic Church. For instance, the Church of England still considers itself to be a Catholic church and thus uses the Nicene Creed in its liturgy, referring to "one holy, catholic, and apostolic church" (the four Marks of the Church). Users here may or may not agree with the Anglican point of view, and Roman Catholics generally don't, as most of them believe the word 'Catholic' belongs to them and to no one else, but it seems to me that good encyclopedic practice should be more about recognizing what is standard academic English in the UK than about where the doctrinal correctness lies." Moonraker2 (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In reply to "given the Church describes itself as the CC": the church sometimes calls itself that, but sometimes it uses "Roman Catholic Church", especially when in ecumenical dialogue with others. Please see also Names of the Catholic Church#Other examples of papal use of the name Roman Catholic Church. Moonraker2 (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your arguments are well reasoned, but this is really a matter of common use. Are you saying that when people in Britain speak of the "Catholic Church", they typically mean something besides the one in communion with the Pope? That doesn't seem very likely. I think it's a bit on the pedantic side to say that the title is inappropriate just because other churches claim catholicity; it's the most typical form and is unlikely to be misunderstood. Lots of churches claim orthodoxy, but when you say "the Orthodox Church", folks know which one you mean.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Unless there are good reasons otherwise, Wikipedia uses the labels organisations most commonly use to describe themselves, hence Church of England and Catholic Church. Further issues - the Church of England's claim to catholicity, the application by some of the label Roman to the Catholic Church etc. - should be discussed (as indeed they already are) on their respective pages.Haldraper (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

John Bossy and Hugh Aveling
The article as it stands appears to be very one-sided; for example in that it refers extensively to Duffy; and not at all to Bossy; especially his "English Catholic Community 1570-1850". Should it not be made clear that those who argue an essential continuity between the medieval catholic English Church and the current Catholic Church in England and Wales are by no means representative of the full range of Catholic Historical debate? TomHennell (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You are right, of course. Even this article's title is misleading - in my view it represents the low-brow nature of Wikipedia. Neither the medieval nor the contemporary church of Rome represents the whole of the Catholic church (see Four Marks of the Church), and while I understand the Roman Catholic Church's own claims on the matter, they should not be endorsed by a secular encyclopaedia. Moonraker2 (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In that case, I shall see whether I can locate my copy of Bossy and undertake the neccessary edits. However, the point I am suggesting is not quite that which you put forward.  There may a place for a debate about 'Catholicity' outside of the Roman communion, but this article isn't the place.  The question here concerns the nature of the post-Reformation Catholic communities in England and Wales, and the degree they ought ot be characterised as essentially a new missionary church, rather than as a continuation of the pre-Reformation English church. TomHennell (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * But the content/data of the article contradicts that the Catholic Church was ever a "new missionary church." There was always a Catholic Church during the Tudor and Stuart eras to 1832, the time of the Catholic Emancipation. As modern scholars Gabriel Glickman and Steve Pincus (of Yale; see his 1688: THE FIRST MODERN REVOLUTION) point out: Catholics under William and Mary and their successors "experienced considerable freedom." Glickman notes: "...rather than being the victims of the Stuart failure, 'the unpromising setting of exile and defeat' had sown the seed of a frail but resilient English Catholic Enlightenment" among English Catholics. Though it was a minority church, it certainly was around and because Catholics held on to pre-Reformation Catholic church rituals, etc. they were persecuted. Or why harass and oppress them (or prohibit them [as Alexander Pope was] from attending Oxford) in the first place if they were mere phantoms? Prattlement ([User talk:Prattlement|talk]]) 15:12, 8 February 2012


 * One could also draw a distinction between recusant Catholics, the pre-existing "Emancipation" Catholics in England, on the one hand, and the new Catholics, after 1832, on the other hand. However, the recusant Catholic Church was never "new." It did minister to new comers, but only as a receiving church. Keep in mind, too, that part of the "agreement" before the Catholic Emancipaton was granted was that the English Catholic Church had to give up claims to ancient churches that it owned before the Reformation. (The Duke of Norfolk, head of a leading Catholic family [Howard] going back to pre-Reformation times, was involved in this.) It gave up the claim to this property as an indigenous English church, not as a "new" or missionary church. Indeed, if it were "new" or "missionary," it would have had no claim by law in the first place. Prattlement ([User talk:Prattlement|talk]) 16: 09, 8 February 2012


 * As I recall Bossy, he does claim that the Catholic Comunity in England was essentially a new creation post 1570 (hence his title). Wikipedia is not concerned with 'facts' only with published scholarship; and this does appear to be published scholarship by a highly reputed authority. Clearly other authorities - such as Christopher Haigh - take a different view, and that too should be represented.  But I am not wanting to get into an edit war on the subject if others do not agree.  TomHennell (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * But no more than the Czech Catholic Church is a new creation since the fall of communism.

Let me back up a bit. In his book, THE ENGLISH CATHOLIC COMMUNITY 1570-1850, Bossy does not leave any clear description or account of how the Catholic Church community of 1570 differed from that of its pre-reformation times. He does note that the English Catholic gentry hoped for a return of confiscated Church lands and churches, for a better negotiating position in society, etc.; but in worship and sacraments, in regard to venerating the saints, the position of the pope, etc. -- in all the religious essentials constituting part of the character or nature of the Catholic assembly, the Catholic Church community was the same as it was before 1570. Indeed, that is what made it so very different -- its tenaciousnes to hold on to these things, its pre-reformation past, its beliefs (and its hope to get back its social standing and confiscated land). Had it relinquished this past, its beliefs and rituals, severed its understanding of itself as spiritual custodian and preserver of this past, it would have lost its ecclesial distinctiveness, its separateness, its dissimilarity with the established church and other churches. In other words, it never went out of trade or church business so to speak, abandoning these things. It was always around. And as noted earlier, part of the bargaining or deal between government and church to re-establish diocesan bishops (i.e., to have diocesan bishops over titular bishops) before issuing the the Catholic Emancipation was that the English Catholic Church had to give up any claim to ancient churches and lands it owned before the Reformation. The government insisted on this because it realized that the Catholic Church community could claim such property owing to its continuity with the pre-reformation Catholic Church of the past.

In this regared, it is interesting to note how the current Czech government is returning some Communist-seized property to churches, especially to the Catholic Church, even though the Catholic Church community today outwardly (especially in terms of wealth) differs from the church community of pre-WWII. The Czech government recognizes that the Czech Catholic community is still the same church owing to its sacramental, liturgical, and constituent continuity with its pre-WWII past, even after Vatican II and any number of social, religious, and economic changes on the continent. Prattlement (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well If it is that important to you and others, maybe it would be worth recording Bossy's and Aveling's published opinions more completely in the article. They are, after all, scholars specialising in the subject of the article, whereas you and I are not. So their views are properly to be included, while yours and mine are properly to be removed.  TomHennell (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * But where does Bossy say that the Catholic Church community in 1570 is "new"; that is, "new" essentially (in doctrine) and constituently different or distinct from what it was before 1570? I have read Bossy, too. I can't find where he says that. Help me out, please! Even Bossy's title, THE ENGLISH CATHOLIC COMMUNITY 1570-1850, does not suggest any "new" church (any more than one writing about the Czech Catholic Church Community 1948-1993, is suggesting the creation of a new church after the fall of communism) as much as it attempts to represent and depict (in great detail) the Catholic community's disposition (especially among the Catholic gentry) to preserve the Catholic Church's situation, and the gentry's ability (or disability) to improve it. This is borne out in recent scholarship, especially by G. Glickman and Steve Pincus. Yale scholar Pincus goes to far as to state that Catholics under William and Mary (and their successors) experienced "considerable freedom" (I am sure in part owing to the efforts of the Catholic gentry and other notable recusants). They also seem to indirectly give credit to the broad tolerance of Anglicanism and the gov. To me, that is a very positive revelation (i.e., tolerance for Catholics after 1688!!), though I am sure some scholar in the future will contest the degree of tolerance, finding it too limiting! But to return to my earlier point, the British gov. would never have insisted that the English Catholic Community renounce any claim to pre-Reformation confiscated lands and property (before the Catholic Emancipation) unless it first recognized or acknowledged some kind of unimpaired line of succession between the pre-Reformation Catholic Church Community and the post-Reformation Community of the early 19th century (time of the Catholic Emancipation). One can understand why the British gov. insisted on this if one considers what the Czech Republic is currently undertaking: That state will give back 56% of seized property and reimburse churches 3.49 billion over 30 years for the remainder. Eighty percent of funds and property will go the the Catholic Church. Prattlement (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Prattlement, thanks for this. I am intrigued by your lengthy passage interpreting the Emancipation Oath of 1829 as amounting to an acknowlegement of Catholic rights to pre-reformation lands and property. Where have you seen this interpretation in published scholarship?  I fear you may be slipping without being fully aware of it, within the forbidden bounds of 'original research'.  The whole issue of the Emancipation Oath is given detailed treatment by Owen Chadwick 'The Victorian Church' Part I pp 7-24.  Nowhwere is there any suggestion that English Catholics were required in the Oath to renounce claims to the lands and propery of the pre-reformation church.  Indeed at the time Daniel O'Connell specifically made the opposite contention, that his oath was not to subvert the doctrine of the established church; that he could (and did) continue to press for confiscation of some of the CoI property to the benefit of the Irish Catholic population.  Which incidentally demonstrates another point; that the terms of the Oath were drawn pimarilly with reference to Ireland not England.


 * No scholar suggest, I think, that the catholic community in late 16th Century England was radically new in doctrine; but this article is not about the scholarship of the history of doctrine, but rather about the scholarship of the history of the Catholic Church in England. Bossy's point, if I recall it correctly, is that this Church effectively came into existence with the Papal Bull of excommunicaiton against Elizabeth in 1570.  But until I get back to the books themselves I cannot be more explicit on Bossy and Aveling.  What I have checked on is Eamon Duffy, both in 'The Stipping of the Altars'and 'The Voices of Morebath'.  He tracks (for one highly conservative parson and parish) how the catholics of the reign of Henry VIII became the parish anglicans of the 1570s.  There were exceptions where Marian catholics became Elizabethen recusants, and Christopher Haigh has documented a number of them, but they were exceptions and relatively few.  For the most part, both the papists and the godly of Elizabeth's later reign were innovators driven by religious revival, and consciously rejecting what both alike saw as a discredited pre-reformation forms of religion.  Consequently most catholic conservatives in England increasingly came to identify themselves with the religion of Cranmer's prayer book, as against both papist catholics and godly protestants  - see 'Voices of Morebath' pp 153-190. TomHennell (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify on this, I have checked with Eamon Duffy's most recent book, 'Fires of Fairh'; in particular the final chapter on the aftermath and legacy of the Marian Church. He takes issue with the views of John Bossy, David Loades and Lucy Wooding; that the Marian Church was essentially a dead end, with little of no legacy in Elizabethan recusant catholicism.  He agrees that the catholic church of Mary died with the queen and her archbihop; but argues that it had a substantial intellectual influence on Tridentine catholicism; and that several leading churchmen and scholars of the Marian church do reappear as promoting recusancy.  For the purpose of this article, it is important that both sides of this argument are recognised; both the view (which Duffy accepts remains the predominant scholarly interpretation of the evidence) that recusant catholicism was essentially a new religious community arising out of the 1570 Bull of Excommunication; and Duffy's countering view that the Mary's failed church still left a key legacy of faith that was picked up (in part) later in the reign of her sister.  What is not disputed, however, is that there was no continuing catholic church or network of underground cathoic congregations in England in the period 1559 - 1570 (as there had been underground Protestant congregations in the period 1553-1558). TomHennell (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "What is not disputed, however, it that there was no continuing catholic church or network of underground catholic congregations in England in the period 1559-1570...."

TomHennell, thanks for your repsonse. It got me to re-read that chapter. I believe you are misreading Duffy here. Duffy takes pains to point out that the English "Marion Project" did indeed take root in recusant Catholicism because it never died out in that community in the first place. Her "project," with "its emphasis on religious superiority of devotional over controversial texts" took root in the Catholic community as a "new growth and something different,"  with its emphasis on devotion, the heart, and "eucharistic observances." "The new sacramental intensity [or spirituality] was directly reflected in official Marian instructions of the laity, which continued after 1559."

In this regard, Duffy refutes Bossy's (and Loades' and Wooding's) notions that "the Marian church had contributed almost nothing to the recusant Catholicism of Elizabeth's reign" because it lacked the "fire of the counter-reformation" and had "no particular place for the papacy." On the contrary, Duffy notes, though Cardinal Pole's and Mary reforms (which made up the "project") were undone "by legislation" and when "all fourteen surviving Catholic bishops had refused the Oath of Supremacy and had been deprived" of office," that did not discontinue Catholicism. "The deprivation, imprisonment or exile of the entire episcopate and their key helpers," and the "massive displacement of the cathedral clergy" only served to highlight the Catholic resistance to the Settlement among Catholics. Duffy notes, for example, the case of John Blaxton, the sub-dean of Exeter: "Blaxton returned to Hereford [after being ejected] where he gathered round him a group of ejected clergy from exeter and elsewhere. Feted by the conservative local population ...their disruptive presence made the imposition of thoroughgoing protestantism in the area almost impossible. In 1664, Bishop Scory [new bishop appointed by Elizabeth] complained bitterly that his diocese "was plagued" by practicing papists. Duffy also notes that one John Morwen, a young Oxford classicist, "was a tireless and effective catholic agitator, persuading the gentry of the north-west to boycott protestant worship and to sign pledges of loyalty to the pope," immediately after 1559. This hardly suggests that there was "no catholic church" or active "network of underground catholic congregations in England in the period of 1559-1570." Your source -- Duffy -- states the contrary.

"...the lengthy passage interpreting the Emmancipation Oath of 1929...."

That is an interpretation of some English Catholics, one in particular, Robert Ian Williams, former Anglican. I absorbed these sentiments from colleagues while in England ('05) on sabbatical. In my response I focused on Wellington's speech: "I admit...that the state ought to have some security for the Church [Church of England], against proceedings of the RC clergy.... but I confess...looking... at the various acts of Parliament, by which the Church of England was constituted...I can see no sort of arrangement capable of being carried into execution." And though the English Catholics took no oath to determine their claim to pre-reformation property (as current English Catholics assert), the Emancipation did as much to (1) determine the invalidity of such claims and (2) nullify all future claims to pre-reformation property. Finally, I am surprised you used Chadwick. He is a very generous scholar, whose writings illicit an invitation to further interpretation and coverage rather than an assurance that nothing else (of his scholarship) needed (or would need) amendment.

And finally, to delete the adjective "repressive" from Henry VIII's series of legislative acts that caused problems for so many Catholics!! Granted, his distructive impluse became much more systematic and serious after 1536, with his mass pillage of Catholic monasteries and churches. But that impluse was there in its early stages before 1536 and hardly benign! In April 1536 there were scattered throughout England and Wales more than 800 monasteries, nuneries and friaries and withinng them 10,000 monks, canons, and friars. By 1540 there were none. The confiscation of the abbey of Waltham in March 1540 brought the Dissolution to its destructive end. And you think Henry's legislative acts were not "repressive" or destructive for Catholics (or for anyone disagreed with him)? Even the Chinese Communists haven't tried to eliminate Tibetan monasticism to such a degree and in such a through and destructive fashion. Prattlement (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Prattlement; on the Marian Church, I think we are in agreement; both the Bossy/Loades/Wooding view, and the Duffy view ought to be presented in the article, with a note that the former group is predominant in current scholarship.


 * On the Emancipation Oath; has Robert Ian Williams published his theories in a scholarly work? If not, it has no place in Wikipedia.


 * In general, I fear you may have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia as being to evaluate published scholarship; not so. Wikipedia is not concerned with what is factually correct or incorrect; only with recording what is the current range of published scholarship.  What you, or I, think maybe true is beside the point. TomHennell (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * TomHennell: I don't worry about presenting Bossy's views (or Aveling's, etc) in this English Catholic narrative. None of the authors you mention deny that there wasn't an English Catholic Community, albeit, bishop-suppressed, between 1559 and 1570. Indeed, they are all in agreement that it existed in some form. Aveling, for example, in focusing on Yorkshire, 1558-1791, demonstrates that a Catholic Community had ALWAYS existed in Yorkshire. It never was obliterated or erased from the face of the earth (as German Jews were from Germany) as you state. Bossy, on the other hand, argues this way: First he asks, "How could the religious tradition and instituton of pre-Reformation England [English Catholic Church Community] adapt themselves to the conditons of a society which had been so drastically transformed?" Then answers: "Yet the adaptation was achieved. [No mention of annihilation, extinction! No suggestion of non-continuity of a Catholic Community in certain districts and sections of England!!] In face of a variety of exterior obstacles, a body which had some right to claim continuity with the past but was nevertheless in most respects a new creation, which had come to some sort of 'modus vivendi' within itself and with the overwhelmingly Protestant society it lived in, came into existence and proved able to endure." So, though Bossy disagrees with Duffy's thesis (that the English Catholic Community piggy-backed on Mary's and Pole's "projects"), he does not deny that -- as a Catholic Community -- they had to  exist in order to come up on their own ("within itself") with a new project and "modus vivendi" to survive. I have no problem that in the English Catholic narrative. One could apply that scenario to any religious minority or community that, "within itself," within its own indigenous communities and districts, neighborhoods (or gentry houses), had to adapt and begin afresh as a Community to survive. That is a far cry, however, from saying that the English Catholic Community was annihilated or wiped out in England as was the Jewish community in Germany. In that regard, the Jewish Community adapts itself to new political and social conditions all the time; but no one would deny that there was a Jewish Community in the first place to adapt and re-create itself in order to survive.


 * With that said, I still fail to understand why you continually delete (in this English Catholic narrative) the modifier "repressive" from Henry's "legislative acts" that victimized English Catholics. I don't know where we are going with this English Catholic narrative; not Anglican narrative, mind you! In the former narrative (English Catholic), Henry's acts destroy Catholic monasteries, churches, ecclesial structures, broke Catholic canon law, parted with the Holy See, victimized Catholic bishops, clerics,lay people, etc. Historian (and Anglican cleric) Daimaid MacCulloch, in his work, REFORMATION, notes that England judicially murdered more Catholics than any other country in Europe. What can be more "repressive"? And all this in a country of less than four million people (the population of England between 1500 and 1600)!! The legislative acts resemble the National Socialism's Nuremburg laws (of pre-WWII Germany) and Henry's  destruction of Catholic monasteries and churches have a similarity to Kristallnacht, the burning and destruction of Jewish houses of worship in 1938. And in the English Catholic narrative you don't think these acts "repressive"? I am anxious to note you wiki scholarship, footnoting and bibliography in this narrative. So far, TomHennell, it's been negligible, careless. Come up with some current published scholarship before you delete. Surprise me! Bossy is good and the others you mention, but their publications are old, not recent, within the last 10 yrs. MacCulloch is recent, 2004. Prattlement (talk) 14:18, February 2012 (UTC)


 * good, I will go ahead with Bossy etc. I have not deleted any 'repressive' modifier; some other editor perhaps? TomHennell (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind the following as you make your intervention:

1. Bossy is using the term "Community" in the hierarchical sense (since, as Duffy notes, the Catholic episcopacy was deposed, ejected [with priests] by Elizabeth in 1559), not in its demographic or social sense. Bossy's maps, for example, show some parts of England to be demographically/regionally 20% or more Catholic in 1641, 70 yrs after 1570. So while there was a discontinuity in the hierarchical structure (1559-1570), there was no concomitant demographic discontinuity in those Catholic regions. 2. Note too that Duffy takes issue with Bossy, suggesting that the Marian projects (of Queen Mary and Cardinal Pole) were not dismantled in the Catholic Community after 1570. The laity and ejected clergy kept those reforms alive, without bishops (similar to colonial Catholicism in pre-Revolutionary America, pre-1776). For Bossy, however, the regrouping of the exiled clergy, seminaries at Douai and Louvain, etc., marked a new phase or creation for the same demographic minority (as establishing an episcopacy in post-Revolutionary America marked a new change or creation for American Catholics). 3. Do you also (I presume you are Anglican/Episcopalian) plan to alter the English Anglican narrative with Bossy and Duffy? (Currently you are altering the English Catholic narrative.)Prattlement (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Tony Blair
The fact that ex-PM Tony Blair came out as a Catholic shortly after leaving office should be mentioned somewhere in the article; it is about the highest profile Catholic event in England that I can recall as an American. Shocking Blue (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

NPOV reminder
I have restored the previous NPOV worded history and removed the recent very blatant POV pushing edits which are more of a lecture and only promote one interpretation of the historical facts. I had hoped that we had seen the last of this kind of biased editing by conservative Roman Catholics on Wikipedia. NPOV is a fundamental principle of WP articles and all editors should respect this and refrain from this kind of POV agenda pushing. Afterwriting (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

NPOV reminder for Afterwriting
You "restored" something that was there earlier for years -- in a very blantant POV pushing edit yourself! You say you hope "to see the last of this kind of editing by conservative Roman Catholics...." How self-promotional!! How self-righteous! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Criticism is meant as a standard of judging well what one is attempting to do well. The group of people working on this article is attempting to be objective with reference (something you don't seem capable of doing). If you find fault with their method and interpretation, please cite sentence, source, and paragraph where they need to be strengthed or corrected. (BUT YOU DON'T DELETE THEIR CONTENT [TO ADD YOUR OWN INTERPRETIVE CONTENT] WITHOUT ALSO DELETING THEIR REFERENCES, WHICH SERVED TO VALIDATE WHAT THEY STATED EARLIER IN THE FIRST PLACE. INDEED, YOUR NEW ADDITIONS HAVE NO REFERENCES! YOU USED THE EARLIER REFERENCES TO VALIDATE YOUR NEW INTERPRETATION!) They (people working on this) need details, REFERENCES TO NEW ADDITIONS, not just a generic bombastic claimer that SOME EDITORS  are "conservative." The well-meaning (I am presuming) innocence of your intentions (to help) abates nothing of the mischief of your private interpretation over and above the contributors' interpretation with references. REMEMBER, AFTERTALK, THE LEGITIMATE AIM OF CRITICISM IS TO DIRECT ATTENTION TO THE EXCELLENT OR TO WHAT COULD BE EXCELLENT. TRY TO BE A HELPFUL RIVAL, NOT AN IGNORANT ANTAGONIST DROPPING BLANKET CONDEMNATIONS IN AN ATTEMPT TO GET CONTRIBUTORS TO JUDGE, INTEERPRET AND WRITE TOO MUCH LIKE YOU. Finally, you are a very poor scholar. In your changes, you have yet to come up with some of your own references to validate your contribution! Prattlemment (talk) 14:46, February, 10, 2012 (UTC)


 * Well at least I now know why you call yourself "Prattlement"! It is obvious that you are intentionally pushing the official Roman Catholic view on these contentious historical matters as if they are objectively established and unchallenged facts - which of course they are not.  And please try not to be so personally abusive and vitriolic in future - you only make yourself look immature and ridiculous.  And, unlike yourself, I will continue to ensure that this article is as NPOV as possible. Afterwriting (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * After writing, the English Catholic Church site is about the collective aspect of a set of ecclesial characteristics by which that church is recognizable and known, especially according to its historial understanding of itself). Just as the "Church of England" site is about what it thinks of itself (as in "The church ... dates its formal establishment principally to the mission to England by St. Augustine of Canterbury...."), so too is the English Catholic Church site about ITS UNDERSTANDING OF ITSELF, NOT AN ANGLICAN UNDERSTANDING OF ITSELF! However, I notice on the latter site (i.e., the Church of England site), that you, as an Anglican, never make any interventions questioning the Church of England's origin (WHAT THAT CHURCH THINKS OF ITSELF), even though no modern historian today regards 597 (the Roman mission to England) as the date of the establishment of the Church of England. But your bias comes through here very visibly -- at the very beginning of that article -- and elsewhere. Yet you have the gall as an Anglican to repeatedly challenge what the English Catholic Church THINKS OF ITSELF. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! YOU SEEM TO FORGET THAT THERE IS NO WELL MEANING INERVENTION ON YOUR PART SO LARGE THAT PREJUDICE (ALBEIT ANGLICAN) WILL NOT LESSEN IT.

Anyway, I challenge you as an Anglican to provide us with one -- only one -- modern historian who will back up the claim (and the claims on the Church of England site, which assertions you never delete and rarely challenge) that the Church of England was formally founded by Pope Gregory's mission to England in 597 (via St. Augustine and his Roman monks)? Even the Anglican historian Diarmaid MacCulloch doesn't agree with you (or with your fellow co-religionists who wrote that article). Shame on you, Afterwriting!!!! Shame, shame, too, for putting down the English Catholic Church's understanding of itself (while allowing the Church of England to claim whatever understanding of itself that it likes)!! And you claim objectivity? Anyway, come up with data and proof backed up by some modern historian that the Church of England was founded in 597 (before I start challenging the Church of England site)!! Prattlement ( talk) 13:03, 2 March, 2012 (UTC)


 * And you say I am "pushing the offical Catholic view...." ?????????????? And you're not pushing the official Anglican view on the Church of England site (which I just re-read???? Double shame on you, Afterwriting!! Sadly you only know your own Anglican side of the case and even there, know little of that. Prattlement (talk)  13:40, 2 March, 2012 (UTC)

NPOV
The article does have serious POV issues though. For example mentioning that being Roman Catholic was treasonable without mentioning that the Regnans in Excelsis papal bull issued on 25 February 1570 specifically placed an obligation on all faithful Roman Catholics to rebel against Elizabeth and excommunicated anyone who obeyed her is rather one sided? If being Roman Catholic places you under obligation to commit treason then making it being treasonable offense is not so much persecution as logic. Also the Canterbury and Rome were back in communion from 1553 to 1570 which is not such a short period of time... --BozMo talk 10:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Medieval section
This section is why I came to this page. I wanted to know things like what kind of liturgy was in use, which saints were venerated, how were things different in England than elsewhere at the time. I was disappointed. Could someone please expand this section? --Tibetologist (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe you'll find more that you want in the articles on History of the Church of England and Sarum Rite. Obviously the medieval section of this article and that of the History of the C of E cover the same ground - albeit likely with slightly different perspectives TomHennell (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Question
Concerning "Priests found celebrating Mass were often hanged, drawn and quartered, rather than being burned at the stake"; do we want to say this? As I understand it, HDQ was the traditional punishment for treason and it was Mary whose decision to burn at the stake was out of line? Also, of the ?40 or so priests executed over those few decades do we know how many were killed each way? --BozMo talk 08:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Chalcedonian Christianity Edit
I removed the text shown in the edit [] because of a few factors. It is factually unsubstantiated, and the only citation is to a dubious or dubiously neutral source. It's anachronistic - that is, nobody alive at the time would have described the processes as such. The language is unclear: I have a background in philosophy and Catholic theology, and I have no idea what it could mean for "Under Anglo-Saxon England, Chalcedonian Christianity would follow syncretically under both Celtic and Roman tradition". I mean, I know what each of the words means, but it seems pretty clear that the author of the bit does not. He may mean something like, "In the Anglo-Saxon period, orthodoxy as defined by the first four ecumenical councils existed in England in Celtic and Roman ritual traditions." But that's just not clear. It's also totally unclear what syncretism could have to do with it, since none of that would have to do with the blending of different religions, but at most, with the blending of traditions within a religion. There's no citation for how William of Normandy supposedly conspired with the Pope to enforce only Roman Christianity on England. Moreover, it seems pretty contrary to most received history that the process of importing the renewed Roman rite into England began with Augustine of Canterbury, some five centuries earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Withouthavingseen (talk • contribs) 16:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Roman Catholic
I am not a Catholic (in fact I am not a Christian) but...

This has come up before (more than once?) - in any case once we have established that what we are talking about here is indeed the church sometimes (although never by Catholics themselves) called the "Roman Catholic Church" there would seem to be no need for the "Roman Catholic" designation to go clattering through the article. To do so is plainly partisan - and goes against the spirit, if not the letter of general guidelines. Contexts other than the main article are another matter of course, but there is no risk of ambiguity here, and many Catholics actually take offence at the "Roman" bit. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Your ignorant assertion that "Roman Catholic Church" is "never (used) by Catholics themselves" is complete nonsense. It often is, as explained in the Roman Catholic (term) article. I will find and post an example from the Vatican's own website. Anglicanus (talk) 09:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @ Soundofmusicals. Here is one of many examples on the Vatican's own website which refers to the church as the "Roman Catholic Church": http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/2007/documents/ns_lit_doc_20071124_titoli_en.html . Anglicanus (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I hope you know more about the Anglican Church than you know about the Catholic one - this is the only context in which Catholics (as opposed to some Anglicans) EVER use "Roman Catholic":
 * The Catholic religion is the religion of the Catholic Church—i.e., that group of churches in communion with the pope. If a group isn’t in communion with the pope, it isn’t part of the Catholic Church. Within the Catholic Church there are a number of individual churches, sometimes called rites. One of these is the Roman rite or Roman church. It includes most of the Catholics in the Western world. A Roman Catholic is a Catholic who is a member of the Roman rite. There are many Catholics in the East who are not Roman Catholics, such as Maronite Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics, and Chaldean Catholics. These are all in communion with the pope, but they are not members of the Roman rite, so they are not Roman Catholics. They all teach the same faith; it is only local customs that are different among them. (From "Catholic Answers")
 * Is five minutes with Google and an open mind beyond you? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Soundofmusicals : Are you serious?! I provided you with a page on the Vatican's own website and you are still bullshitting on this issue! Even many Roman Catholic polemicists (such as those fundamentalists on the "Catholic Answers" site) are very ignorant of the actual facts of this matter. You still obviously have not read the Roman Catholic (term) article. I suggest that you do so and start curing yourself of your own repeated invincible ignorance on this matter. The fact is that the "Roman Catholic Church" consists of members of the Latin Church ("Latin Catholics") as well as the Eastern Catholic Churches ("Eastern Catholics" or "Byzantine Catholics"). Latin and Eastern Catholics are all "Roman Catholics" not just those who follow the Roman Rite. The correct name for those Roman Catholics who use the Roman Rite is "Latin Catholic". The list of cardinals of the "Roman Catholic Church" on the Vatican website includes some Eastern Catholic cardinals. I suggest you try making your ill-informed arguments on the Catholic Church article talk page and see what kind of response you get. I challenge you to do this and we will soon see which of us actually "know more". And while you are at it you should also read the Catholicism article and broaden your mind a bit more. Anglicanus (talk) 03:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Anglicanus is quite correct about this. When Roman Catholic Church is used in the Vatican's most official documents it refers to the whole of the church, both Western (Latin) and Eastern, in full communion with the Pope, not just the Latin church. While some people in the church, such as whoever wrote the Catholic Answers comments, think that RCC only refers to the Western part of the church this is a mistaken understanding. Afterwriting (talk) 09:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments User:Afterwriting. All of this is more than adequately explained on the Roman Catholic (term) article. The "Catholic Answers" site is only repeating popular ignorance instead of the facts. Anglicanus (talk) 11:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 one external links on Catholic Church in England and Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://tablet.archive.netcopy.co.uk/article/7th-november-2009/35/a-million-more-catholics-in-england-and-wales-acco
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419011623/http://www.advent.org/ to http://www.advent.org
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419011623/http://www.advent.org/ to http://www.advent.org
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419011623/http://www.advent.org/ to http://www.advent.org
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419011623/http://www.advent.org/ to http://www.advent.org
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419011623/http://www.advent.org/ to http://www.advent.org
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206111318/http://www.vatican.va// to http://www.vatican.va/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Catholic Church naming conventions RfC
There is currently an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Catholic Church) that may be of interest. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Writing
This article has serious issues (and seems to have been subject to some major flame wars, which I suppose I should have expected). Still, I was surprised to see writing like this in this article:

"Her policy was success at the cost of alienating a fairly large section of English society which had been moving away from traditional Catholicism even among some Catholics.Had she lived longer who knows but England may have remained in the Papal fold."

This article is in need of some serious copy editing. RobertM525 (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * It looks like a lot of the especially bad content (including the quote above) has been added recently by DuckeggAlex. I propose rolling back all of his/her changes. I don't think any of them improved the article. RobertM525 (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Article is too long and needs rewriting.
Apart from it often biased tone, this article is way too long and complicated. It needs a major rewrite to drastically shorten and simplify it. Anglicanus (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Anglophobic History POV
The article promotes trivializing Papist, i.e. Jesuit propaganda about the nature of the English Reformation, supposedly coming out of nowhere and dismissed by typically tendentious attitude about Henry VIII of England's divorce, which obfuscates the Investiture Controversy, Interdict during the Barons' Wars in which the Dauphin usurped the Throne and Praemunire during the retaliatory Hundred Years' War against France, in which the Auld Enemy was adherent to the Avignon Papacy and England's Norman Bishop of Beauvais had Joan of Arc burnt for witchery. Incidentally, Gallicanism by the "First Daughter of Holy Mother Church" was blameless by Avignon double standards, but Rome-traditionalist England somehow wasn't. The double standard of Papal ethnic chauvinist preference was repeated in the Treaty of Tordesillas, but England's claim to Ireland via Nicholas "Hadrian IV" Breakspear and Laudabiliter is likewise casually dismissed by Papists as illegitimate and out of line. The Dissolution of the Monasteries was fine for Austria when the Habsburg Kaiser did it, but wrong of England? Anglophobia shouldn't be considered NPOV historical narrative.

Richard II of England, who bore the arms of the Saxon Edward the Confessor, was wed to Anne of Bohemia--their clergy of Lollards and Hussites combined as Morning Stars of the Reformation. It is no coincidence that the Defenestrations of Prague each pertained English religion in relation to the Bohemians, as the Thirty Years' War followed Anglican foreign policy objectives by the Supreme Governor of the via media Church, simultaneously pursuing his Lancastrian policy since John of Gaunt, of the Spanish match originally to benefit Aquitaine, where Richard II was born and where Charles I of England went with the Duke of Buckingham. This shows that the Reformation had theological underpinnings and precedent, heresy or not, which were only secured by infrastructural schism, that states were conducive to native faith. Furthermore, to pretend nation-state churches are anomalies, is to ignore the Orthodox states and especially the obvious Arian state churches of Goths and this being the essential existence of Canterbury in latter days by comparison to both Rome and Constantinople. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.194.123 (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Problems with Summary Box
The summary box at top right has the following problems:

1. It gives Vincent Nichols as the 'Archbishop'. There are in fact 5 Archbishops: Birmingham, Cardiff, Liverpool, Southwark and Westminster.

2. 'Headquarters' is given as Westminster Cathedral. The nearest thing to a local headquarters is in fact the offices of the Bishops' Conference at 39 Eccleston Square, London. However, ...

3. As the Conference website indicates, the key centres of power are Rome and Diocese, not the Conference: "Catholics are guided by the Pope - the successor of St Peter - who is Supreme Pontiff and Bishop of Rome. Locally, in our dioceses, we are led by the Bishops." That is reflected in the body of the article, which describes the conference as "a collaborative structure".

I therefore suggest some thought should be given to adjustment of the the summary details, to bring them into line with the article and its sources.

Spodatus (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Changes made accordingly 25th Jul 2019. Spodatus (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Anomalous Polish "parishes"
Is there someone with knowledge of Catholic canon law who can verify the accuracy of this paragraph? It is undoubtedly complex, but I wonder if we are being sold a pup. Thanks. --Po Mieczu (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

quick question
So as far as I can see, the Church in England was in communion with Rome between 1555 Second Statute of Repeal and 1570 Regnans in Excelsis (the eventual ex communication of Elizabeth I, obliging all faithful to Rome to attempt to overthrow the state). This bit seems to be missing from the introduction. Any reason why? BozMo talk 19:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)