Talk:Anglican Use

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)

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)

"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

I like the way the page has been edited and changed since I last visited it. It is much better: easier to read and more neutral. I did re-arrange the membership section and put the last sentence first. My understanding is that the Pastoral Provision and the Anglican Use use only applies to the US and that is why there are only American AU parishes. Others have tried and failed in other countries but there is more to US-only nature of the AU then just a refusal by local bishops in other countries. --Bruce Hall 07:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Since there is no response to my post, I checked the Category:Anglicanism page. Clearing this article falls within that category, described as "The term Anglican denotes those people and churches following the religious traditions of the Church of England, especially after the Reformation." AU is indeed following the religious traditions of the CofE. For instance its worships is based in part on CofE practices. --Bruce Hall 08:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Converts and Response Section

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)

Liturgy and Churches

"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)

Liturgy and Communion

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)

"Catholic Church" vs. "Roman Catholic Church"

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)

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)

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)

I note that the title of the Wikipedia article on the Catholic Church does not contain "Roman" and that the link from this article to that article has been changed to reflect that. I think this is fine since it maintains consistency across Wikipedia. --Bruce Hall (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Saints within Anglican Use

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)

"Features" vs. "devotional aspects"

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)

Excisions on grounds of "primary sources"

On the personal ordinariates for former Anglicans, Spshu has repeatedly excised information on what the ordinariates' founding documents, issued by the Holy See, state and what documents of the ordinariates themselves state, on the grounds that these were "primary sources", "self-sources".

I have pointed out to him that Wikipedia expressly allows citation of primary sources "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source."

Anglicanus has said; "I don't see how 'self source' is a policy problem when it comes to such apparently straightforward and uncontentious information."

Elizium23 has said that "just because it is a primary source is no reason to exclude it. No interpretation of the facts is being made."

Gugganij has said; "source is perfectly valid".

Would Spshu please take into account the unanimous verdict of all four editors who have commented on his activity. Esoglou (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You wrongly point out that this is unanimous that means every one is in agreement. That is not the case. This is not a democracy. Spshu (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

All four who had commented were in agreement. Spshu has now commented, practically saying that they are all out of step except our Spshu. Esoglou (talk) 07:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

No you are out of step with the whole of Wikipedia, violating some of its main tentents. Using primary source will single this and other articles out for deletion. "If no reliable third-party sources| can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a discovery."

"Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. This means that decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms." Spshu (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

So we are all out of step except you alone? And it has been pointed out to you that the Wikipedia MOS expressly admits primary sources under certain conditions. Esoglou (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I added my comments to the other Talk page agreeing with Esoglou's interpretation of the policy. --Bruce Hall (talk) 03:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Reversal

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 ISBN 9781586174996) 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Pastoral Provision redirected to Anglican Use with no discussion

The Pastoral Provision article was deleted and redirected to this article with no discussion beyond a cryptic comment in the "edit summary" field that says "RD, duplicates Anglican Use article)" Um, not exactly. For instance there is a difference between Anglican Use priests and Pastoral Provision priests. While all Anglican Use priests have been pastoral provision priests, most pastoral provision priest are not actually Anglican Use priests and therefore they do not celebrate mass according to Anglican Use either privately or in their own parishes. Further it is a separate document that it has not be replaced and has it own history. There is an entire Pastoral Provision office set up the administer the provision. Lastly, the Pastoral Provision has been extended to non-Anglicans. I would argue for the restoration of the article.

Also, the Pastoral Provision article has been around for 7 years and yet it was deleted without a decent explanation or an opportunity for discussion on its talk page and on this page. This is simply beyond the pale. It is insulting. More respect should be shown to the editors who spent seven years working on that article. --Bruce Hall (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I hope the editor who made the change will explain. Otherwise, the action must be reversed. Esoglou (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It has been a few weeks and there have been no other comments. I will leave a note on User:Spshu and ask for comment. If no further comment comes from him or others, I will revert the redirect though removing Pastoral Provision material from this article may have to be done latter when I or another editor has the time. --Bruce Hall (talk) 05:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Why? Pastoral Provision's importance is the document creating Anglican Use, so in general it just duplicates this article. Second, the article only has primary sources thus no notability established. With no notability, no discussion is required for the redirect. Third, it is completely covered in the sentence: "They are also referred to as Pastoral Provision parishes, being established in accordance with the Pastoral Provision granted by Pope John Paul II on 20 June 1980,[1][2] which permitted the ordination as Catholic priests of married former clergy of the Episcopal Church for service either in such personal parishes or elsewhere in Catholic dioceses of the United States.[3]" There is not much more for most people to know. This isn't the "Catholic Wikipedia", so this type of detail in having an article for Pastoral Provision may not be necessarily be needed.

Hall, please refrain from attacking with comments like "This is simply beyond the pale. It is insulting. More respect should be shown to the editors who spent seven years working on that article." How about some more respect for WP rules/guideline. Note that the information is not deleted, so that is a full on lie. I keep on getting non-primary source to make these article less deletable/redirect able and all I get is reversion and attacked like I am doing some thing wrong. How about showing respect to an editor that is trying to help these articles instead of leading to an administrator coming along and out right truly deleting these articles. Spshu (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I will split my reply since I think that there are two separate issues. Here I reply the issue of the need for a Pastoral Provision article and below to the "insulting" issue. Re the article I will split by replies into several paragraphs to address each point raised. (1) The main significance of the Pastoral Provision is not the establishment of Anglican Use but the allowance of married clergy within the Latin Rite (which I believe was the first time in centuries that this was allowed). The establishment of Anglican Use parishes is secondary to this mission, as one can see from the Pastoral Provision website which mentions ordination first and the AU parishes second, prefacing the sentence with "It also ..." lowering the establishment of AU parishes to secondary importance. The secondary importance is further supported by the fact that over 100 priests have availed of the Pastor Provision but only a hand-ful of AU parishes have been created. Lastly, the secondary importance of the erection of AU parishes is further re-enforced by the fact that the Pastoral Provision continues even after the creation of the Anglican Ordinariates. The Ordinariates have taken over responsibility for AU liturgy, and most AU parishes, while the Pastoral Provision still exists. The AU part of the Pastoral Provision has been assumed into the Ordinariates but only the AU part. The remainder of the work of the Pastoral Provision -- allowing for married clergy within the Roman Rite of the Latin Rite -- stays, suggesting that the primary purpose of the Pastoral Provision was and is about married clergy, and not about AU parishes or liturgy.

(2) Only primary sources is a concern and should be addressed. One cannot address that of course when the article has been redirected. Better would have been to flag that need and allow the opportunity for other sources to be added, especially as part of a discussion about notability.

(3) I agree that the article on the Pastoral Provision doesn't need to be long, but it is a distinct topic, that is becoming more distinct with the creation of more Ordinariates and the expansion of existing Ordinariates. Length of an article isn't necessarily a measure of notability. The Pastoral Provision and AU are diverging, not converging. It is likely that there will continue to be Pastoral Provision priests independent of Anglican Ordinariates and therefore many will come to Wikipedia to find out what the Pastoral Provision is. We should tell them. I note that Wikipedia does have the practice of breaking up articles into smaller chunks.

I welcome the "may not" in the "may not be necessarily be needed". It is indeed not clear whether there should be a Pastoral Provision article or not. For instance the German Wikipedia has an article on it here. There should have been and should be a discussion. I suggest that we reestablish the article until a consensus is reached.--Bruce Hall (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry that my comment was read as I personal attack. I didn't mean it that way. I meant it as a simply statement that I was insulted. I and others have been working on that article for seven years. In those seven years, no one has ever raised the point that it was a duplication or an unneeded article. And then -- BAM! -- it's gone. This insulted me. I am insulted that someone doesn't show me or my work enough respect to say "Excuse me, but I am not sure that this article meets the guidelines for these reasons. I know that people have been working on it for seven years but this is my humble opinion -- and I might be wrong. Would it be OK to merge this article into others?" Such a collaborative, respectful approach is what Wikipedia is about. We are all flawed fallen creatures. Even the best of us have limitations. Even the best of us don't understand all issues. Even the best of us don't always properly interpret the rules, and rules by their very nature must be interpreted to individual circumstances. This is why Wikipedia exists -- because two heads are better than one. For this to work we all must be humble and work collaboratively. Even if I was convinced that I am 100% right, I cannot act unilaterally but must wait until there is a consensus. This is especially true of articles that have been around for seven years. I was personally insulted and offended the redirection. I don't think that I was shown the respect that I deserve and that other editors deserve. Given that the most important rule/guideline of Wikipedia is respect for the work of others, I felt that it was important to point out that I was insulted and that I think the redirection without discussion was a violation of Wikipedia rules and spirit. Clearly I could have written it better so that it was better understood. I apologize for my poor writing. It was right and proper for my to say I felt insulted but I should have said it better. --Bruce Hall (talk) 06:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Spshu can you flesh out this comment: "an administrator coming along and out right truly deleting these articles"? To which articles are you referring? Did an administrator come along and delete the Pastoral Provision article? --Bruce Hall (talk) 06:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Proposal for a way forward Only three have commented, and no one in the last week. We need a way to move forward towards a broad consensus on whether there should be a separate Pastoral Provision article. Such a consensus cannot just include the few people who have been involved so far. It must include the broader Wikipedia community. However, before we do that, we must give people the chance to address the issues that Spshu raised, such as the lack of non-primary sources. If material can be added that satisfy Spshu's concerns then the question of merging becomes moot. Therefore, I suggest the following three steps:

• (1) Revert the redirect and tag with Template:Primary sources (We could also use Template:Third-party if appropriate)
• (2) Allow time for editors to improve article There is no set time but I think that it should be measured in weeks, not days or months.
• (3) Tag for merging using Template:Merge to To encourage a broader participation, we should look into adding links to the discussion on appropriate pages.

I don't think that we can reach a consensus without addressing the issues of primary sources raised, and I don't see how we can address those issues unless we restore the Pastoral Provision article and invite improvement. Then, we can judge the new and improved article and invite others coming to the issue for the first time to give their thoughts.

Any thoughts and comments here? If there are none over the next week or so (i.e. at least two weeks since my comments above), I will go ahead with my plan. I hope that no one would consider that too soon, but since this is process should take about a couple of months, there will be plenty of time for commenting before a final decision. --Bruce Hall (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I support the proposal. Esoglou (talk) 08:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It's been two weeks since I posted the comment above and a week since I posted the proposal. The only comment has been User:Esoglou's supportive comment. I will move ahead with the proposal. Remember it is only an intermediate step towards a final resolution. --Bruce Hall (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Strong national ties

Let's decide which version of English to use and how to format dates for this article. I contend that this article has strong national ties to the UK and the Commonwealth nations, due to the Anglican Church patrimony originating in Church of England. While the Pastoral Provision created a few scattered Anglican Use parishes in the USA, the Anglicanorum Coetibus personal ordinariates have been created in England/Wales, Australia, and the USA, with one to undoubtedly follow in Canada, so I think that the preponderance of the evidence here is pointing to British English and dmy dates. Elizium23 (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The history of the Anglican Use and therefore this article started in the United States. Do we change the English just because Anglican Use has now expanded to the historic home of Anglicanism, England? Who "owns" Anglican Use, American English where Anglican Use was founded or British English where Anglicanism (and America) was founded? I'm undecided.

I suppose one can ask, Where will be a majority of Anglican Use activity? One can also ask: Which population cares more? Do American English speakers care more about using American English or do British English speakers care more? Then, Wikipedia is American and I personally rarely come across a British English article, but where do most users come from? It can go on.

Personally, I don't care. I would always err on the side of tradition and would say that without compelling reasons I see no reason to change it, but I wouldn't object if others have a strong opinion.--Bruce Hall (talk) 05:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I just saw the edit and the reversion that presumably sparked this Talk Section. If the dates were originally put in as day-month (as opposed to month-day), then I think that we should leave it that way. To me, whomever wrote the article in the first place gets to decide which of the acceptable formats to use (unless it clearly a topic limited to one dating tradition, e.g. Manchester United). I am a strong believer in letting crowd-sourcing/tradition (of the article) decide.--Bruce Hall (talk) 07:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Two definitions of Anglican Use: Liturgy and people

There seems to be an edit war going on between User:Bealtainemí and User:67.213.87.19 and so I will comment here. Remember the WP:Three revert rule. There are two definitions for "Anglican use", the liturgy (a "use" of the Roman Rite) and the people and groups that use that liturgy. For instance, the Anglican Use Society (see https://ordinariateexpats.wordpress.com/2015/05/18/the-anglican-use-society-is-revived/ ) or the Anglican Use Society of Savanah ( see http://www.anglicanusesocietyofsavannah.org/ ). Our Lady of Atonement a former personal parish was called "Anglican-use parish" is this article https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=31094 "Texas Anglican-use parish adopted into Anglican ordinariate". Or here http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/historic-anglican-use-parish-faces-challenges-in-bid-to-join-ordinariate " first Anglican-use parish in the United States from pastoral ministry." I can cite more. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking an interest. I hope you join in the work.

I don't know what is the view of the anonymous editor, but to my mind we were not edit-warring. We were helping each other to form clearer ideas. Certainly that has been the effect on me and I am grateful to him or her for that.

I need more time to internalize what you say about "Anglican use" meaning "the people and groups that use that liturgy". I tend to see "Anglican Use Society" (which, as you know, has changed its name) and "Anglican Use parish" (which refers, as your sources show, to a Pastoral-Provision parish) on the lines of, say, a "badminton club", which leaves the meaning of "badminton" unchanged. Bealtainemí (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Thats a very good example, Bealtainemí. In a construction like "Anglican-Use parish", the "Anglican-Use" is an attributive noun, that is a noun acting as an adjective; not the hyphen, which is used for compound adjectives. It doesn't mean there's another meaning to the first noun, just that the second noun is related to the first one. In this case, it's a parish that holds services according to the Anglican Use, which is a variant version of the Roman Rite. It's still the same noun, referring to the liturgical tradition, not the group of people. That's what the "parish" is referring to. oknazevad (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Introduction is much too long

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)

As a first step, I've split it up. Bealtainemí (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Tradition

" 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)

"Patrimony" is the standard term, and is neutral, I suggest we use that. Elizium23 (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

Citations

@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)

Won't hurt. Named references are good for that. oknazevad (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Rename/merge

Since "Anglican Use" is a deprecated, obsolete term,[citation needed] should we consider a rename or merger with Divine Worship: The Missal? Elizium23 (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

No, as Divine Worship: The Missal is only the missal and this article addresses the full liturgical use that encompasses the rites according to prior liturgical books (the Book of Divine Worship and Customary of Our Lady of Walsingham) and other current ones (the matrimonial and funeral ritual books and Divine Worship: Daily Office). "Anglican Use" is not fully deprecated and remains in official parlance ([1]) to encompass this concept. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

While you've found one mention of the term in a historical context on that parish's page, they've used the term "Divine Worship" to refer to their liturgy in every bulletin they've published since 2015. They haven't been "Anglican Use" in their bulletins since 2013. Elizium23 (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Complementary norms released in 2019 exclusively refer to "Divine Worship" and "Anglican Use" is not found therein. Elizium23 (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Complete Christianity documents the change:

Absent from the new ordinariate structure is the term “Anglican.” It exists nowhere on an official level. It cannot be found in the liturgy, nor on the names of any liturgical texts. While some members, within the ordinariates, still cling to the terms “Anglican Use” (especially in the United States) or manufacture such terms as “Anglican Catholic” or “Anglican ordinariate,” these have no official standing in the Catholic Church whatsoever. The “Anglican Use” liturgy was officially retired (suppressed) with the creation of the new Divine Worship Missal. Elizium23 (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

What you have established is that the current texts are referred to as "Divine Worship"; this concept predates that term. Furthermore, the term remains in common use in Catholic media (EWTN 2017, CNA 2017, CNA 2019) and the official US Ordinariate website. Additionally, +Lopes of the US Ordinariate makes it clear in this essay that "Divine Worship" is the term for only the current texts. From an academic perspective, the major studies of the liturgy established its name as the "Anglican Use", as seen in Hans-Jürgen Feulner's article. The blogpost you cite is simply not a reliable source; per WP:NOBLOGS. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

We can also see that the most prominent independent Ordinariate support group, the Anglicanorum Coetibus Society, retains the phrase "Anglican Use" ([2]) and that other parishes do likewise ([3]). National Catholic Register uses the term, as does Boston College's Catholic-interest page here in 2022. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Extra stuff

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@Oknazevad: Thank you, but there was a whole section that was completely redundant–it was almost exactly just a copy of the succeeding section. Not sure what happened but if you preferred the redundant section I removed over the one I retained, you are welcome to swap them (though one of the paragraphs in the deleted section would require sourcing). ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)