Talk:Catholic Church in England and Wales

message: You know... I'd really love to know how big is the Catholic community in England.
This Subject was discussed for hours in the bar I work. We have quite of a few English people as custumers and that was disagreement when the conversation came to catholics and protestants in england. 
If anyone could help me with statiscs and other stuff I would be very glad.
Thank you for the attention.
:Perhaps this website would help . Bonus bon 15:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers

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

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

message: I think this article might need clean-up to make it more neutral. I've made an attempt on the section dealing with the Tudors to add some sources and make the language less inflammatory. Angelamaher 11:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try and address content issues rather than hurling abuse at other editors.  As far as I can see you edits this morning were taking an anglo-catholic stance in several areas and ignoring some key historical facts.   I could be wrong, but you need to make the case here.  --Snowded (talk) 08:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Key historical facts"?  Is this some kind of joke?  This is one of the worst POV articles that I've ever come across.  What is the point of my trying to "make the case here" when blatantly POV editors insist on phrasing things in unecessarily contentious and polemical ways?  Do you really think this is acceptable?  I'm not going to waste my time and energies trying to deal with the multiple POV issues of this so-called "article". Afterwriting (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  (I indented your comment for you).  If you think its a bad article then list what you think is wrong, other editors will support you if you properly address content issues.  Simply asserting that something is POV without saying why helps no one.  --Snowded (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  ...Which is why I don't get anywhere when I have edited certain articles as of late.  My accusers paint a broad brush to smear and spackle me in (so I have no room but to fall into their trap, cornering me by cooperative bullying), always changing their cause for disrupting my edits, but don't get to the heart of the matter (dancing about, beating around the bush), only to make ad hominem attempts in controlling my input, because "I am a wrong person".  How fine is it to see you feel this way about how to hand issues with this article, Snowded, although in truth, such a noble approach could have averted much argument, providing more energy and space for debate on different editors' parts, with respect to British Isles.  Mayhap it occur to you, to avoid what happened earlier, if at any future time, some misunderstanding may arise, in which I am involved and you be a witness to it.  I find it insulting that for all of my interest in an article and calling for people to back off from one another, I am bashed to avoid the specifics I addressed most poignantly.  It is as though, there is nothing but waste and loss, for all the efforts.  Sink or swim, it makes no difference, when some people act the way they do around me.  Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Not very NPOV

message: This article doesn't have much information regarding the RC Church in Wales, at least in recent times.   Why was it felt necessary to have an omnibus "England and Wales" article in the first place?  aliceinlampyland (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the Church organises on the basis of the legal entity England and Wales. Also there are hardly any Catholics at all in Wales, only a couple of thousand and most of them are either English or Irish immigrants. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Catholic Encyclopedia gives the number as 150,000. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15532a.htm Tigerboy1966 (talk) 10:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  RCism in Wales 

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

message: From the section "The Catholic Revival in the Nineteenth Century", it says, "In the few cases where a Catholic diocese bears the same title as an Anglican one in the same town or city (e.g. Birmingham, Liverpool, Portsmouth, and Southwark) — this is the result of the Church of England ignoring the prior existence there of a Catholic see." 
I'm assuming the last word is a typo since it doesn't make sense. Was it supposed to say seat? That would make more sense, but in that case, I think the sentence should be restructured to better help people understand what "seat" means (i.e. people with no background knowledge of the Catholic church). Killiondude (talk) 06:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo? 

message: I don't believe they are significant enough to have one.  There are many nationalities which have made Catholicism a presence in England, but the only ones to have a really significant impact, have been the natives, Irish and perhaps the French, because of the Norman connection.  Even the Irish and French influence was not exactly the same as Catholicism, because of the Orangists and Huguenots.  Poles, Lebanese, Italians, Spaniards, etc...have all been rather minor influences upon English attachment to the RCC.  Catterick (talk) 03:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess they will be significant enough when the 2011 census shows an increase of 0.5m in the number of Roman Catholics living in the UK? --BozMo talk 11:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poles having their own section 

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

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

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

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

message: I strongly object. Such a move was discussed above and not agreed. Please return the page to where it was - any such move should be agreed on the Talk page first. The Roman Catholic church is not the whole Catholic church in England and Wales, and I find it surprising that anyone should seek to monopolize the word 'Catholic'. Moonraker2 (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the result of a well-considered discussion at the main page, which resulted in the move from Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church. It's now percolating its way down through the related articles. For what it's worth the discussion revolved mostly around what usage was the most typical in reliable sources, and the general consensus was that the best title for the article on churches in communion with the Holy See is "Catholic Church". I don't have a strong opinion, though I can say I'm Catholic, and "Roman Catholic" is not a term we normally use.--Cúchullain t/c 03:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As Cuchullain says, the reason I moved the page is to standardise usage with the main wikipage which is now called Catholic Church. You could argue that should be called RCC but given the Church describes itself as the CC - and the Church here as the CC in England and Wales - I see no basis for doing so.Haldraper (talk) 09:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your replies. Please consider carefully what I said in the discussion above: "Wikipedia now has its article on what Encyclopedia Britannica calls the Roman Catholic Church at Catholic Church, but I can see no argument for that article to be written in British English, whereas this one should be. There is nothing abusive in "Roman Catholic", a term which is sometimes used by the church itself and which among other things recognizes that there can be claims of catholicity outside the principal Catholic Church. For instance, the Church of England still considers itself to be a Catholic church and thus uses the Nicene Creed in its liturgy, referring to "one holy, catholic, and apostolic church" (the four Marks of the Church). Users here may or may not agree with the Anglican point of view, and Roman Catholics generally don't, as most of them believe the word 'Catholic' belongs to them and to no one else, but it seems to me that good encyclopedic practice should be more about recognizing what is standard academic English in the UK than about where the doctrinal correctness lies." Moonraker2 (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

text: In reply to "given the Church describes itself as the CC": the church sometimes calls itself that, but sometimes it uses "Roman Catholic Church", especially when in ecumenical dialogue with others. Please see also Names of the Catholic Church#Other examples of papal use of the name Roman Catholic Church. Moonraker2 (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your arguments are well reasoned, but this is really a matter of common use. Are you saying that when people in Britain speak of the "Catholic Church", they typically mean something besides the one in communion with the Pope? That doesn't seem very likely. I think it's a bit on the pedantic side to say that the title is inappropriate just because other churches claim catholicity; it's the most typical form and is unlikely to be misunderstood. Lots of churches claim orthodoxy, but when you say "the Orthodox Church", folks know which one you mean.--Cúchullain t/c 13:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to "Catholic Church in England and Wales"

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

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

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

message: This section is why I came to this page. I wanted to know things like what kind of liturgy was in use, which saints were venerated, how were things different in England than elsewhere at the time. I was disappointed. Could someone please expand this section? --Tibetologist (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you'll find more that you want in the articles on History of the Church of England and Sarum Rite.  Obviously the medieval section of this article and that of the History of the C of E cover the same ground - albeit likely with slightly different perspectives TomHennell (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Medieval section

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

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Catholic Church in England and Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://tablet.archive.netcopy.co.uk/article/7th-november-2009/35/a-million-more-catholics-in-england-and-wales-acco
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419011623/http://www.advent.org/ to http://www.advent.org
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419011623/http://www.advent.org/ to http://www.advent.org
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419011623/http://www.advent.org/ to http://www.advent.org
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419011623/http://www.advent.org/ to http://www.advent.org
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419011623/http://www.advent.org/ to http://www.advent.org
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206111318/http://www.vatican.va// to http://www.vatican.va/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is currently an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Catholic Church)#RfC: should this page be made a naming convention that may be of interest. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic Church naming conventions RfC 

message: This article has serious issues (and seems to have been subject to some major flame wars, which I suppose I should have expected). Still, I was surprised to see writing like this in this article:
This article is in need of some serious copy editing. RobertM525 (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like a lot of the especially bad content (including the quote above) has been added recently by DuckeggAlex. I propose rolling back all of his/her changes. I don't think any of them improved the article. RobertM525 (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing 

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

message: The article promotes trivializing Papist, i.e. Jesuit propaganda about the nature of the English Reformation, supposedly coming out of nowhere and dismissed by typically tendentious attitude about Henry VIII of England's divorce, which obfuscates the Investiture Controversy, Interdict during the Barons' Wars in which the Dauphin usurped the Throne and Praemunire during the retaliatory Hundred Years' War against France, in which the Auld Enemy was adherent to the Avignon Papacy and England's Norman Bishop of Beauvais had Joan of Arc burnt for witchery. Incidentally, Gallicanism by the "First Daughter of Holy Mother Church" was blameless by Avignon double standards, but Rome-traditionalist England somehow wasn't. The double standard of Papal ethnic chauvinist preference was repeated in the Treaty of Tordesillas, but England's claim to Ireland via Nicholas "Hadrian IV" Breakspear and Laudabiliter is likewise casually dismissed by Papists as illegitimate and out of line. The Dissolution of the Monasteries was fine for Austria when the Habsburg Kaiser did it, but wrong of England? Anglophobia shouldn't be considered NPOV historical narrative.
Richard II of England, who bore the arms of the Saxon Edward the Confessor, was wed to Anne of Bohemia--their clergy of Lollards and Hussites combined as Morning Stars of the Reformation. It is no coincidence that the Defenestrations of Prague each pertained English religion in relation to the Bohemians, as the Thirty Years' War followed Anglican foreign policy objectives by the Supreme Governor of the via media Church, simultaneously pursuing his Lancastrian policy since John of Gaunt, of the Spanish match originally to benefit Aquitaine, where Richard II was born and where Charles I of England went with the Duke of Buckingham. This shows that the Reformation had theological underpinnings and precedent, heresy or not, which were only secured by infrastructural schism, that states were conducive to native faith. Furthermore, to pretend nation-state churches are anomalies, is to ignore the Orthodox states and especially the obvious Arian state churches of Goths and this being the essential existence of Canterbury in latter days by comparison to both Rome and Constantinople.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.194.123 (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglophobic History POV 

message: The summary box at top right has the following problems:
1. It gives Vincent Nichols as the 'Archbishop'.  There are in fact 5 Archbishops: Birmingham, Cardiff, Liverpool, Southwark and Westminster.
2. 'Headquarters' is given as Westminster Cathedral.  The nearest thing to a local headquarters is in fact the offices of the Bishops' Conference at 39 Eccleston Square,
London.  However, ...
3. As the Conference website indicates, the key centres of power are Rome and Diocese, not the Conference: "Catholics are guided by the Pope - the successor of St Peter - who is Supreme Pontiff and Bishop of Rome. Locally, in our dioceses, we are led by the Bishops."  That is reflected in the body of the article, which describes the conference as "a collaborative structure".
I therefore suggest some thought should be given to adjustment of the the summary details, to bring them into line with the article and its sources.
Spodatus (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with Summary Box 

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

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