Talk:Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham

Decree of erection
I don't think including the entire Decree of Erection is suitable for this article. Perhaps a digestion of its most relevant parts would be encyclopedic. Opinions? — AlekJDS talk 14:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind; the addition was boldly reverted. "This is not WikiSource", indeed. — AlekJDS talk 14:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Links to it at the Vatican website are okay, and maybe including it at Wikisource, our sister project (though I'm not sure about the copyright on Vatican documents). But here is completely wrong.oknazevad (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing
It is not clear to me that a press release of the organisation concerned constitutes a reliable source: Identifying reliable sources = "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Groomtech (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the source for exact quotes. There's nothing morre reliable when quoting a document than the original document itself.oknazevad (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Anglican responses
The "senior Church of England bishops [who] consider the establishment of the ordinariate to be damaging to ecumenical relations" are as follows:

Canon Giles Fraser, Chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral
"In corporate terms, [it is] a little like a takeover bid in some broader power play of church politics"

"And if Anglicans do feel a little like this, I wonder if things really are all that rosy in the ecumenical garden."

Rt Rev Christopher Hill, Bishop of Guildford, who is the Church of England's chair of the Council for Christian Unity
"I think it was an insensitive act [the papal offer] as it came at a time when the Church of England was still in the decision-making process on the ordination of women and came with minimal consultation,"

"It was awkward and embarrassing not just for Archbishop Rowan, but also for the English Catholic bishops.

"I don't think they were enthusiastic about it and we realise that it has put them in a difficult position."

Rt Rev John Saxbee, Bishop of Lincoln
"I can't judge the motives behind it [the offer], but the way it was done doesn't sit easily with all of the talk about working towards better relations," he said.

"Fence mending will need to be done to set conversations back on track."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/the-pope/8276262/Popes-offer-was-an-insensitive-takeover-bid-say-senior-Anglicans.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Philadelphia 2009 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 29 January 2011

Confusion
There's a lot of confusion wether members of the Ordinariate will be Anglican or Catholic.

"Will members of the Ordinariate still be Anglicans? No. Members of the Ordinariate will be Catholics." Source: http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/Catholic-Church/Ordinariate/Background-Information

I've moved the page to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philadelphia 2009 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the move, as it was an inappropriate copy and paste move. The edit history must be preserved, which copy & paste moves fails to do See WP:Moving pages. As for the new title, I don't know if it's a good idea. It needs to be discussed. oknazevad (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2011


 * And changing the article's name to include "Roman Catholic" doesn't resolve the confusion. It would have been appreciated if you had started some discussion on the most appropriate name for the article rather than just changing it.  I greatly doubt that there is a "lot of confusion" about which church the ordinariate members do/will belong to.  They will, of course, be Roman Catholics.  However, because the ordinariates are being established for Anglicans - or, more correctly once they become Roman Catholics, former Anglicans - they are commonly referred to as being "Anglican ordinariates", not "Roman Catholic ordinariates".  I would suggest, therefore, that the best way to avoid any potential confusion with this particular article's name is to stick with the ordinariate's proper name - "Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham". Anglicanus (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur. Any confusion about the church identification of those who are a part of the ordinariate should be dealt with in the article itself, not in the title. (And the first line unambiguously says: "The Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham is a personal ordinariate of the Roman Catholic Church...") — AlekJDS talk 15:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Church Representatives
Any institution, whether church, government, company etc can only speak through its representatives, and the views/statements of the representatives are the views/statements of the institution that they represent. Philadelphia 2009 (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. Just because a person is a "representative" of an organisation it doesn't follow that their opinions always represent the official view of that organisation - and, as far as this article is concerned, there doesn't seem to yet be an official response from the Church of England as a body regarding these matters. I have, therefore, reworded this once again to make it clear that these comments do not represent an official view of the "Church of England" as such.  Anglicanus (talk) 08:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

St Peter's
I propose to insert the following sentence "St Peter's has a small, mainly elderly congregation and there is no Sunday School and no families are regular worshippers."

I think it is vital to maintain NPOV to have this sentence, otherwise the page implies that a large or sucessful parish is crossing the tober, which isn't the case. Philadelphia 2009 (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There has been tremendous misreporting about the situation at St Peter's. It has not "defected to Rome". If you look at its website, you will see that it is a thriving CofE parish. Five children are being confirmed there by the Bishop of Dover tomorrow. Poshseagull (talk) 11:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I find it has the opposite effect on NPOV, coming off as dismissive and implying that they are insignificant. The best is just to say that this parish is joining, without characterizing it either way. oknazevad (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see that the article implies that at all. Also, the proposed sentence is a vague paraphrase of what is said in the source. The source describes what was seen on one Sunday morning at the church, and that there were young people in the choir, and that there is a grade school attached to the parish, none of which is explained in your sentence. Let's leave it out entirely. Elizium23 (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I used to attend St Peter's, Folkestone, as a child, and it is sad to see how it has declined. However, adding POV statements to the article (one way or the other) is unhelpful and pointless. All parishes have ups and downs. HOWEVER, what does need to be changed here is the suggestion that the "parish" has converted to the ordinariate, which is nonsense. A significant group, including the parish priest, have done so, but a large group have remained in the Church of England without alteration - and this group has the legal entitlement to be recognised as the parish of St Peter, Folkestone. I have made the necessary alterations. Although they were the first parish to experience a large-scale split over the ordinariate, there have been other parishes since which have seen greater proportions of their members go to the ordinariate (eg St Margaret's, Leytonstone), and even there (Leytonstone) the original (Church of England) parish continues as a legal entity, albeit with a smaller congregation, now searching for a new priest.  Timothy Titus Talk To TT  17:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Church of St Anne
The church should be called the "Church of St Anne" or "St Anne's Church"; but not the "Church of St Anne's".

For example; "David Cameron is the Prime Minister of the UK" or "David Cameron is the UK's Prime Minister"; but never "David Cameron is the Prime Minister of the UK's". Philadelphia 2009 (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

"although some subsequently withdrew (returning to the Church of England)"
This claim is not substantiated. There is some confusion here : the "61" have always included the five ex-bishops already ordained. Terefore 55+5+1 being deferred = 61 and I don't understand how there is room for somebody withdrawing in this count. Please correct this. 92.156.225.59 (talk) 09:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've changed the number to 60 but I don't believe that all the 55 (plus one deferred) former Anglican clergy have yet been "reordained" so the precise current number isn't easy to determine. I also notice that the info box refers to them as "diocesan priests" which isn't strictly correct. Anglicanus (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have brought up the issue about "diocesan priests" at Template talk:Infobox diocese because it is an inaccurate, unofficial term. The official term is "secular priests". Elizium23 (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that "secular priests" is a country-specific term. In some countries most priests that don't belong to a religious order are called "diocesan priests".  My actual point is that the ordinariate is not a diocese (although it has a similar status) so they are not "diocesean priests" as their ordinary isn't the bishop of their local diocese. Anglicanus (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence that it's country-specific. Do you have a cite? Catholic Encyclopedia article: secular clergy Elizium23 (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * All I can say is that in Australia the term "diocesan priests" is nearly always used in my experience. Regardless of what the "official" term may be I suspect that "diocesan priests" is the common term in many countries - but this probably includes all priests in parishes whether they are "secular" or "religious" ones. Anglicanus (talk) 09:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Diocesan clergy" is a more modern expression. It's also less accurate, as you can see by the very question that you have raised here. It certainly does not describe regular priests in a parish setting. Regular clergy lives by a rule in an order or congregation, whether they are in the cloister or serving in a parish. They still report to their major superior who has the powers of a bishop and is known as the ordinary. The bishop of a diocese has limited jurisdiction over regular clergy. It pretty much amounts to a black and white permission to serve in his diocese, plus liturgical norms that must be obeyed due to being set down by Rome. Regular clergy serving in a parish are still subject to vows, particularly a vow of poverty which is not given by secular clergy. I don't see why there's an objection to using a precise term in a general template when it can even be wikilinked to an article explaining itself. Elizium23 (talk) 09:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

What about the assertion made in the last paragraph of the "background" section (withdrawal of candidates) ? 92.156.225.59 (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about this. Quire possibly true but a reference would be a good thing. Anglicanus (talk) 09:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * With respect to our anonymous informant, the 5 former bishops converted at the turn of the year 2010/2011, and it was a couple of months later that sources began talking about a "further 61 clergy and around 900 laity" expected to convert to the ordinariate around Easter time. Even the source already quoted in the article (from BBC News) is clear about this, talking about the "61" who are "expected to convert to catholicism this Easter" in an article dated 21 April 2011, a date when the former bishops had not only converted already, but been reordained and appointed to their respective new ranks (where applicable). The suggestion was always that a further 61 clergy would convert (specifically, we were told, 59 priests and 2 deacons). Since then 3 priests have re-converted to the CofE and one has had his ordinariate reordination "deferred". This would reduce the total to 57, of whom 55 are named on the ordinariate's official website. I have no personal knowledge of what happened to the other 2. I have searched for sources, so far without much success, but I am sure they are (or will be) there. I have found one passing reference to one of the reconversions, but I am not prepared to cite it myself owing to WP:COI - I did not write the article concerned, but it is on the website of an organisation in which I hold office, which makes it too close for me to be comfortable.
 * thanks ! 92.156.225.59 (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

History Section?
There is a background section but should there be a history section, or should the background section be expanded to a history section. This was decades, if not a century-plus in the making. There needs to be some discussion of Cardinal John Henry Newman, the Oxford Movement, the Pastoral Provision, Anglican Use, the Traditional Anglican Communion, the Affirmation of St. Louis, ordaining women, flying bishops, etc. I understand that Ordinariate is a British institution but it came about as part of a global Vatican initiative in response to what has happened in both the UK and the colonies, so to speak. Maybe a short paragraph with an "main article" tag to a longer more detailed, more comprehensive history. The history of this thing did not start in 2009. Maybe I'll see what I can add. --Bruce Hall (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Presumably the Ordinariate is an English, not British, institution since it is aimed at the Church of England. I am not sure "what has happened" in both the UK and "the colonies, so to speak". In the summary I have changed the country to England and the "territory" to England as well, not England and Wales. The Church in Wales does not seem to have been effected by the Ordinariate.Poshseagull (talk) 07:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No presumably about it, the ordinariate was set up "within the territory of the Episcopal Conference of England and Wales" (source). Although set up for England and Wales, it has also accepted Scottish members, as indicated in the article.  In this way, it is similar to the personal ordinariate for former Anglicans set up for the United States, which also has Canadian members.  It is somewhat inexact also to say the England and Wales ordinariate is "aimed at" the Church of England: the article indicates that, as well of its Scottish members, one of the Anglican bishops who joined the ordinariate at its beginning was a former Bishop of Ballarat, of the Anglican Church of Australia.  I am therefore undoing your change, including - because you have cited no reliable source for it - your statement that the then Catholic Archbishop of Buenos Aires considered the erection of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham (why this one in particular, rather than in general all personal ordinariates for former Anglicans?) quite unnecessary.  Esoglou (talk) 09:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * So although it was set up for the RC (?) Province of England and Wales, it also admits dissident Anglicans from elsewhere? As for the new Pope's views on the Ordinariate, I realise these might be uncomfortable, but I have a source for Bishop Venables's assertion (Anglican Link, 13 March 2013) and will reinsert this in the article shortly. Incidentally I obtained this from the Wikipedia article on Pope Francis. Poshseagull (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Your source is inadequate and the quote is disputed, as I have explained on your user talk page. Please do not reinsert it without one or preferably two actual reliable secondary sources. Please be aware that Wikipedia adheres to a policy of neutral point of view and we must adequately and accurately represent all significant views. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 04:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Who are you to tell me that a quote from the Bishop of Argentina, reproduced in Anglican Ink, is "inadequate"? Are you calling the Bishop a liar? Or accusing Anglican Ink of publishing falsehoods? The truth is that you don't like what was said and you don't want it known. Is it "Wikipedia policy" to suppress uncomfortable quotations? And how on earth can quoting a Bishop and a Cardinal be other than "neutral"? Poshseagull (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite apart from what you are disputing with Elizium23, there is the problem of lack of evidence that by "the Ordinariate" was meant the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, what this article is about, rather than, for instance, the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter or, as I already said, the general idea of personal ordinariates for former Anglicans.
 * Please note also that these ordinariates are for former Anglicans, not for what you called "dissident" Anglicans. Esoglou (talk) 08:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * They are former because they were dissident. Please do not resort to hair splitting. Poshseagull (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The answer to one frequently asked question is that the members of the personal ordinariates in question are Catholics of the Latin Church, not Anglicans of any kind. However, I now think I should not object to your saying what you like about them on a Talk page.Esoglou (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you would rather just continue arguing or actually improve the article, but if your desire is the latter, then here, use this source: It is from the BBC (WP:RS) and confirms that Venables was quoted accurately. Of course, you still have the problem that Esoglou mentions above. Good luck. Elizium23 (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. You seem to have found another source which verifies my quote. In the interests of Anglican-RC unity and of improving the article, perhaps you or Esoglou would like to reinsert my suggested paragraph about the attitude of Pope Francis. Meanwhile I am off to an ecumenical service in our CofE church, where our local RC priest is preaching the sermon. Poshseagull (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There are no grounds for saying the reference was to the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, and so your statement cannot be (re)inserted in this article. Where else (perhaps in Personal ordinariate?) would you like to insert a mention of Archbishop Bergoglio's remark that the Catholic Church wants Anglicans to join in their totality, in which case there would be no need for these structures whereby people become former Anglicans in order to become Catholics?
 * (Of course, this spelling out of the meaning of the Archbishop's remark, being unsourced, like your interpretation of the remark as referring specifically to the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, cannot be put in Wikipedia.) Esoglou (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Come on, you're not really suggesting that the Cardinal was talking to the Anglican Bishop about another Ordinariate are you? And when/where did the Cardinal say that he wanted all Anglicans to join "the Catholic Church" (of which we are already members, of course).Poshseagull (talk) 08:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest you look at the BBC source which reinforces the Anglican Ink one I have quoted. The former Archbishop's remark was not, of course, unsourced, and no amount of double-speak will reverse it. All the Anglicans I know welcome the election of Pope Francis, which will, we hope, increase co-operation and good relations between the RC Church and the churches of the Anglican Communion. Poshseagull (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You realize, don't you, that nobody says Bishop Venables's account of Archbishop Bergoglio's remark is now unsourced? You still have given no reason to mention the reported remark in this article rather than in the article on these ordinariates in general or in an article about some other one of them.  Which ordinariate was the reported remark about?  Esoglou (talk) 06:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * See above. When a RC Archbishop tells an Anglican Bishop that the world needs Anglicans and that he sees no reason for the Ordinariate, it would seem extremely likely that he was referring to the Walsingham one. And why should this be in the main article? Because the lack of support from the present Pope is surely important not least bearing in mind that his predecessor gave a large amount of money to help a troubled innovation.Poshseagull (talk) 08:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia, what an editor considers "likely" is not enough. Esoglou (talk) 09:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * But when the BBC News UK says (on 17 March 2013) that, "Pope Francis did say the Ordinariate for ex-Anglicans was unnecessary" is that enough? Poshseagull (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What the BBC reported was not that Archbishop Bergoglio said the Ordinariate in England and Wales was unnecessary.
 * (Do you perhaps refuse to recognize as Anglicans the Episcopal Church in the United States and the Anglican Church of Australia?) Esoglou (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * My earlier request to you to stop hair splitting is obviously unacceptable. Your insistence on doing do speaks volumes. You really are struggling, aren't you? Like the Ordinariate. Poshseagull (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

One year on
It's difficult to know how to incorporate this into the article (any ideas?) but it seems to me that the establishment of the Ordinariate has been both damaging and unsuccessful. There appears to have been an arrogant lack of consultation on the part of the RC Church and misrepresentation by the press. The prediction of "droves" of Anglicans moving to Rome has not materialised and the trickle has dried up rather than become a flood. In any case, a total of nine hundred laity (out of over a million weekly churchgoers), sixty priests (out of more than sixteen thousand) and forty two congregations (out of several thousand) is hardly anything to write home about.

In hindsight the establisment of the Ordinariate seems to have resulted in transferring a small number of misfits from one Church to another, damaging ecumenical relations in the process. Poshseagull (talk) 09:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that such a suggestion is profoundly misguided. It creates an articial standard against which to measure success or failure, one which is essentially created to ensure 'failure' and then declares the project to be a failure (despite still being embryonic). Such posts are fine for polemical media such as blogs, but not a site claiming to be encyclopaedic in form and content. The manner in which the suggestion is written demonstrates that this is clearly an attempt at polemic rather than providing realiable information: "arrogant lack of consultation" (consultation with whom?), "small number of misfits"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacobiteBoy (talk • contribs) 09:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, you might include the Murdoch Press and possibly the BBC as "polemical media" in this instance. A year back we were being treated to phrases such as "make no mistake, this is a seismic change", and forecasts of the trickle becoming droves. Wrong (so far) on both counts. As for lack of consultation, "with whom?", I mean with the Church of England. Both the people who wanted to move and the RC Church can be faulted for this. The word misfit is also appropriate. The small number who have moved felt that they no longer fitted into the Anglican Communion, a view shared by many Anglicans. Furthermore, to quote a RC priest I know (who, understandably would not want to be identified), "they (now) stick out like a sore thumb" in their new Church: "a cross I have to bear".


 * It is entirely appropriate for a site claiming to be encyclopaedic to review progress after a given time (say a year). As for definition of "failure", a word I didn't use myself, well, an Episcopalian theologian I was in contact with in America predicted this. As far as I can see, the ostensible purpose of this initiative was to find a home within the RC Church for some dissident Anglicans. To this extent it has "succeeded", though one could ask why these people didn't simply move to Rome anyhow. As for your word "embryonic", well, the embryo has had more than nine months in which to develop. Perhaps you could let us know in objective, encyclopaedic terms how it's got on. Poshseagull (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Up at the top of this page, it says "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." We are not going to decide by conversations among us whether it seems to be more of a  failure than a success (or vice versa) after the rather short period of one year.  If a somewhat reliable source says something about it, then that could be included on the article... -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well if the standard of sources is 'an Episcopalian theologian I was in contact with' or 'a RC Priest I know' then who am I to argue with that? I presonally predicted that the size would be roughly in the region of where it is, at this point, but would not consider it to be unsuccessful because it is a very young development: do you want to go and amend the page on Saint Augustine's mission to England to be 'unsuccessful', after a year he hadn't even arrived here. Like I said, it is young, it is embryonic, it is far too early to make a judgment on its success or otherwise; particularly when judging it against criteria seemingly plucked from the ether.


 * Sorry, I didn't pick this up before. I quoted a RC priest, who, understandably wishes to remain anonymous and an Episcopalian theologian. I would have to get her permission to quote her, since she gave her opinion to me personally rather than in a published article. But you ask who you are "to argue with that"? OK. Tell us, who are you? I'm a church-going Anglican in the Diocese of Chester which seems virtually unaffected by the Ordinariate and I know no-one who is even thinking of joining. Presumably you have different knowledge? Poshseagull (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The Ordinariate is a jurisdiction of the Catholic Church, created for Anglicans who requested it from the Apostolic See - why would there have been consultation with Canterbury when it is an internal Catholic matter?


 * The term misfit is profoundly inappropriate, not least for the heavily pejorative tone which it adopts. The members may not have been typical members of the Anglican Communion, but anybody who has any sort of acquaintance with the Communion knows that there is no such thing. The members may not be typical members of the Catholic Church, but the Church has (and has always had) significant diversity within it; perhaps we should call the members of Opus Dei misfits, the Congregation of the Oratory and so forth.


 * My Oxford English dictionary describes "misfit" as "a person whose behaviour or attitude sets them apart from others in an uncomfortably conspicuous way". It does not define the word as pejorative. Poshseagull (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As for my objective encyclopaedic terms - it has c.900 members, c.40 congregations (with some newly formed exploratory groups), and c.60 clergy. These numbers are higher than some predicted and lower than others predicted. Moving beyond that detail is commentary. -- JacobiteBoy (talk) 12:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * First, what "criteria" are you talking about? In terms of numbers, they are a miserably small percentage of Church of England members, priests and congregations. Was it really worth setting up the Ordinariate for that? Second, misfit is neither pejorative nor inaccurate. As a regular communicant Anglican, who is also a sidesman and PCC member, I imagine you would accept that I have some sort of acquaintance with the Anglican Communion; far more than most RCs do. Thirdly, since the initiative concerned members of the Anglican Communion and was perceived by many of us as discourteous and potentially damaging, not least to Anglican-RC relations, it is both facile and ludicrous to say that it is (solely) a RC matter and nothing to do with Anglicans. I imagine that you are RC and I would be interested in your criteria for success.


 * At the grass roots in most Dioceses, including that of Chester where I live, its impact has been negligible. But over to you. Just who was it who predicted higher and lower numbers? And after the first trickle, what progess has there been? Poshseagull (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What is your specific concrete proposal to improve the article based on something other than your personal opinions? -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Simple. We need to know the progress of the initiative. It was heralded with great media coverage and predictions a year ago. What has happened since then? It might also be useful to know the objectives of the Ordinariate (if they exist). Is it merely a bolt hole for a handful of dissident Anglicans or an organisation which seeks to proselytise and recruit from the Anglican Communion? Poshseagull (talk) 07:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that is not a specific concrete proposal to improve the article, but rather a request to start a vague generalized open-ended process -- and unfortunately it seems to be more personal-agenda driven than external-source driven... AnonMoos (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with AnonMoos, this appears to be a personal dislike of the Ordinariate and Anglicanorum Coetibus and nothing more. You state that 'we need to know the progress of the initiative' - we do know that, the membership statistics are published in the article. If you would like to add the new exploratory groups founded since the 'first wave' arrive in Easter, these can easily been found on the Ordinariate's web-page; numbers involved in these are strictly confidential (mostly because of the attitude of Anglicans towards those who contemplate membership). If you expected half of the Church of England to join, then you must have been reading different reports on it beforehand than I did (the Church Times and the Catholic Herald); the numbers are pretty much exactly where I would have expected at this point, it was always going to start very small and possibly build-up from there over time. JacobiteBoy (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Goodness me! Your defensiveness and that of AnonMoos speaks volumes! Are you accusing the Bishop of Lincoln, the former Chancellor of St Paul's and the Bishop Christopher Hill of "a personal dislike of the Ordinariate and nothing more"? I'm simply asking how the Ordinariate is getting on. You're telling me that it's a) off topic and b) "strictly confidential" (!). And then you make a subjective and unsubstantiated comment about "the attitude of Anglicans towards those who contemplate membership". Tell us more. Perhaps you'd like to expand on that - in the Article. Poshseagull (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Where did I say that how the Ordinariate is getting on is either off topic or confidential? I have stated above that my view of how it is getting on is to be found in the numbers of members, congregations and clergy - they're already in the article. My objection is to the creation of an arbitrary standard of success or failure at this point; which was your original proposal. The confidentially only relates to those who may be exploring membership, if and when these exploratory groups are received I'm sure that numbers will be public. JacobiteBoy (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Poshseagull -- I'm neither a Catholic nor an Anglican, and I don't live in the UK, so I have very little to get personally "defensive" about, but I noticed from the beginning that your remarks in this section seemed to be based on your personal opinions, rather than anything which could be very directly and immediately used to improve this article. I tried to give you a warning in my message of "10:11, 17 November 2011", but you chose to ignore that warning, and so here we are.  Meanwhile, a very little knowledge of the subject should be enough to convince you that the Vatican really doesn't plan things like this with a one-year timescale in mind.  Love it or hate it, the Vatican simply does not have a Wall Street style "quarterly profits announcement" mindset... AnonMoos (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * AnonMoos. And who are you to "give (me) a warning?" Anyhow, there's little else to be said. I've asked about progress, and the answer seems to be "negligible".Poshseagull (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * On an objective note,
 * 1. The Ordinariate was never primarily intended to make join what is known as the Church of England, but, roughly, the membership of the Traditional Anglican Communion and similar.
 * 2. The Ordinariate does of course seek to proselytize from the Anglican Communion. It has not been specifically erected for the purpose, but the purpose exists; ecumenical relations can only be improved by the honesty that lies in saying that, yes, the Catholic Church does hold itself the one true Church and, yes, the Catholic Church wishes adherents of other churches and ecclesiastical communities to join her. Ecomenical relations based on giving up proselytism is ecumenical relations based on Roman Catholic surrender. In so far as this secondary purpose is concerned, the appropriate measure of its success is the comparison to conversions from within Christianity in other countries.--129.187.173.111 (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * 1. I really can't understand your first paragraph. What does "make join what is known as the Church of England" mean?


 * 2. Yes, I accept this. But 900 out of millions of Anglicans is rather paltry, isn't it? Has the number increased recently, in line with the predicted "droves"? If so, the article should be updated. Poshseagull (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I understood it as meaning that the Ordinariate was intended to appeal to those seceding from the Church of England far more than those remaining more or less contentedly within it... AnonMoos (talk) 09:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Two Years on
Are the numbers still stuck at nine hundred? If not, they should be updated.Poshseagull (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * According to the Article they´ve now reached 1,500: after three years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.45.225.126 (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The number at April 2014 is still 1,500. This means nineteen laity to every priest and an average "congregation" of thirty three.Poshseagull (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. I believe many of the clergy ordained in the Catholic Church were and are retired, not in charge of any congregation.  More important, what has that got to do with improving the article?  Or was it meant as a topic for forum-like discussion?  Esoglou (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I notice that you have been hard at work deleting my contributions. But Keith Newton's comments on the lack of success of the Ordinariate have been properly sourced (Catholic World News). It is sad that you appear to be trying to deny this lack of success, or at least hide it. Poshseagull (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You mistake me. I was trying to get you to edit Wikipedia properly, giving verifiable sources for your statements.  Since you still haven't given a link to where the Jeff Mirus information that interested you is available, I have done it for you.  If in the future you are again unable to find such a link, just ask me and I will see what can be done to help you.  Esoglou (talk) 06:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You mistake me. I was trying to include the statement from Catholic World News about the Ordinariate's lack of success and Newton's quote. I have/had never heard of Jeff Minus. But I am quite content with the version of the words now inserted. However, my words in the general article on Personal Ordinariates are still deleted, but Ruth Gledhill's faulty forecasts still appear. If I try to correct these, will you oppose me? Poshseagull (talk) 07:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe I did not mistake you. You were trying to include the statement given on Catholic World News (Jeff Mirus, you will see if you look at the source, is the Catholic World News provider), but you gave no link to it.  To help you, I have given the required link to the source that you linklessly referred to.  (If you took the news from some other source, you should have indicated that source and provided a link to it.)  The other words you were trying to insert with no hint of where to find a source for them other than yourself are inadmissible until you add to them an indication of a reliable source that you are taking them from.  Read WP:OR.  You might yet become a good Wikipedia editor.  Esoglou (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Do I take it that you now will reinstate the comments I made about Ruth Gledhill's personal and unsourced (and inaccurate) observations in the Personal Ordinariate article? Or would you like me to do this myself? Poshseagull (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If the comments are some that, as you say, you made, they cannot be put in a Wikipedia article - unless of course they were reported by a published source. I presume that Gledhill's observations, whatever they were, were published and a link was given to where they were published.  Have you not yet read WP:OR?  Esoglou (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You know perfectly well what my comments were, since you deleted them. I will do them again. In essence it is clear that Ms Gledhill's forecasts have not materialised. Or are you telling us that the Ordinariate's numbers have now exceeded the paltry 1,500?Poshseagull (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It may surprise you that you are not in a foremost position in my thoughts. I do much cleaning up.  In any case, WP:OR holds.  Post something with a link to a reliable source and it will stay.  Post something with no such link and someone or other will remove it.  Esoglou (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

So you "do much cleaning up" do you. Is that some sort of official role, or do you just "clean up" what you don't like? Certainly you moved quickly to delete my correction of Ruth Gledhill's partial and inaccurate forecast (which is allowed to stay). Why? Poshseagull (talk) 07:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Geographical Spread
There are forty four CofE Dioceses which would mean that on about twenty people per diocese have left for the Ordinariate. I did hear (from a Bishop) that in the Diocese of Truro about twenty five have moved. In Chester I have not heard of anyone moving, nor, according to friends who live there, has there been any noticeable impact in Portsmouth. But judging by press reports, in south-east England the numbers, whilst still very small, seem to be more significant. Poshseagull (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Calendar removal question
I don't really object to the removal of the calendar section but I am wondering on what policy principle it was done. I don't see how "self source" is a policy problem when it comes to such apparently straightforward and uncontentious information. Anglicanus (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source" - as in this case. Esoglou (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I presume this comment really belongs on the talk page not of Personal ordinariate, but of Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham and is in relation to the repeated removal of the calendar from that article without discussion. I am therefore copying it to that page.  Please excuse me if I am mistaken.  Esoglou (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Liturgical calendar
I have no objection to including the liturgical calendar on Wikipedia. It is even possible to split this into a separate article, given that it will probably be shared by the other Ordinariates as they come into being. But just because it is a primary source is no reason to exclude it. No interpretation of the facts is being made. Elizium23 (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It would probably be allowable under Verifiability... AnonMoos (talk) 11:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Province
To which ecclesiastical province is the Ordinariate attached? Who is its Metropolitan? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Annuario Pontificio puts personal ordinariates (like military ordinariates and ordinariates for the faithful of eastern rite) outside the provinces. Esoglou (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)