Talk:Anglican Use
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Anglican Use is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Anglicanism To-do:
|
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Roman Catholic POV
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)
First off, to refer to the Catholic Church in union with Rome as the Roman Catholic Church reflects a POV that the Catholic Church is not in fact the universal church just as surely as the Catholic Church asserts that fact about itself. I'm aggreeable to a compromise that Roman Catholic Church be used on first reference and Catholic Church after that, but to repeat Roman Catholic Church over and over again is innacurate in multiple ways. For one, the Catholic Church has many rites, amongst which the Roman is just one. For another, the Catholic Church doesn't call itself the Roman Catholic Church, it calls itself the Catholic Church.
Quite clearly from a historical point of view the Anglican Church did split off from the Catholic Church. You can allege that the Catholic Church ceased to hold the apostolic faith, but it doesn't change the fact that it was the Bishops of England that renounced the authourity of the Popes and not the other way round.
Non-Roman Catholic clergy is innacurate. The pastoral provision is about reconciling Protestants. If they are not Protestants it doesn't apply. "Non-roman catholic" clergy doesn't suffice. There are many categories of non-roman catholic clergy, including Eastern Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Immams, Rabbi's and others to whom the Pastoral Provision does not apply. Since the people being referenced have deemed themselves protestants by their action in submitting to the Catholic Church there is no reason for even the most "Catholic" among the Anglican clergy to object. So far as I know, the Pastoral Provision clergy have in fact all been Protestants more strongly even, having been Lutherans or members of the Protestent Episcopal Church in the United States, or members of the by law Protestant Church of England, and not other kinds of Anglicans. If you don't think there are things in the BCP that conflict with Catholic Doctrine you need to take another look at the 39 articles and it's repudiation of Romish practices.--Samuel J. Howard 05:45, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, the "classical" Anglican theology you describe is as best I understand it not the classical understanding at all, but a kind of revisionism. It is a revisionism I happen to admire and think is a move in the right direction, but it is a revisionism no less because of it.--Samuel J. Howard 05:47, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Alright, "edited to remove Protestant influences" which is an accurate description of what was done and is consistent with what some Anglicans have done in using non-BCP materials such as Anglican Missals and the like.--Samuel J. Howard 06:00, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
OK, we're improving! :-) A few points of disagreement and discussion, though.
Most of the time this problem with names doesn't come up; we can write "Catholics use all the books of the Old Testament, while Protestants leave some out" or "Catholics worship the Eucharist, believing that it is indeed Christ himself", and we don't have to say "Roman Catholic" because the statements are true of all Catholics, not just Roman Catholics. But when we're talking specifically about distinctions among groups who identify themselves as "Catholic", we have to be a bit more careful. The problem for NPOV writing is to find words for the various groups that will be acceptable to us all.
The essential difficulty is that Roman Catholics believe that communion with the Pope is of the essence of Catholicism, and that Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholics and Polish National Catholics and Anglican Catholics and so on aren't really Catholics. OK, fine, we all know RCs believe that, and we all disagree with them on the point. Now, the Roman Catholic Church does indeed call itself "the Roman Catholic Church", frequently; it also calls itself "the Catholic Church" and "the Holy Roman Church" and various other things. "Roman Catholic" isn't an insult or a POV phrase; it's an attempt to distinguish accurately. Check out http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2005/05-134.shtml, as a quick frinstance. When the USCCB is talking only about the Roman Church, it usually says "Catholic"; but when it's specifically contrasting the Roman with some other Catholic body, it's careful to say "Roman Catholic". I think we should do the same.
You say it's clear that the Anglican bishops split from the Catholic church. But that's not clear at all. They split from the Pope; and it's only if you consider the Papal jurisdiction as co-extensive and identical with the Catholic Church — a Roman Catholic POV! — that you can say that.
The Pastoral Provision is specifically about "Episcopalians" and "Anglicans". It doesn't use the word "Protestant" at all, probably because the drafters of it knew that many Anglicans, including most of those most likely to become Roman Catholic, do not regard themselves as "Protestant". Have there really been Lutherans admitted under the Provision? The provision doesn't mention them.
Similarly, you'll notice that Unitatis Redintegratio doesn't call Anglicans "Protestants" either.
John Henry Newman argued quite cogently that nothing in the 39 Articles was non-Catholic. (Read Tract 90.) Yes, he changed his mind; but that doesn't mean he was wrong.
No, I don't think what I said was revisionist at all. It's certainly the line the Oxford Movement took, and goes back to the Carolingians and even earlier — Richard Hooker, for instance. The Anglican Church never considered (officially) that it was anything other than the Catholic Church established in England in ancient times, the Ecclesia Catholica Anglicana.
"Edited to remove Protestant influences" is fine. Now, if only the Novus Ordo could be so edited. :-) Frjwoolley 15:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The mail arrived a few minutes ago, and with it the latest issue of The Latin Mass. In it, on page 16, appears an excerpt from Salt of the Earth by some fellow named Ratzinger. Answering an interviewer's question, the Cardinal says:
- 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)
But the Anglican Bishops clear split from the Roman Catholic Church. So if we refer to the Roman Catholic Church or the the Catholic Church in union with Rome, then reconciled is entirely appropraite.
As for that interview, that's not exactly contrasting. A more likely way to read it is as including Anglican's as protestants. First he talks about a particular case, then he talks about the group generally.--Samuel J. Howard 00:44, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your note. I notice that you haven't actually made any more changes to the article. Are you happy with the way it is now?--Samuel J. Howard 00:47, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Removed as source text
"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)
[edit] "Refused permission"
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)
I agree that "refused permission" is troubling. I am not sure why this is even mentioned in the article. My understanding is that the Pastoral Provision only applies to the US and not to Canada, the UK or any other country. There have been parishes in the US that have not been granted permission. Further, it is not permission to join that is refused -- joining the Catholic church is open to just about anyone. It is the permission to celebrate using Anglican Use. Much like the refusal to allow the celebration of the Tridentine Latin Rite, such a decision may not be based upon any theological disagreements but merely pastoral or even (if speculation is true) political. User:Bruce Hall 13:03, 27 March 2007
[edit] Article Rewrite & Anglican link
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)
