Talk:Anglican Use

message: I revised this article to remove some of what struck me as Roman Catholic POV. User:Samuel J. Howard (21:15 7 June 2005) reverted all my changes.  Herewith my reasoning:
The use of the word "reconciled", as in "Anglican communities that reconciled with the Roman Catholic Church" is POV, implying that the Roman Catholic Church is the age-old changeless Catholic Church and that Anglicans are (or were) schismatic from it.  This is, of course, the main point under contention.  The classical Anglican (and Orthodox) position is that it was the Roman Church that broke off from the ancient undivided Catholic and Orthodox Church; further, it is the Anglican position that the Church of England (de jure certainly, and de facto arguably) was a modern part of that One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church; so that, far from being "reconciled", Anglicans who become Roman Catholics are moving off into heterodoxy.  I wrote "joined the Roman Catholic Church" and "entered the Roman Catholic Church" — accurate and neutral language, which should be acceptable to both sides.  User:Samuel J. Howard reverted my changes.
Then, to say "certain differences of liturgy reflecting the Book of Common Prayer that did not conflict with Catholic doctrine" implies that there are things in the BCP that did "conflict with Catholic doctrine" — again, assuming the Roman Catholic POV in the controversy.  Anglicans believe that Anglican doctrine, including that found in the BCP, is Catholic doctrine.  I thought of changing the phrase to "that did not conflict with Roman Catholic doctrine"; instead, I removed the clause.  Either way would have been accurate and neutral.  User:Samuel J. Howard reverted my change.
Anglicans classically consider that they are Catholics, and that their priests are already "Catholic priests".  So to write that Anglican priests who become Roman Catholic are allowed "to be ordained Catholic priests" is POV; my change, that they are allowed "to be ordained Roman Catholic priests" is accurate and neutral.  User:Samuel J. Howard reverted my change.
Finally, to say "Anglican and other protestant clergy" makes Anglo-Catholics, who just about never call themselves "Protestants", shudder in horror.  It is contentiously POV.  I wrote "non-Roman Catholic clergy" — again, accurate and neutral.  User:Samuel J. Howard reverted my change.
My language (I think) should have been acceptable to both sides.  User:Samuel J. Howard simply reverted all my changes without any discussion; and I don't think he should have.  I'm putting the neutral language in again.  If there's something inaccurate or non-neutral in what I wrote, point it out, and I'll be happy to see it improved; otherwise, leave it in.  Frjwoolley 23:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To be quite honest, I must say that we do have married priests, who came to us as converts from the Anglican Church or from various Protestant communities.
Exactly the kind of accurate (and careful, and charitable) language I love to see.  He contrasts "Anglican" with "Protestant", and "Anglican Church" with "Protestant communities".  Frjwoolley 21:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Roman Catholic POV

message: "Among the communities of the Pastoral Provision and others who identify themselves with the Anglican Use of the Roman rite, many pray Fr. W.T. St. John Brown's Prayer for the Anglican Use within Holy Mother Church: O Holy Ghost, the Lord, who gavest the Church the gift of tongues that Christ might be known by peoples of divers nations and customs: watch over the Anglican heritage within thy Church, we pray thee, that, led by thy guidance and strengthened by thy grace, the Anglican Use in thy Catholic Church may find such favour in thy sight that its people may increase both in holiness and in number, and so show forth thy glory; who livest and reignest with the Father and the Son, one God, world without end. Amen."--Samuel J. Howard 16:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed as source text 

message: I am sure some of these Anglican parishes mentioned in the article have been refused permission to be integrated into the Church for a valid reason not mear- refusal-.  The very purpose of the Anglican Use litergy is to encourage ecumenism (unity), thus I seriously doubt they were simply rejected.  There must have been some essential Catholic-Christian belief that they did not accept thus their - rejection.  There is no point to accept a parish on paper,without essential unified belief, that would simply eventually provide  spiritual dis-unity in the long run.
User:Micael|Micael]] 12:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Refused permission"

message: On the whole, I think that this article needs to be re-written in simpler language.  I assume that most of the editors are well aware of the theological debates and issues within and between the Anglican Church, the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church.  Most of the readers are not.  We should have a few paragraphs that introduces the average 7th-grader to this topic.  For instance I think the phrase "communally inducted" is overly sophisticated.  I will do this next time I come unless there is an objection.
As for the language issue, I agree that the language should be neutral but from a layman's perspective, not a theologian's.  To a layman, the Anglican and Episcopal churches are protestant.  For instance, the phrase "mainline protestant" encompasses Episcopalians.  In history, the UK is considered a protestant country.  JFK was the first Catholic president eventhough there have been Episcopal presidents.  Benedict might understand the subtle differences among various non-RC groups but the average 7th grader does not.  This is not a theological paper but a general encyclopedia.  We have to be neutral to a layman not to a theologian.
That being said, I think that the article is neutral as was the previous articles.  I just think that the writing could be improved.
Finally, User:Vaquero100 removed the Category:Anglicanism link.  I think it should be put back in. Anglicanism, broadly speaking, includes not just those who are in communion with Canterbury. I would define Anglicanism as including all organizations that come out of the Anglican tradition and that maintain an Anglican identity.  Anglican Use clearly is both. --Bruce Hall 11:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Rewrite & Anglican link 

message: I think a converts and critics section would be interesting but it should include more than one reference to one book, with out a citation.  I took out the first section, the reference to cradle catholics, because there is no citation for it and because it struck me as unneeded.  What does that tell you about Anglican Use?  A section on important AU members, supporters and critics would be good and I like the mention of the Robert Ian Williams piece. However, I removed the Williams reference because there should be a link or a citation and I could only find 3 results when I googled "Making Cramer Catholic". One was Wikipedia, the highest ranked.  The other two were Amazon and Bookfinder.  I think that there should be more discussion then that of a book before we add it to Wikipedia as an notable critique. --Bruce Hall 08:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Converts and Response Section 

message: "Anglican Use" really means two things - the movement (especially the churches) and the liturgy.  My understanding is that the Anglican Use is technically the liturgy, like the Sarum Use.  We should make that clear, that the term refers to both.  I tried to add in a sentence or two in the introduction to say so but I am afraid that it's not the best. --Bruce Hall 09:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liturgy and Churches 

message: I have moved some references that was in the Communion section up to the liturgy section.  I think that we should have the Communion section focus on which churches the AU is in communion with and which churches it is not.  The reference to the Roman Rite is better suited, I think, to the section discussing liturgy.  Communion should discuss organizational structure. --Bruce Hall (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liturgy and Communion 

message: User:Ondewelle has changed nearly every reference to "Catholic Church" to "Roman Catholic Church" which I think is improper.  This being an encyclopedia and not a theological text, we should use the two phrases as they are used in common, every day parlance.  In every day usage, the two terms are inter-changeable.  Indeed, I have never heard anyone but a Roman Catholic bishop referred to as a Catholic bishop.  If the speaker means something else, they say Anglo-Catholic or use some other phrase. It is fair I think to use Roman Catholic early and as often as common usage allows but it is awkward to use "Roman Catholic" twice or more in a single sentence.  In general, adding "Roman" to every single use of "Catholic" interrupts the flow of the language and just sounds wrong, without adding any needed clarification.  Therefore, I have reverted back to the previous version. --Bruce Hall (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This has ramifications beyond this article, and the tendency on Wikipedia is to opt for "Roman Catholic," which avoids making a statement about the RCC's claim to be "the" Catholic Church. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tendency is fine.  I agree with that.  Buy slavish use of the "Roman Catholic" each and every single time makes the article sound very odd.  To use the two-word phrase back-to-back, even twice in a sentence, sounds awkward.  I understand the theological point but this is an encyclopedia not a theological treatise.  We need to use English as people do in everyday conversation.  We should use language that is clear and gets the point across but does not slavishly follow some rule to make a theological point.  We can add in a sentence that explains the debate, which I think has been done when discussing the issue of Anglo-Catholic and Continuing Anglican churches.--Bruce Hall (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Catholic Church" vs. "Roman Catholic Church"

message: I know that the Anglican Use recognizes and venerates all canonized saints of the Roman Catholic Church.. but, as they have an Anglican identity, do they still venerate Anglican saints as well, such as Charles I of England who was only canonized in the Anglican Communion? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Saints within Anglican Use

message: I have changed back to "features"  the edits of November 29, 2010 that referred to "devotional aspects".  The edits were done anonymously and without comment and so I don't know the reason behind the change.  I think that "features" is a better word since to me the word "devotion" implies devotion to saints and more private, more contemplative practices which does not include aspects of Anglican Use such as celebrating the mass facing the east wall, using Shakespearean English, using Anglican chant and Anglican hymns, proclaiming the Gospel from the middle of the congregation (not from the pulpit), among other practices. --Bruce Hall (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Features" vs. "devotional aspects"

message: Would Spshu please explain why he reverted to an out-of-date text removing information based on reliable sources such as Stephen E. Cavanaugh, Anglicans and the Roman Catholic Church (Ignatius Press 2011 ) and about the actual existence of the United States Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter, giving in place of the latter some information about the personal ordinariate for England and Wales that is unrelated to the Anglican Use.  Other disimprovements could be mentioned.  Esoglou (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no explanation has been forthcoming and since a bot has already undone part of the reversal, I have now restored the updated and well-sourced information.  Esoglou (talk) 07:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Would Esoglou explain why he reverted a list of the Ecclesiastical Delegate?  Why does Esoglou wish to continue to torpedo this article? Why did Esoglou lie about a bot undoing part of my reversal?  Why does Esoglou fail just to add back in Cavanaugh's book and restore more primary/self sourcing? --Spshu (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa, Spshu, no need to accuse anyone of lying.  I suspect that the problem is that Esoglou did not fully explain his bot comment.  I suspect that what Esoglou meant is that since the Cerabot has altered the revision of 18 April that there was no way to simply revert. At least that would be the charitable reading of his comment. Another alternative is that Esoglou misunderstood something, which happens to the best of us. No need to accuse Esoglou of being underhanded or dishonest. Personally, I always prefer to assume the best of my fellow editors.  It makes my life more pleasant.  Unfortunately I don't always succeed.--Bruce Hall (talk) 07:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

text: As for the Ecclesiastical Delegate list, I don't see a need to that in this article.  I am not sure it adds much information. Further the Ecclesiastical Delegate office really has little to do with Anglican Use per se, though the individual bishops were and are involved informally in various ways. Cardinal Law was particularly influential. The Ecclesiastical Delegate implements the Pastoral Provision, i.e. helps married clergy become married priests, but he does not oversee Anglican Use. He is not involved in giving permission for that clergyman to celebrate using Anglican Use or in establishing a AU parish, nor does he decide what is or is not in the AU liturgy.  The former permissions are decided by the priests' ordinaries and the latter by the Vatican.  Obviously, informally as someone who is involved within the greater AU community (though he is not a part of it) and as an ordinary himself his input would be welcome.--Bruce Hall (talk) 07:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The tone of "Why does Esoglou wish to continue to torpedo this article?  Why did Esoglou lie ..." was such that I thought it best to stay aloof for at least a week.  I am of course open to discuss concrete questions.  The Ecclesiastical Delegate list?  The information was and is already in the article: "In March 1981, Bishop Bernard Francis Law was appointed Ecclesiastical Delegate. He was replaced by Newark Archbishop John J. Myers in 2003 and Kevin W. Vann in 2011. William H. Stetson, a priest of the Prelature of Opus Dei, is Secretary to the Ecclesiastical Delegate."  Esoglou (talk) 08:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversal  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Anglican Use. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130306113628/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html
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) 19:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Anglican Use. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040604112002/http://www.atonementonline.com/resource001.html to http://www.atonementonline.com/resource001.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040604112002/http://www.atonementonline.com/resource001.html to http://www.atonementonline.com/resource001.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090220230316/http://www.atonementonline.com/bodw.php to http://www.atonementonline.com/bodw.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.atonementonline.com/orderofmass/Rite1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The introduction is much too long. It is the length of an article.  It should be a couple of rather short paragraphs at most. See WP:Manual of Style/Lead section which says "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate" .--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As a first step, I've split it up.  Bealtainemí (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction is much too long 

message: " treasures of the Anglican tradition." couldn't somebody come up with a more objective word than "treasures" here?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.51.95 (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "Patrimony" is the standard term, and is neutral, I suggest we use that. Elizium23 (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't consider it neutral. It's a parroting of the specialist language Used in official sources. "Elements" is a neutral word which is fully understandable to any reader, regardless of inclination. oknazevad (talk) 05:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Tradition

message: @Oknazevad: do you think we can copy the citations to the end of each paragraph you're reinstating, so that they will not risk another challenge? Elizium23 (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Won't hurt. Named references are good for that. oknazevad (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: There's apparently some confusion in this article between the Rite and the Church, because a historical treatment of the Pastoral Provision, Ordinariate formation and such are not directly related to the Anglican Use liturgy itself. So is this article about a liturgy, or is it about both? Elizium23 (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the liturgical use (it's not a distinct "rite") rather than the ecclesiastical structure; the ordinariate's foundations and hierarchy are treated in personal ordinariate. I recommend just scrubbing excessive information not pertinent to the liturgy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Except it is pertinent to the liturgy. Note specifically in the paragraphs removed that it discusses the use of Anglican elements in the letter that established the pastoral provision, and that the two parishes in Texas mentioned originally used a liturgy that fulfilled that idea; indeed, the Book of Divine Worship that was the forerunner of the ordinariate-era Divine Worship series was crafted at Our Lady of Atonement in San Antonio. I other words, the history of those parishes is the history of the liturgical form. I'm reverting the removal (except the last sentence, which is not about the liturgy, just trumpeting stats). oknazevad (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not registering well with me. There are several paragraphs which discuss nothing but jurisdictions and ordinations and priests. Besides, this history is rehashed several times over in other articles such as personal ordinariate. Can we not condense, summarize, and contextualize the history and development of Anglican Use, by making the liturgy the central narrative and using mentions of jurisdiction, ordination, and congregations to illustrate how it developed? Elizium23 (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Elizium; we only need maybe three sentences to summarize this prehistory/context, and that info has to come through sourcing that addresses the liturgy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I did just that, I think. Trimmed the redundant mentions of statistics and jurisdictional trivia, left in the part about the prior edition. Did more moving around to put the history of the composition in the same section. Hard to completely remove the context of the organizational structure, but it isn't the focus here. What is really missing is something simple like actually describing, say, the order of the liturgy, and which elements are taken from the Roman Rite and which are Anglican in origin. That I think would say more about the composition of the liturgy than anything else. oknazevad (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra stuff