Talk:High church

message: From the article:
:It is also often such doctrinal and disciplinary differences that have led to the many schisms of "High Church" Anglo-Catholics from within the Churches of the Anglican Communion in the United States, Canada, and elsewhere in the Anglican Communion.
Is it accurate to say that there have been many schisms of High Church Anglo-Catholics from the Anglican Communion?  Certainly, the threat of schism hangs heavy over the Communion at present, but is there really such a history of actual schism?  (I'm honestly asking here: since I was raised Presbyterian, there are lots of holes in my knowledge of the history of the Anglican/Episcopal Church.) —Josiah Rowe 00:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there are scores and scores of miniscule Anglo-Catholic sects that have broken off from the Anglican Communion. In Canada alone we have the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada, Independent Anglican Church-Canada Synod, Christian Episcopal Church... Carolynparrishfan 19:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the response.  Now I know. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Many" schisms? 

message: I think this article describes the theological outlook of only one subset of High Church people; in the UK at least there is a strong conservative high church tradition, as found in the group Forward in Faith. I think missing this out entirely from this article is a fairly serious failing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.147.92.65 (talk • contribs) 03:18, May 11, 2006
:I'm not an expert, but I don't see much in the article addressing contemporary political concerns one way or the other.  The divisions between conservative groups like Forward in Faith and liberal Anglo-Catholics (such as Affirming Catholicism) are addressed in the Anglo-Catholicism article; perhaps they should be touched on here.  However, the article as it is now is mostly historical, and most of that history is shared by both conservative and liberal Anglo-Catholics.  I think. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberals? 

message: As much as the early distinction between high and low church may have turned on liturgical and ecclesiological differences, it also almost always tracked essentially political differences, and indeed can't really be neatly disentangled from these. This was the case especially in the late 17th and 18th centuries--even into the early 19th century to some extent. Especially from the Restoration through the Hanoverian Succession 'high church', or 'high church tory', referred to those who opposed the relaxation of civil disabilities on protestant dissenters, in contrast to low churchmen or latitudinarians, who favored a "comprehensive" vision of a protestant national church agreeable in all things "essential" with moderate non-conformists, i.e they didn't emphasize the 'divine right' of bishops, and thought liturgy and church order were man made--"inessential"--and this changeable in the interests of comity. Additionally, in common political parlance of the day, high church usually referred to those less-than-reconciled to parliamentary interference in the succession. It is only after, and in reaction to, the evangelical revivals that high church comes to mean something like it does today, i.e. more narrowly in terms of worship and the priesthood.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.76.0.215 (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A decade later, but yes, the previous etymology and to a large extent the rest of the current section on the "evolution of the term" miss this. In fact I believe it's really only with the Oxford Movement in the first half of the 19th century and the reaction that these sorts of principles become seen as central to "high churchmanship". I have at least corrected the etymology to note, with the OED, that the term originally referred to opponents of toleration (and was therefore originally basically synonymous with "Tory"). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  high/low church and politics 

message: Despite this talk page, the first paragraph still identifies "High Church" with Anglo-Catholicism and Ritual. Admittedly, this is its modern, colloquial, usage, but it is misleading, both historically where someone like Henry Sacherevell would not have been seen as in any way Anglo-Catholic nor as esp. ritualistic. Instead, it meant someone who had a "high" view of the Church of England as established by the will of God. What the Church did and was was as God intended it to be. This did not mean that it was perfect - as a Reformed Church it was hypothetically open to continuing Reform - but it did mean that its worship, its "formularies" (e.g.; the 39 Articles and Book of Common Prayer) and its threefold order of ministry were not something that could be lightly changed. "Low Church" in this context would be an acceptance that church practice was largely a matter of tradition and culture, being fashioned by humans in response to Scripture but influenced by historical factors. Thus, it is quite correct to see John Wesley as a "High Churchman" despite his strong association with Dissent through his involvement in early Methodism. In the same way, there are Evangelical Anglicans who are "High Church" in the original sense, in that they fully accept the historic formularies and are quite comfortable with the structure and ministry of the Church. Unlike their forebears, this does not prevent openness to other Christians, but rather a valuing of their own church, without a need to either leave it or massively alter it.
I think that it would make better sense to explain the original - overarching meaning - and then to explain how this applies to those with a high regard for the Church as it exists and how this has come to be identified with and used as a label for Anglo-Catholics and those with a very high view of Ritual. 2A00:23C7:57A3:E201:C850:E69E:A927:C264 (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology and history of the term