Talk:Anglicanism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

episcopalianism

whoever created the redirects from episcopalian and episcopalianism to anglican should be aware that episcopalianism is NOT a form of Anglicanism. There is a complicanted history involved, and I won't get involved in it here. There is a good article, episcopal, about episcopalianism. I have changed the redirects to that article.
Bobburito 03:32, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The above statement is right-wing lunatic fringe rubbish.

Nrgdocadams 22:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

How was it "right wing"? Maybe your pointless insult should be considered left wing rtardation, since it made no sense whatsoever. There are differences between anglicanism and episcapalianism, one of them being that episcapelians arent connected to the British monarchy...

Eno-Etile 21:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

And maybe your statement shows your ignorance and lack of understanding of Anglicanism. Many if not most, Anglican churches are not associated with the British monarchy either. If you don't know what you are talking about don't advertise it so obviously. 72.136.51.111 21:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

And maybe your statement shows that you're the kind of person who jumps to insulting people instead of discussing. Yes I do have a somewhat limited understanding of both religions being neither a member of either or a theological student/scholar, that is why I was reading the article in the first place. But there are differences in the religion that I am aware of. 1) The names, obviously 2)Ep. originated as the American version of Anglicanism while Anglicanism was and is in many cases still connected to the British monarchy (hence the "Angl") 3) as for the other poster's comment being right wing I still do not see how you came to that conclusion. The way I see it if somone types in Episcopelianism they want an article specifically about it not about Anglicanism, and visa versa. If we do that why dont we just have Eastern Roman Catholic redirect to Orthodox, or the other way around.Eno-Etile 03:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The Episcopal Church of the United States of America (ECUSA) and the Episcopal Church of Scotland are members of the Anglican communion which also includes a number of other churches worldwide, many of them, like the American Episcopalians and the Scottish Episcopalians, are derived doctrinally and liturgically from the Church Of England originally but, like the Americans but not the Scots, no longer owe any particular alleigance to the British monarchy. Other member churches of the Anglican communion have got there by other routes and have even less connection to the Church of England than the Episcopalians. Anglicanism is a name for the group of churches which are all independently governed but have enough history and/or some doctrines in common to band together with each other. There is a separate page about ECUSA but you will see that it is described as part ofthe Anglican communion there too. I don't understand about right wing either. Dabbler 04:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

My point is that if you type episcopal you want to see something about the ECUSA or another episcopal church not the Anglican, or you would type Anglican. Maybe a seach for episcopal, episcopalian, etc should go to an episcopal/episcopalian disambiguation rather than a specific page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eno-Etile (talk • contribs) 18:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

But most if not all the churches with Episcopal in their names are part of Anglicanism. All Anglican churches are lower case episcopal, as is the Roman Catholic Church for that matter, in that they have bishops. It is just that some Anglican churches use the word "Episcopal" in their names and some use "Anglican" and some, like the Church of England or the Church of Ireland, use neither. If you want to be more specific and look up a particular church, then you have to be more specific when you search. You will find links in Anglicanism to all the Episcopal churches that are part of the Anglican communion, so going there will help you find the one you are looking for. Dabbler 18:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Then maybe episcopal should redirect to bishops? Eno-Etile 00:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be Episcopacy which redirects to Episcopal polity which tells you to go to Anglicanism if you want Episcopalians. Dabbler 06:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok how about episcopal/episcopalian/episcopalianism/etc alll redirect to bishop or bishops or w/e Eno-Etile 23:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Each of those pages has links to Bishop and vice versa. Each of those separate articles has a good reason to exist and should not be converted into one huge Bishop article which attempts to provide all knowledge of everything concerning bishops. It would completely unreadable. Dabbler 11:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Why should somone have to sift through an extra page though? The word episcopal has no more direct relation to the Anglican church than it does to the RC and less than it does to bishops. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eno-Etile (talk • contribs) 09:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Eno-Etile—I also thought that at first. However, it turns out well over 80% of links to [[Episcopal]] in English wikipedia are looking for ECUSA, and most of the rest want the Scottish Episcopal Church. I hope that users realise quickly that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and that they can see from Episcopal Church (disambiguation) that episcopal means bishop, and also link to a definition of episcopal and one of Episcopal .
• This issue is also discussed in detail at Talk:Episcopal Church in the United States of America#Name rehash and at Talk:Episcopal Church (disambiguation) .
• Now I am confused as to whether you are discussing the redirect for Episcopalianism or for Episcopal — they go to different places.
• Either way, we have tried to draw discussion of all these redirects together in one place. Please discuss this further at Talk:Episcopal Church (disambiguation) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Piskies

The Scottish Episcopal Church has its roots in post-Scottish reformation attempts to reintroduce bishops, resulting in two church traditions before James VI acceded to the English throne, and developed separately. You're missing out on a significant part of the development of the world-wide communion if you ignore the piskies. ....dave souza, talk 10:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Childish talk! LOL. Seeing you write "Episcopalian" like that, makes me laugh. IP Address 10:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Check Scottish Episcopal Church#Name: common nickname! ..dave souza, talk 12:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No one's suggesting they be left out. It just seemed to me to be very odd to say at the very beginning that the Scottish Episcopal Church isn't a daughter church of the Church of England when there had been no previous mention of the concept of daughter churches at all. If it comes to that, the Episcopal Church of the USA isn't a daughter church of the CofE either, but rather of the "Piskies", as you call them. Angr (talk • contribs) 10:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Because the Scottish Episcopal Church is a part of the Anglican Communion and therefore Anglicanism, many assume that it is a Scottish district in Britain...or something like that. IP Address 11:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps inevitably, the article's a bit anglocentric. James VI was undoubtedly influenced by his relatives Henry and Liz, but his attempt to foist bishops on the kirk led to the communion being a coming together of traditions rather than one line straight from 'Enery, and this should be made clear early on. ..dave souza, talk 12:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The Catholic Church

I appreciate that you and many others do not agree with the usage of the term, Catholic, for the the Church based in Rome. I respect you freedom to disagree; however, I do not believe you have the right to tell people how to name themselves. The Catholic Church could claim the rights to all the names of the various Christian Churches saying that their use of their name is "parochial." Of course this would be rude and condescending, and we do not. For instance, we could say that "Baptist" really should only be used to refer to all Christians, since we all practice baptism. Presbyterian--well, Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans would all have a much fairer claim to that title than Presbyterians do, since that term is understood to mean "priest," which they do not actually have. Methodists hardly have a method, but many other churches claim to. Everyone claims to be "orthodox", many churches are "episcopal" in their governance. Oh, and precisely which church is not evangelical in some fashion? ...etc., etc. (Not to mention LDS!) So, the first argument is that it is a matter of respect to call churches by how they call themselves. That is a minimum decency that civil people afford eachother.

Also, it drives me crazy that Spanish speakers insist that the Americas are one continent and everyone on it is an "American," so, US citizens should really be "Unitedstatians," or some such other un-English formulation because it better suites their sensibilities. Let's just say that's not going to happen. In a likewise manner, it is very awkward English to use "Roman" in every reference to Catholicism. No one I know really talks like that. It is just poor (and idiological sounding) English.

Also, there are many Catholic Churches in the original sense of the term that do not call themselves "Roman," such as the Greek Catholic Church, the Ruthenian Catholic Church, the Maronite Catholic Church, etc. By original sense of the term I mean that "catholic" in the early church meant those in communion with the Church of Rome. Ignatius, if you read his discussion on the Church, literally says this! "Roman" Catholic within the Catholic Church means the "Latin Rite" almost always, though sometimes sometimes the term is used for the entire Catholic Church to ''emphasize'' the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, Primate of the West, Vicar of Christ, etc.

Now for the historical/institutional matter: No one in the 16th Century argued that the Catholic Church of Trent was a different institution from the one that Luther and the rest protested against and had sought to reform. Also, there was no Western Christian prior to the Reformation(s) that did not understand the Western Church as the Catholic Church. It is very clear that the Catholic Church after the reformation is the same institution that existed before and had always called itself since Ignatius of Antioch the "Catholic Church." The theology of sacraments, ecclesiology, etc. had not changed with the Reformation. So, the burden of proof is on someone who wants to claim that the Catholic Church ceased to be itself such that it needed to change its name, which it has never done.

Now this is where it gets interesting. The term "Roman Catholic" only came into vogue in the 19th Century for a number of reasons. It was a way for Catholics in local areas to distinguish themselves from others who broke away but kept the name, such as the "Old Catholics." It was also a way to distinguish Latin Catholics from Eastern Rite Catholics within the Catholic Church. And, most interestingly for this discussion, Anglicans which had never had much use for any claims to being "Catholic" suddenly became interested in the term when the intense study of the previously lost patristic texts showed how ancient the term was and how "Catholic" the early church was in its theology and ecclesiology. Such patristic studies gave rise to the Oxford Movement and eventually the claim to Anglo-Catholicism. Of course, that the Anglican church was clearly protestant historically is demonstrated by such names as "The Protestant Episcopal Church of American," which is the original name of the ECUSA.

The term "Catholic Church" is never used in capitalized form for the "universal Christian church," because that would be confused with the Catholic Church. Except in the creeds, this term is never used without qualification for that purpose. Besides, we are talking about corporate entities, concrete churches. The abstranct sense is not a practical term but a theological conception (which does not make it any less real, but does put it in another distinct specific conversation in which the speakers would know the difference).

While Catholics do occasionally call themselves Roman Catholics (only in the West) we have at no time in history ever ceased to call ourselves simply Catholics. This the name for our Church and ourselves in continuous use from the time of Igantius of Antioch ~107 A.D. Use of "the Catholic Church" is not "parochial," which seems to be an intentionally demeaning term, but is rather historical. Ignatius, by the way, was an Eastern Patriarch (of Antioch) and still claimed communion with the Bishops and especially the Bishop of Rome as the essential way to distinguish orthodox Christianity from false revelations, prophets, philosophies, etc. This explains the strangeness of WP aticles on publications such as the "National Catholic Reporter" with the word Roman interjected at every instance of the word "Catholic" except in the title of the "NCR" and the WP article title on the subject. It is just awkward, forced and ultimately a POV ideological imposition.

Lastly, the use by others of the term "Catholic Church" need not presume that they agree with the Church's historical or theological claims. When I call a Baptist a Baptist, I do not imply that I agree with the Baptist theology of baptism which by definition excludes me, a Catholic, from salvation. If "Catholic Church" is not acceptible, then in justice we should insist on some other qualifier for all the churches (perhaps, "Protestant Baptist," or the even more precise, "Protestant Anglo-Catholics," since all English Catholics are "Anglo-Catholics)."

Thanks for reading. --Vaquero100 03:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the bottom line for Anglicans in this matter is that we need to avoid using the word 'catholic' in any way which--203.214.141.208 05:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC) implies that members of the pope's church are catholics and we are not. My St. Joseph Daily Missal from the 1960's has the expression "Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church" on the title page, so I dont see what all the fuss is about. I was also under the impression that objection to the term 'Roman Catholic' was an Irish quirk, and that Roman Catholics in other parts of the world were quite happy to be Roman Catholics Nennius, 3/9/06

Overlap with Church of England

Obviously there's always going to be some overlap, but might it be an idea to have a clearer split between the institution (Church of England) and the 'ideology' (not quite the right word, but you see what I mean) (Anglicanism), or even merge the 2? Neddyseagoon 14:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)neddyseagoon

I'm definitely against merging. Not all Anglicans belong to the Church of England; in fact, most don't. This page should be about Anglicanism as a whole (including Anglicans outside the Anglican Communion). The only place where there should be significant overlap is in the early history. Angr (t • c) 14:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

True, good point, though the difference could be made clearer in the 2 articles. Neddyseagoon 15:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)neddyseagoon

Indeed, but that's not a reason to merge them. Angr (t • c) 15:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The Church of England is not the same as Anglicanism. Yes, it was identical in 1700, but today Anglicanism embraces also the Church of Nigeria, the Episcopal Church (to mention two extremes) and the Church of England has its own distinction within Anglicanism (e.g., to my knowledge, the only Anglican state church, has the Queen of England as head, etc.

It might be well to put everything general to Anglicanism and refer to it in Church of England as well as in the other Anglican churches - but that's sorting out, not merging. --Irmgard 13:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm definitely against merging this with "Church of England" for all the reasons outline in the previous entry. Irmgard is quite right. Cor Unum 07:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the tag since it's clear a merger has been rejected. IMO what needs to be better delineated is not the difference between Anglicanism and the Church of England (I think this article is clearly not about the CofE), but rather the difference between Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. We need to work out what we want this article to say and what we want Anglican Communion to say so that (1) there isn't redundancy between the two and (2) the views of Anglicans outside the Communion are duly (but not disproportionately) represented. Angr (t • c) 08:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not true!

>anglicans are second largest sect of Christianity globally with over 77 million member

There are over 150 million orthodox christian people (those who believe the apostolic succession of their priests originates from Apostle John, the youngest disciple).

In turn catholic belive the apostolic succession of their priests originates from Peter and Paul, who died in Rome. They are the most populous religion worldwide.

Actually, there is no difference in belief in "who" they succeeded from. The Orthodox ALSO believe that Peter and Paul were the first Bishops of Rome, but Peter was also the first bishop of Antioch; Mark of Alexandria; James first bishop of Jerusalem; Andrew of Constantinople. John was first bishop of Ephesus.

Actually the group that is perhaps most associated with hearkening back to John are the Celtic Christians would were in Britain before Gregory sent Augustine of Canterbury. At the Council of Whitby, the disagreements between them and Rome were characterized as Disagreements between John and Peter. Carlo 18:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sign your freaking comments. Haizum 22:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ummm...I did. Get slightly less of an attitude. Carlo 01:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

actually there are around 77 million and over 300 million Protestants and 1 billion catholics. AngryAfghan

Right, but neither "Protestant" nor "Orthodox" is considered a single sect. The largest sect is Roman Catholic, followed by Anglican, because Protestants and Orthodox are divided up into many sects. Angr (talk) 05:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"Sect" is misleading then,Angr. The terms most often used in these comparisons are "Church" and "Communion." As a communion, Anglicanism is the third largest. I doubt many readers will understand what is meant by "sect" in this instance which appears to be a term employed to avoid numerical comparison with the Orthodox churches. In fact, considering the lack of juridical authority possessed by the bishop of Canterbury, I can't see any real distintion in the relations among Anglican churches and the Orthodox churches. In fact, Orthodox Churches are likely closer to being whatever is meant by "sect" in that the have a greater degree of internal discipline than do Anglican churches as has been recently demonstrated in the gay bishop ordination scandal.

Furthermore, "sect" is a sociological term which does not actually apply to the Catholic Church the Anglican Communion nor the Orthodox Churches.

Whatever is hoped to be achieved by the use of "sect" as a criterion for comparison, it is spurious at best. --Vaquero100 06:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  Why couldn't the word 'larger' be substituted for 'largest'? Nennius

Origin

I think that King Henry VIII should be mensioned in this article as he is in the article about himself. In schools when children learn about ANGLICANISM they learn that the founder of this religion was King Henry VIII.

Henry VIII is now mentioned as not really intending too much of a split. This contradicts the fact that, by the time he died, his Privy Council was made up predominantly of humanists and moderate Protestants. The main Catholic, Gardiner, who was instrumental in arguing against Rome when Henry needed him, rarely was allowed into Council meetings. Similarly, Edward VI's teachers were humanists and protestants. Edward VI was raised to be Protestant. My studies don't touch on what Henry meant at first, but certainly by the 1540s he was in the Protestant camp. JoshNarins 01:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandal confusion.

A vandal made some edits to this page, which I reverted. However, they may be a problem with the See Also section. If somone more familiar with this article could check it out, I would be much obliged. - Dr. Zaret 02:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Anglicanism

A new WikiProject focussing on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion has just been initiated: WikiProject Anglicanism. Our goal is to improve and expand Anglican-reltaed articles. If anyone (Anglican or non-Anglican) is interested, read over the project page and consider signing up. Cheers! Fishhead64 06:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Architecture of Anglican churches

I've always wondered about this. What is the symbolism and origin of the four spires in a square that marks most (all?) anglican churches? Thanks. El Gringo 18:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not know of any church in the UK bearing four spires. The most common pattern for churches in England (built both before and after the Reformation) is a cross-shaped building, with a square tower either at the crossing or at the west end. This tower may bear a single large spire, or four small pointed turrets at each corner (simply for decoration). Less common patterns include the saddleback tower (with a small pitched roof at the top), the round tower (locally in some parts of England). Cathedrals and very large churches may have other variations, such as an octagonal lantern-tower or a dome. Myopic Bookworm 12:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected, MB. This is the type of church square tower that I am speaking of: http://www.wicklow.ie/Wicklow%20400/Photo%20Gallery/images/Church%20of%20Ireland,%20Nuns%20Cross%20Ashford.jpg And this: http://www.interment.net/data/ireland/dublin/stbrigid/DX-211.jpg And this: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~rosdavies/photos/KilkeelKilhorneCofIAnnalong.JPG And this, the most important Anglican church in Ireland: http://www.planetware.com/i/photo/cathedral-of-the-church-of-ireland-armagh-arptcth.jpg I have thought that it symbolised the crown's supremacy over the church, but I have no basis for that. All I know is that it is extremely rare- I cannot recall one instance of it- to see such a tower on a Catholic Church in Ireland. El Gringo 21:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Could be a problem seeing as though many of the catholic churches in Ireland have round towers. 'Tis hard to put spires on the corners of a round tower. :-P I think they're there just because they look pretty, it's a high-gabled ornamental extension of a crenellation...just as barrel vaults went from round to pointed ellipses...crennelations went from simple squares at the roofline to pretty, elongated spires. Notice most English gothic churches are crenellated (is that a word?) —ExplorerCDT 01:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Church

I don't want to get into an edit war with someone who seems to be irredeemably hostile to the Anglican churches. However I have decided to put up the disputed section template until some of the statements can be conclusively verified with citations or at least to warn others that I consider them to be totally POV and wrong asthey are written now. Dabbler 01:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten and added citations in the disputed area and I have removed the tag.Dabbler 04:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The Anglican Communion refers to itself as 'catholic and reformed'. I see that this has been changed to 'anglo-catholic and protestant'. This is simply incorect wording. I am going to change it back, as I'm certain that the correct wording should be used. Please discuss here if you feel otherwise. — Gareth Hughes 21:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be our friend Vaquero100, a Roman Catholic priest with a bone to pick with Anglican claims of catholicity. Fishhead64 21:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"Catholic and Reformed" is a term used by Anglo-Catholics to affirm Catholicims and avoid the term Protestant. Actually, there are a great many in the Anglican Communion who identify themselves as Protestants. The Church of Scotland "which is not a daughter church" of the Church of England is decidedly Protestant.--Vaquero100 21:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have no problem with Anglo-Catholic claims to being catholic. I have a problem with all efforts to rob the Catholic Church of the use of her name which appears to be a common Anglican project on WP. I have a problem also with Anglo-Catholicism speaking for all Anglicans who are, in fact, mixed on the issue.

Also, after 2 months of Fishhead's hounding and Catholic-baiting on the RCC page, it is time to take the argument to the source of the bigotry.

My work on WP is consistant and principled and aimed at seeking justice against Anglican Anti-Catholicism.--Vaquero100 21:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually it looks like you're on a campaign. A number of the churches refer to themselves as catholic, not just Anglicans. I quote you from the CofE Revised Catechism: 'The Church of England is the ancient Church of this land, catholic and reformed. It proclaims and holds fast the doctrine and ministry of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church'. This is what the church says it is: this is the wording the article should use. — Gareth Hughes 21:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"Catholic and Reformed" is the term preferred by intoductory works on Anglicanism (see, for example, "The Study of Anglicanism" by Sykes and Booty or "This is Our Faith" by Stuchbery).

"Robbery" implies taking violent possession of something belonging to another. Nobody is claiming that your institution does not have the right to describe itself as the Catholic Church. You, on the other hand, claim that other movements which have never surrendered the description may not describe themselves thus.

Our argument, which is now seeping over here, is over naming conventions and the ambiguity of the term. My Roman Catholic friends and acquaintances - lay, clergy, and religious - would be amused to hear that I'm an anti-Catholic bigot...and most are well aware of my opinions on this matter. But I guess this is what sitting in front of a computer screen does to others' perceptions of oneself. Fishhead64 21:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you told all your Catholic friends that you and your Anglican fellows are systematically irradicating the use of the name of the Catholic Church on WP? I assure you their amusement would cease if you did. You and your fellow have acted utterly without sensitivity to Catholics. This is hurtful and maddening. I have no problem with any member of the Anglican Churches. This all started with the intollerance of Anglicans toward the Catholic Church in the use of her name.

I am sure it is socially acceptible in England and other Anglican dominated circles to refuse to acknowledge the name of the Catholic Church. But you need to know that it is patently uncivil. This discussion WILL NOT END until until the name of the Catholic Church is recognized. --Vaquero100 21:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

How am I systematically eradicating anything? Certainly were it true, I would expect my acquaintances to be dismayed. In cases where the term is ambiguous (e.g. Catholic sacraments), I have suggested a term (e.g. Roman Catholic sacraments) - used by the institution itself to refer to itself - to provide specificity. Otherwise, I have no problem with the term Catholic Church being used in the manner you describe - indeed, if you read my edits to this article, you will see I use it myself in this way. It is you who have claimed, without evidence, that your institution does not refer to itself as the Roman Catholic Church, and hence the use of term is unjust and uncivil. This claim is simply belied by the evidence, e.g., the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission (which must be more linked to my talk page comments than anywhere else, but you never refute its use). Fishhead64 21:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

PS, Vaquero - Don't edit my talk comments. This is considered vandalism, and is certainly reportable. Fishhead64 21:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

ARCIC, as I have said before is a rare instance of a concession by the Catholic Church to appease Anglicans on the comission. It was never intended as a justification to irradicate the name of the Catholic Church in all public fora such as WP. If you look closesly you will see that the Catholic Church calls itself such in all its encyclical letters and conciliar documents. --Vaquero100 22:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Anglo-Catholic is a rather informal term to refer to a theological party within the Anglican Communion. Changing 'catholic and reformed', which is how the church describes itself, to 'Anglo-Catholic and Protestant' is a simple misunderstanding of the history and make-up of the Anglican Communion. I understand your issue with the designation Roman. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it is a disambiguation to distinguish between Roman Catholic Church and Catholic Church (disambiguation). Therefore, if a link to the former document is changed to Catholic Church, it is being passed through a redirect. It is better to link directly to an article. — Gareth Hughes 23:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it is Anglicans that have forced the Catholic Church off of the Catholic Church page. That is what is at issue here. Your fellows are engaged in a campaign to irradicate the name of the Catholic Church on WP. Please. Please. Please. Stop the suppression of the Catholic Church's name! Anglican bullying tactics might work in England, but they wont for long on the internet. --Vaquero100 23:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I see no bullying tactics. There is a procedure for renaming articles, and it requires consensus. All I've seen so far is a Catholic telling Anglicans what to call themselves and then calling them bullies. You seem to have a real personal issue going on. I urge you to tone down your language: calling other contributors bullies while asserting your will against them (see above This discussion WILL NOT END until until the name of the Catholic Church is recognized!) will not help you. Please start having some respect for the opinions of others. — Gareth Hughes 23:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Gareth, it has been Anglicans who have been telling Catholics what to call ourselves for a few centuries. Now, maybe you know what it is like. There is a systematic campaign by Anglican on WP to prevent the use of the Catholic Church's name. It is time for this to end. It has been spearheaded by Fishhead64 and been going on for almost 4 months on the RCC page. This has got to stop.--Vaquero100 23:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Eh, aren't you talking about the Roman catholic church? If you're unable to share catholic, meaning universal, with all the other kirks, why not just call yourselves Papists? There you are, a name all to yourselves! By the way, the Piskies are indeed not a daughter church of the C of E, but rather a sibling of the Church of Scotland. ..dave souza, talk 23:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, true Anglican colors now show. Papist? why not just call us fisheaters? There is only one entity by the name of Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has no problem with other churches incorporating the word Catholic in their names. Glad to share. But all groups and organizations have the right to name themselves. The campaign to irradicate the name of the Catholic Church is a abuse. --Vaquero100 00:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, slurs like "Papist" and "Romish," born of bigotry are the very origin of the name "Roman Catholic." This is one reason we Catholics object to the term. Besides, where is this other "catholic church?" --Vaquero100 00:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

How about the one the Piskies say they belong to as part of their service? If you're too ashamed of the Pope to want him in your name, don't go around demanding a monopoly on a name other churches have an equally legitimate right to. ..dave souza, talk 00:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is asking other churches to change their names. They all have fine names. The Catholic Church is what the pope calls his church, so there is no shame issue here. The issue is Catholic baiting, Piskies and all.--Vaquero100 00:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Philip Jenkins, an Episcopalian historian, in The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice (Oxford University Press 2005 ISBN 0195154800) maintains that some people who otherwise avoid offending members of racial, ethnic or gender groups drop their guard regarding religion. Earlier in the twentieth century, Harvard professor Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr. characterized prejudice against the Catholic Church as "the deepest bias in the history of the American people" and Yale professor Peter Viereck once commented that "Catholic baiting is the anti-Semitism of the liberals."

Philip Jenkins, an Episcopalian historian, in The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice (Oxford University Press 2005 ISBN 0195154800) maintains that some people who otherwise avoid offending members of racial, ethnic or gender groups drop their guard regarding religion.

Do tell. Fishhead64 01:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the desire of some (Roman) Catholics to reserve for their own church the designation "Catholic Church", but since every church which recites the Apostles' Creed affirms a belief in the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church", I am sure that it cannot, in practical terms, be so reserved. I expect the Roman Church to refer to itself, in its own documents and formulae, as "the Catholic Church", because it believes itself to be such; but it cannot expect to enforce that usage in external context, because other Christians do not believe it to be such. Myopic Bookworm 13:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"Autocephalous?"

The claim that the churches of the Anglican Communion are "autocephalous" is ridiculous. A Googles search (Anglican autocephalous) produced only one occurance and that was the WP article on the Anglican Church in Canada written by Fishhead. This is just another example of this Protestant church donning the clothes of Catholics and Orthodox in an attempt to gain an elusive legitimacy. This is especially shameless in a time when the Windsor Report and other Anglican documents using the term "independent" and "interdependent" are flooding the internet. Nice try.

Vaquero, what is the definition of "autocephalous"? Is it not a church whose episcopal primate is autonomous and independent? Autocephaly and independence are synonymous to an extent, by autocephaly is more precise. The Anglican Church of Wherever is as autocephalous as the Roman Catholic Church. Or perhaps you have evidence to the contrary? Fishhead64 21:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the term fits, but you are correct - it does appear to be used exclusively in reference to the Orthodox Churches. "Independent" is better. But please, please, please assume good faith. Fishhead64 21:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Fishhead. I HAVE assumed good faith, but all evidence is to the contrary. --Vaquero100 21:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I belong to the Anglican Church of Australia, the Primate of which is elected without reference to any ecclesiastical authority outside of Australia. If that doesn't make the Anglican Church of Australia autocephalous what on earth does autocephalous mean? Nennius 3/9/06

Ecumenism and the RCC

First, I really think the back and forth on this is not productive - it's a question of who suffered more, and I think we all know that the Reformation and Counter-Reformation produced enough bloodshed and repression on all sides. Moreover, any comprehensive discussion of the English Reformation (and its discontents!) should properly be at English Reformation, and the abusive and bigoted legislation and its impact can be fully unpacked at Catholic Emancipation.

Second, if one is going to make claims about ARCIC (e.g., that the RCC views the process as "increasingly irrelevant," or that it is placing more emphasis on dialogue with Anglican schismatics), these should be backed up in some way. Part of my ministry is in ecumenical and multifaith dialogue, and I wrote a comprehensive review of the ARCIC document on Mary. That is certainly not my perception of the official position. Fishhead64 04:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Pius V

The papal bull of 1570 excommunicated Elizabeth and urged her subjects to depose her (Dickens, The English Reformation, 2nd ed., p. 366). In what way does this not constitute an authorisation of rebellion? It is true that few English Catholics sought the violent overthrown of the crown, although papal supremacy was definitely a factor in the Anglo-Spanish War. Nonetheless, in the end, the bull did authorise rebellion [1].

I can understand a concern for balance - which I thought my edits had achieved - but historical revisionism is unjustifiable. Fishhead64 19:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It needs to be recognised that what Pius V did was issue a fatwa against Elizabeth. Nennius 3/9/06

Anglicana versus Anglicanus

It is the case, is it not, that the Church is feminine but the country is masculine? Unfortunately, my Latin is very rusty. So, my question is, etymologically, which is more appropriate - Church or State? LOL! Fishhead64 22:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

hehe, I'm not honestly sure about this one. I only intended to conform it with OED, which suggests a root of medieval Latin Anglican-us, from Anglic-us. If consensus wants it changed back, I've no objection. Carl.bunderson 22:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a Latin adjective and, therefore not inherently masculine or feminine. However, the noun ecclesia is feminine, so one can only speak of Ecclesia Anglicana. However, if the adjective is quoted alone, and without reference to a noun (explicitly or implicitly), it is quoted in the masculine form Anglicanus. The Latin adjective is formed after the noun Angli (masculine plural), the tribe of the Angles. — Gareth Hughes 22:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Since the term originates with regard to the church, I have preferred to give the whole phrase, ecclesia Anglicana. According to the OED, it occurs in Magna Carta (1215): Quod Anglicana ecclesia libera sit. Myopic Bookworm 09:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that, Myopic. I had only looked at the etymology, I'll be sure to check out the quotations as well in the future. Carl.bunderson 16:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal note

I would like to offer my apologies to the Anglicans on WP and especially those who edit this page. I realize that I have let my frustration boil over into some outrageous verbal vengence on this page in recent weeks. This was clearly out of order. I regret the offenses I have given.

I might add here that I did go to confession today, and am now in much better spirits. Accordingly, I have made the resolve to "amend my life" as the Act of Contrition states and this applies to WP.

Have a good night. --Vaquero100 02:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance. (Luke 15:7) 72.136.51.111 11:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

small "c" problem.

In the "Post-Reformation" section, the article shows:

For the next century, through the reigns of James I and Charles I, and culminating in the English Civil War and the protectorate of Oliver Cromwell, there were significant swings back and forth between the Puritans and those with a more catholic understanding of the Christian faith. The failure of political and ecclesiastical authorities to submit to Puritan demands for more extensive reform was one of the causes of open warfare.

Surely the (in this specific case) equivocal term "catholic" within such a passage, within such a section, and within such an article will be most generally misinterpreted; especially since the Anglican Church -- at least in those times -- had a far stronger connexion with the views of the Vatican.

I feel that a better, more informative, and different term must be chosen. Lindsay658 07:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The term should be Catholic, in keeping with the concept of Catholicism central to Anglicanism's identity as a Reformed, yet also Catholic tradition. Fishhead64 07:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The sentence is an awkward one. The phrase those with a more catholic understanding of the Christian faith is a piece of circumlocution that does not balance with the simple phrase the Puritans on the other side. In the language of the day, one might say the Puritans and the Ritualists. The phrases refer to the breadth of Anglicanism: from thoroughly Protestant Puritans through the Episcopalian Low Church to Ritualist High Church through to those who wished to see reunion with Rome. However, these labels may not be appropriate either. Perhaps it would be better to use something more descriptive: between those who wished to see further reform of the church and those who wished to see Catholic traditions retained or reinstated. How's that? — Gareth Hughes 10:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. Myopic Bookworm 11:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose my point was something like this:

(a) given that the movement towards "Anglicanism" (in a more specific way) was a move against Roman Catholicism, was the writer trying to say something like "and those whose loyalty still lay with Rome"?, or

(b) given that the towards "Anglicanism" (in a more general way) was a move away from the wider European community towards a far narrower, far more local, and far more English focus, was the writer trying to say something like "and those who still looked beyond the Straits of Dover to inform their Christian faith?

It just seemed to me, that the use of small "c" catholic (meaning "universal") made the intention of the passage rather hard to identify.

I'm still not certain that big "C" is the solution. However, best to you all Lindsay658 17:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right. With a small c, catholic means 'universal'. However, some do use it to mean Catholic but not Roman Catholic. The problem is that there was no move towards 'Anglicanism': Anglicanism is what developed from among the competing forces in the English Church that did not either refuse to split with Rome or dissent from what many Puritans saw was a Reformation made in part. Thus, Catholic could either describe those who remained loyal to Rome or those who parted with Rome but desired a non-papal English Catholic Church. The way that the original author worded the phrase — more catholic understanding of the Christian faith — does not suggest to me a referrence to those who remained faithful to Rome, but those who wished the English Church to remain fully Catholic yet independent from papal control. — Gareth Hughes 17:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Gareth Hughes, thanks for the clarification. My point was not that I wanted one or other view to prevail within the article. It was that I simply could not (and still can not) make sense of the equivocal passage "and those with a more catholic understanding of the Christian faith" -- or, in its current form "and those with a more Catholic understanding of the Christian faith" (given your explanation of the various usages of big "C" Catholic, it would seem that the passage has become even less clear).

Given an assumption that the writer originally meant to transfer a meaning something like either of the options you have described ("loyal to Rome" or "parted with Rome") the passage in its present form does not specifically and unambiguously deliver either of those meanings (or any other clear meaning for that matter). I still think that the piece needs to be rewritten so that (a) it unambiguously says precisely what it is intended to mean, and (b) that meaning is immediately understood by all readers. Anyway, Best to all of you. Lindsay658 23:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Since 'catholic' (big or small c) is not usually an opposite to 'Puritan', it might be better to avoid the word altogether, and refer simply to "those favouring more traditional forms of belief and church practice" in contrast to the radical reforms sought by the Puritans. Myopic Bookworm 09:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Those who fancy themselves "Anglican Divines" appear to have nothing but contempt for the office of St. Peter. They have a bad habit of always speaking of Rome in terms of politics, using terms like "control" or power or domination. This of course is not how Catholics feel toward the Pope who is their shepherd, instrument of unity and final arbiter. He is exactly what Peter was to the apostles and the popes to the Early Church. Sts. Ignatius, Clement, and Ireneus were all clear about the central, essential and indispensable role of Bishop of Rome. Being "free" of his ministry is like being "unburdened" with the Gospel, which I suppose in some cases is not far from the truth. Divorce anyone? Vaquero100 05:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The remorse expressed above in #Personal note seems to have worn off. User:Angr 07:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

In Anglican thought and tradition, it is important to note a difference between ROMAN Catholic and Catholic. Philosophically, the distinction is huge. TrulyTory 11:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Tell me about it! Fishhead64 21:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly why (a) the use of the word is a problem here and (b) it would be better to avoid using it in such a confusing context. Myopic Bookworm 10:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"Philosophically" you may think the distinction is HUGE, but as a practical matter and as a matter of plain fact, the distinction is FALSE. Vaquero100 05:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that I'm not sure there is another word with the same meaning. "Catholic", alone and undisambiguated, is the word that is used for that end of Anglicanism which emphasises tradition and continuity, usually associated with high-church ritual. Is there another word for it? "Anglo-Catholic" could be used, I suppose; there are subtle shades of meaning but it generally means more or less the same thing. TSP 10:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Somehow, it seems that my original point has either been lost in the on-going struggle, or that it is such a simple one that, in attempting to engage in the issue I have raised, so many highly conditioned "buttons" have been pushed that all of the protagonists have now become so immersed in their eternal patterns of discord, that they are unable to understand the mundane simplicity of my request. May I now state it in a different way:

I have some understanding of "Anglicanism", and I am a native speaker of English. The way that the sentence in question is currently written -- no doubt due to the fact that it contains unusual and very specialized usages of English words, which otherwise have solid and substantial meanings in everyday English -- is totally incomprehensible to me. Could somebody (or some group) please, please, come to a consensus of whatever it is that the sentence is intended to communicate; and, then, simply write down that meaning in other words, so that the sentence's meaning is immediately transparent. Best to you all Lindsay658 07:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"For the next century, through the reigns of James I and Charles I, and culminating in the English Civil War and the protectorate of Oliver Cromwell, there were significant swings back and forth between two factions: the Puritans and other radicals who sought more far-reaching reform, and more conservative churchmen who aimed to keep closer to traditional beliefs and practices." Myopic Bookworm 09:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This is better, in that it doesn't have an anachronistic movement of Oxford Movement ideas into the 17th century. But Laudianism was not terribly conservative. The Church of England as it existed in 1625 was fairly Calvinist. Laud and Charles wanted to make it more ceremonial and ritualistic, and also advocated Arminianism, which was widely considered a radical theological movement. It is true that there were radicals on the other side, and by the time the Civil War was actually fought, Laudianism had been pretty well destroyed by the Long Parliament, leaving the Civil War itself as a struggle between supporters and opponents of episcopacy, more or less, but I don't want to over-simplify. We must, on the one hand, avoid retroactively making Laud and Charles I into predecessors of Newman and modern Anglo-Catholics, but also recognize that their vision of the Church was considered by many supporters of the Elizabethan and Jacobean consensus as being as radical as the plans of the hard core anti-bishop types. john k 00:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

S

SOLA SRIPTURA

Every so often I try to insert a few sentences to explain that article six of the XXXIX articles very subtly alters the Protestant principle that all aspects of Christian faith and practice must be justified by an appeal to the Bible to a recognition that not all aspects can be, and that Christians ought to be able to disagree but continue to worship at the same altar. Yet someone always deletes it. Why? I would have thought that this was one of the English church's most distinctive features. Nennius

I don't think that Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary for salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought necessary and requisite for salvation at all means a recognition that not all aspects of the Christian faith can be justified by appeal to the Bible, and there's certainly no implication about people being able to disagree but worshipping at the same altar. Where are you getting tht from? john k 13:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Article VI is phrased in a negative way; 'whatsoever is NOT read...','NOT to be required of...'. As I understand it, the position of the continental reformers was that all things MUST be proved by scripture. The Anglican position, as enunciated in Article VI, subtly changes this, in the hope that it might allow people of different beliefs to continue to worship together without wanting to tear each other to pieces, or to set up rival religious establishments, which 16th century European rulers were unwilling to countenance, as likely to lead to civil unrest, treason and foreign invasion. Article VI recognises that outside a few core beliefs that hardly anyone in 16th century Europe was questioning, there are a whole range of Christian beliefs and practices where the Bible does not give definitive answers, and where it is legitimate for Christians to differ. Nennius, 2/9/06

I have re-inserted a sentence on how Article VI differs from the classical Protestant position. If anyone deletes it could they please explain why. Nennius 22/10/06

Moving stuff

I moved a load of stuff about ordination and sucession to the ecumenism section: Roman Catholic and Orthodox opinion about Anglican orders is not a part of Anglican doctrine. But there's still too much detail about recognition of orders interrupting the general disuccion of Anglican doctrine. Anglican Christianity is not primarily about the validity of orders. Myopic Bookworm 15:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No, but the validity or otherwise of Anglican orders does make an interesting discussion topic, even if it has no significance beyond that. Nennius 3/9/06

Other protestants

In today's updates, Lima wrote an interesting new sentence. I am afraid I quickly deleted it for discussion:

Other Protestants do not maintain the historic episcopate, and therefore have no real interest in the validity or otherwise of Anglican ordination.

Firstly I am not sure how it fits in with 'Doctrine - Catholic and Reformed'.

Secondly, I am not sure it says what you mean it to say. As an example, Westminster Confession presbyterians require that an ordained pastor conduct the (two) sacraments. This follows through to ecumenical presbyterians, who expect that an Anglican priest should be validly ordained. Of course, validity for them has less to do with the historic episcopate, and more to do with church order. But, all the same, they are concerned about 'validity'.

It is an interesting issue that I feel belongs in paragraphs and articles about ordination and protestant ecumenism, rather than a piece about Anglican doctrine.

Rather than debating this, how do you feel about leaving it out altogether? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hroðulf is under a misapprehension. I did not write the sentence in question. I have not bothered to check, but firmly believe it is not new. Anglicanism is not on my watchlist. I dropped in casually and corrected two inexact statements. Myopic Bookworm has moved to another section what I wrote. I agree with the move. Signing off, Lima 18:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The statement is for all intents and purposes, false. It should be removed. —ExplorerCDT 00:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

When I wrote that sentence I had forgotten that Presbyterians retained the concept of order, even if they didn't retain the episcopate, so I should have phrased it differently. But I agree that validity for Presbyterians doesn't have anything to do with bishops. I have a theory that the fundamental difference between episcopal and presbyterian church government is that in the episcopal system 'oversight' is concentrated in the person of the bishop, but in presbyterianism it is diffused over the entire presbyteral body. Nennius 3/9/06

'diff must have confused me.

Nennius, I think that is more than a theory, and I think you will find it stated as fact in more than one place on WP. Sorry for creating a fuss about one sentence. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• But you are correct in that the line should be removed. Other protestants do maintain the episcopate: Methodists, some Baptists, Pentacostals, for example. —ExplorerCDT 19:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Episcopal Baptists? tell me more! Nennius 22/10/06

Good Article candidacy on hold

on 20 December 2006, this article was nominated to be a Good Article. While I agree it should, it's not quite ready. For one, such a long article and less than 10 citations. More in this article needs to be referenced. A few grammatical and historical errors also jar a bit. —ExplorerCDT 17:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I revised and expanded much of the material in June, and I'm happy to add references over the next couple of weeks. Fishhead64 18:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Church section

The attempt to gloss over the sheer barbarity of the Reformation in its opression of the Catholic Church is very concerning here. There clearly was "confiscation of Church properties, the dissolution of the monasteries, the execution of priests and the forced conformity to Anglican worship." Please indicate which of these facts is in dispute. If they are true then why do Anglicans need to pretend they did not happen?

Also, the resistance of Catholics to royal supremacy did not "culminate" in Mary's succession. That was a matter of heredity. "Culminate" implies two things which are not true. First, that there is a causal relationship between Catholic resistance and Mary's sucession and second, that Mary's succession was somehow the final chapter in the matter of Catholics in England. It is one event among many in a long series to the present. To imply that Mary's reign was something final about English Catholicism is an editorial bias against Catholicism which today is more widely practiced in England than Anglicanism! Please adhere to facts with precision.

Finally, the refusal to admit facts of major importance in regard to Catholic supression in England falsely gives the impression that English Protestants were somehow casual in their abuse of Catholics in this period or that these were legal matters without concrete implications in the daily lives of Catholics. Finally, the section's overall impression is that this was not a situation of the full power of the State to force religious adherence against a religious minority utterly deprived of not only its right to worship, but to all its institutional resources and in the case of priests, their very lives. This gloss is clearly intollerable in an expansive encyclopedic resource such as WP. It clearly suits the tastes of Anglicans alone.

Very poor wording

• • At the end of the nineteenth century, the Catholic Church rejected the Anglican claims of apostolic succession, and in response to such claims made at the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral published Apostolicae Curae, an 1896 papal bull, which declared Anglican ordinations "absolutely null and utterly void." Despite the agreement reached by the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) on the doctrine of the ministry in their Elucidation of 1979, this judgement was reaffirmed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, when he asserted Apostolicae Curae as an example of the infallible teaching office of the Catholic Church.

The above paragraph as it stands is a mess. It buries the principle subject of the paragraph, Apostolicae Curae, at the end of a long convoluted introductory sentence. If the date, 1896 is moved up to the beginning of the sentence there is no need for the introductory "at the end of the nineteenth century."

Opposition to clear wording and competant text editing (without changes to facts) belies a certain possessiveness toward WP on the part of some editors which is clearly not in the spirit of "an open source" encyclopedia. Please stop the knee-jerk reactions to good copy-editing.

I have been advised on two points: First, to assume good faith. I would like to assume good faith however, there are editors which have erased my contributions without comment or explanation. This is not good faith and only causes resentment especially for someone new here. It is ironic that Anglicans want to tussle over plain facts and straight forward copy editing in a section on ecumenism. How ecumenical is that???

The other point I was advised on was to "sign" my comments. So here goes. 129.74.120.74 19:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

To take your points, point by point:

1. Nobody's pretending anything. The original wording did discuss the oppression of Roman Catholics in England - it mentioned "attempts to coerce conformity." Is that misleading or untrue? I, too, am eager to assume good faith, but explicating the "sheer barbarity" thereof reads as an attempt to make a point about the Church of England. I suppose one could trot over to the Roman Catholic Church page to insert wording about the sheer barbarity of the Inquisition and Counter-Reformation, but what point would be served, except to offend people? In several places, the article spoke of the C of E's opposition to, and later tolerance of Roman Catholicism within the Realm. This isn't a place to refight the Reformation. The detail you seek could be found at English Reformation, where it clearly belongs. As it stands, it has little to do with Anglicanism, as such, unless your argument is that the movement is congenitally intolerant or violent.
2. If it is your suggestion that Roman Catholic opposition to claims of domestic supremacy is ongoing, or that it somehow reached a climax after Mary I's reign, then you should be clear. As it was, the previous language accurately reflected this state of affairs. The culmination of opposition does not logically lead to the conclusion that Roman Catholicism subsequently withered and died. Rather, the logical conclusion is that active opposition reached its apex at that point in time - i.e., correlative with Mary's reign. How much clearer could it be?
3. "Good copy-editing" is not my objection to your edits concening Apostolic Succession. My objection was clearly stated in my edit summary with the rhetorical question, "Were Cranmer and Hooker Anglo-Catholics?" The answer is plainly that they were not, since neither the term nor the Oxford Movement had come into existence - yet claims of Apostolic Succession go back to the independence of the English Church.

I'm willing to let the edits stand for the time being, in hope that you will reply to these points. But failing a timely and convincing refutation, I believe what I have said provides grounds for a substantial reversion to the

text concerning the points I have elucidated. Fishhead64 21:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

In a section on Anglican-Catholic relations it IS important to be clear on the origin of tensions. To merely state "coersion" to Anglican worship implies that there were Catholic parishes forced to adopt Anglican style worship. This is not the case. These parishes were confiscated. The coersion comes in with the forced ATTENDANCE at Anglican worship. This is quite a different beast!

The principle defect with the term "culminated" is that it implies that Catholic opposition somehow led to Mary's assumption of the throne. This is not the case. Her ascension to the throne was not extraordinary but following the normal course. If you prefer to say that Catholic efforts to return to or preserve communion with Rome (Roman supremacy is very poor language) ended with Mary, that is fine with me. "Culminated" however, is inaccurate.

Catholic parlance does not speak of "Roman supremacy" but rather communion with Rome. It is also proper to speak of being under Rome's apostolic authority. It is true that Henry VIII asserted royal supremacy. However, the parallel to royal supremacy is communion with Rome, not "Roman supremacy." If you wish to differ, please find the term for me in a reputable Catholic source.

The dissolution of monasteries, the execution of Catholic priests etc. are not mere "details" but rather give the essential vividness necessary to understand the topic at hand, Angican-Catholic ecumenical relations. These details while not descriptive of the essence of current Anglicanism, ARE essential to understand the history of Anglican-Catholic relations. If those details are inappropriate to this article, I would suggest this entire subject should be moved elsewhere.

If you will look at the Catholic Church page, there is ample inclusion of controversial matter. It seems that Anglicans cannot tolerate a few sentences of relevant facts which might muss up an otherwise rosy a picture of the Anglican Communion.

I hope that this reply is sufficient to hold you back from your ultimatum at least for a few hours.

129.74.120.74 22:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your third point, I was not making a point regarding when Anglicans first claimed apostolic succession, although that is highly debatable. My point was that Apostolicae Curae which is the subject of the paragraph was in response to the Oxford Movement. Prior to that movement the Catholicity of Anglicanism was at issue, the acceptance of that movement's claims by the Church of England which took decades WAS the backdrop of Apostolicae Curae. Placing historical developments in their contexts IS what an Encyclopedia does. The prior wording was rather vague on the overall picture of late 19th Century Anglicanism which provoked the question which Rome answered in that document. I really dont understand what all the fuss is about when someone improves clarity. Is there a sacred cow I am unaware of? Why so touchy? 129.74.120.74 01:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't really an ultimatum. It was fair notice of potential editorial activity in the hope we could resolve the disagreement amicably and find mutually acceptable language.

You convincingly argue for most of your points here, and I think the wording around the early coercion you propose does accurately reflect the state of affairs. I think we just have a genuine difference of opinion as to what constitutes more netral language, since it could be argued that the Church of England wasn't confiscating anything that it did not truly believe legitimately belonged to the Church of England, pace the Acts of Uniformity. While killing priests is an extreme example of attempts to enforce uniformity, that was nonetheless the intent and the rationale. I think that this caveat can and should be worked into the language here, to provide the fullest context possible.

I continue to disagree with you on two points, however.

1. Concerning royal versus Roman supremacy: Supremacy is the issue in Anglican parlance, since the Act in Restraint of Appeals specifically asserted that the Bishop of Rome had no "greater jurisdiction in England than any other foreign bishop." Thus, the origin of the Church of England didn't lie in communion, but in authority. The catholicity of the Church in England was affirmed, both in the constituting language and the maintenance of its structure and organistaion, and whether or not "foreign bishops" chose to be in communion with the bishops of England was their affair. To suggest that the Pope did not have ultimate temporal and spiritual supremacy in England is a bit disingenuous, but I'm open to any language which would preserve the spirit of the original constituting Acts in such a way as to articulate the subsequent polity in a parallel manner between the Roman and English churches.
2. I subscribe to your desire for clarity, but clarity is not enhanced when an erroneous impression is left about the origin of Anglican claims to apostolic succession. It was never repudiated, even during the Puritan interregnum. I sense, however, that you are not adverse tp the sort of clarity I seek here. The sacred cow you ask about is precisely Anglicanism's claim of catholicity, and this is one of the cornerstones of that claim. Fishhead64 07:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your forthright responses. While Anglicans may use the term Roman supremacy as a parallel to royal supremacy, from the point of view of Catholic theology, this is a characature of the Petrine ministry which combines pastoral solicitude AND apostolic authority. The term "Supremacy" has connotations of arbitrariness. I assure you that the many, many constraints placed on any episcopal authority in any church as such that the bishop does not see his authority as merely arbitrary. Acceptable terms which capture the concept are several in my opinion: juridical authority of the pope, Roman jurisdiction, Roman authority, Papal authority and perhaps others alonng those lines. The trouble is that "supremacy" is royal/political, not theological language. Roman, by its own understanding, has no authority that is not theologically founded.

I don't want to get into an argument about whether or not the Anglican Church is Catholic or has apostolic succession. That is not for me to decide, or you, for that matter. My point is that Apostolicae Curae was written at the end of the 19th century for a reason. It was not written in the 18th C. nor the 17th, nor the 16th! It was written at the end of the 19th Century precisely as the Anglo-Catholic movement begun at Oxford was finally gaining ascendancy. This movement asserted the Catholicism of Anglicanism in a way that had not been before. The movement reversed the historic dissolution of the monasteries, brought back Catholic vestments, re-instituted Adoration, Benediction and even visible reservation of the Eucharist. The re-emergence of Eucharistic devotions in particular raised the question of validity. The conclusion may have been tragic, hurtful, even wrong. That is not my point. My point is that there is a precise backdrop to the moment of 1896 without which one cannot grasp the historical significance of the Apostolicae Curae. I cannot imagine why it be so threatening to acknowlege AC as a Roman response to the Oxford Movement. Also, to say that the Oxford Movement asserted apostolic succession is not to say that no one did so prior. This is a common error made by critics of Catholicism who say for example that the definition of the Assumption of Mary was a 20th century innovation. Clearly, that title goes back to at least the 4th or 3rd century. Like the Assumption, there were a variety of strains of thought on Catholicity among Anglicans. The ascendancy of Anglo-Catholicism actually brought about some defections such as the modern day REC which broke off in 1873 and the ACC? which broke off in the 1840's? over claims of catholicity. One shoud be able to hold one's theological position without being threatened by the reality of historical complexity. Thomas Aquinas opposed the Immaculate Conception! (Though it is unencyclopedic to ascribe motivations, it is my opinion that Roman was threatened by all the apparent Romanism going on outside it borders. This must have been at least an unconscious factor in the conclusions of AC.

Sorry, I am rambling in part because I see so many parallets between the Anglican crises of the 19th century and the current Anglican realignment, which to some degree has a low church-high church dimension under the guises of the terms liberal and evangelical. This is imprecise as there are high church conservatives, I know. But the question of the evangelical/Calvinist dimension of Anglicanism is now 5 Centuries old.

Regarding confiscation of property, it is well documented that the lands and properties did not just remain with the Anglican Church. If that were so, a fair argument could be made that it simply remain with the same institution politically reconfigured. However, the lands in question, particularly the monasteries did not remain with the Church of England but were assumed by the crown and used more or less as bribes to buy the religious consciences of the nobility who now had a vested interest in cooperating with the established Church. Such Machiavellian political machinations (rather than a sudden pious national change of heart) were the very stuff of Catholic - Anglican tensions. Presenting these details in one single sentence is not too much to ask. These facts give a concreteness to the otherwise abstract and opaque language of "enforced uniformity." Resistance to admitting such details appears to belie a desire to intentionally obscure relevant facts. You will notice that I have not moved to obscure facts on the negative side. I would not oppose but indeed welcome a mention of Guy Falkes, if you like. My intention here is not to win a tally of points for "my side" but rather to communicate the drama of Anglo-Catholic relations, historical progress and difficulties with vividness. Otherwise, the text is a bland and somewhat untrue presentation of the matter. My sentiments alike for the execution of priests. Yeah, it grizzly, but the English have given the Catholic Church some of her greatest martyrs. We owe it to them to not give them short shrift. The intensity of animosity which our Churches have overcome is THE story of Anglo-Catholic relations. It is virtually miraculous and a vivid sign of divine grace and mercy. So why hide it under a bushel? especially if it is just a matter of a sentence or two. (As a Ukrainian, I marvel at the reconciliations happening on an informal basis all over the place. But there is far less to marvel over how far we have come, if we cannot plainly say how bad the bad old days were.

Apologies for the mental meanderings. EastmeetsWest 02:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your charitible response. Our mutual quibblings aside, it sounds like we have some common ground concerning the essentials, and I'll make some revisions tomorrow and you can see what you think. Cheers! Fishhead64 07:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Image of Tridentine Mass

Why is there an image of the Tridentine Mass on this page. Whoever put it there would clearly have read that this was an image of a Catholic Mass. While the old Prayer Book may have looked similar, it was definitely not the same thing. If there is an image of Anglican worship, it would be appropriate to use it. Still, this image really should come down. 129.74.120.74 00:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

This accurately depicts the customary of the mass where I was a curate - its caption makes clear that such a customary is common in Anglo-Catholic worship both now and historically. Fishhead64 06:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)