There is nothing "protestant" about the term "Maundy"; it was the English word well before the Reformation, and there is nothing "Protestant" about the use of the Angelus in Anglican churches. Shocking as it may be, many Anglicans are not Protestants. And nobody is "forcing" any usage on anyone. I found your edit history comments very unhelpful, and I would appreciate discussion rather than an edit war. Tb ( talk) 18:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Response to above: I'm particularly interested in the subject you're discussing, so I might have a fuller understanding of the complications of nomenclature than you would expect. Today I was in the mood to write (or rather shamefully not write my paper due at Harvard next week!), so I responded at length to your comments. Further, I've indulged in considerable " WP:POV/ WP:OR" in detailing a tripartite Catholic world view which is rigid and perhaps (?) surprising in its application. I've broken my comments down into sections in order to facilitate discussion on ant particular points you find objectionable, but you might find it helpful to first read all of the following as a single text to better grasp what I'm trying to say. NB -- I am not assuming that you'll want to engage in conversation in any of these points! However, feel free to drop commentary here anytime over the upcoming months when the spirit moves you. It's a "safe place" to burn off intellectual steam without having any concrete outcome, such as a decision about how an article should be edited. -- Boston ( talk) 17:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Anglo-Catholicism is a indeed a big phenomenon in the United States and Canada. However, I did not make a mistake in indicating the rarity of the Anglican Use group I mentioned. They really are the rarer kind as I indicated; the head of the congregation left the The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America to be in union with the Holy See under the Pastoral Provision issued by Pope John Paul II in 1980. He has a wife, but celebrates mass in a Roman Catholic church and is now an "Anglican Use Roman Catholic". If you look at the Wikipedia article on " Anglican Use" you'll see a small list of congregations at the bottom. This small list is either nearly or actually comprehensive. -- Boston ( talk) 17:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
In a related area of discussion about Anglo-Catholicism, I've been following news sources that indicate that the Traditional Anglican Communion might come into union with the Holy See sooner rather than later. According to the analysis I've read it's unlikely the TAC will become an Particular Church sui iuris, thus preserving the current model that of all of the 23 Particular Churches in accord with the Holy See, only one is Western and the other 22 are Eastern. The same sources of analysis indicate that if they do make union with the Holy See, the TAC might instead have the status of a Personal prelature (becoming the second Personal prelature after Opus Dei, or perhaps the third if the Society of St. Pius X re-joins the RCC first). -- Boston ( talk) 17:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
As for the Old Catholic Church which you say “are obviously not Protestant”, indeed I know they certainly don't consider themselves Protestant and I intuit that an Anglo-Catholic probably wouldn't consider them Protestant either. May I politely guess that you consider them an autocephelas Western Church analogous to the model we have of various autocephelas Eastern Churches? I think that is a very logical and smart way to look at them, but I can tell you that Roman Catholics who understand the history and circumstances of the Old Catholic Church absolutely do label them “Protestant” , “essential Protestant”, or similar. They might almost never be referred to such in writing as that might sabotage RCC hopes that some or all might come into union with the Holy See again. This may not be a verifiable fact by Wikipedia standards, but it is indeed what discussed around dinner in RCC rectories and seminaries. -- Boston ( talk) 17:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Remember that the Roman Catholic paradigm only has room for three categories of Christians. Those outside the 23 particular churches are never considered Catholic. If Catholics can't consider someone Catholic, only three categories remain: Protestant, Eastern Christian, and non-Christian. (For the purposes of this model only, "Eastern Christian" refers to Easter Orthodox and Oriental Orthodoxy who are not members of the a Particular Church sui iuris in union with the Holy See. Outside this model, Catholics of course consider the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, the Italo-Greek Catholic Church and the other 22 Eastern Catholic Churches to be both "Catholic" and "Eastern Christian".) -- Boston ( talk) 17:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Thus is comes about that Catholics consider the Old Catholic Church, Traditionalist Catholics not in union with the Holy See, all Canonically irregular traditionalist groups, and even all the myriad groups of Sedevacantists to be “Protestant” when forced to define them according to the Roman Catholic model. Catholics can recognize that certain groups have clear Apostolic Succession, but it doesn't make a difference in assigning groups to this rigid model. I know this is a bold statement I am making! I'll state it again so it's clear I'm not saying this accidentally: Catholics consider the Old Catholic Church, members of, the Society of St. Pius X, and a number of other groups self-identified as Catholics to be Protestant. -- Boston ( talk) 17:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
As for the Assyrian Church of the East you mention, here the point of discussion is whether one wants to consider them an Eastern Orthodox Church (I think that is incorrect) or church of Oriental Orthodoxy (which I would say is correct). Either way, they are simply non-Catholic Eastern Christians and their closely-related Chaldean Catholic Church up the road are " Catholic Eastern Christians." -- Boston ( talk) 17:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
With the rigid three-part model I defined, perhaps the greatest challenge to it comes in considering where to place followers of Western Rite Orthodoxy. (Perhaps reluctantly!), Catholics have to consider them indeed non-Catholic Eastern Christians with Western Rites and thus a part of the third group of the rigid model detailed herein. But zooming in closer, just as Catholics might say the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is "Eastern Christian within Catholicism", Catholics might say that Western Rite Orthodox are "Protestant within Orthodoxy." -- Boston ( talk) 17:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Related to this complicated distinction is a simple fact: The RCC abhors dissent and splitting away is the ultimate expression of dissent in the RCC. Whether or not a particular Eastern Orthodox Church is one of the "big 14" in mutual communion with one another matters in a political arena (who gets an Easter card from the pope and who doesn't), but it doesn't really matter to the RCC three-part model. From the plentiful Old Believers to tiny one-priest Orthodox operations not in communion with others, these are all part of Eastern Christianity not in Union with the Holy See. There are obviously Protestant groups with "Orthodox" in the title, but if a group has clear Apostolic Succession from a "legitimate" Orthodox group, they would have to get really wierd with their theology or practice before the Catholics would stop considering them "non-Catholic Eastern Christians" and start considering them "Protestant (dressed up as Orthodox)". It's a sort of double standard in which it's very easy "stop being considered Catholic" but hard to "stop being considered Orthodox Christian" (or Oriental Christian, for that matter). -- Boston ( talk) 17:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Having designated this a safe space to wax philosophical, I'll hope I'm not out of bounds in revealing a personal "belief choice". As a "cradle Catholic" the power and mystery of the RCC holds great weight for me. That being said, I've always been deeply attracted to myriad aspects of Eastern Christianity and am nearly as enthusiastic about various aspects of devotion among RC's "separated brethren." After fulfilling my Sunday Obligation, I'm often at another (non-RC) church an hour later. This has recently led to me venerating an icon of St. Herman alongside Orthodox Church in America followers, being the only White person raising hands to heaven among 200+ African American (and maybe 3 Latino) Southern Baptists, and standing in a prayer circle holding hands with Low church Anglicans. I take the phrase "one God, one baptism" to heart and based on that I've made a "belief choice" in viewing the all of Christendom as one, holy, catholic, and (more or less) apostolic church. This has led to some surprising questions I've posed to fellow RC's:
RC's almost inevitably agree with me and are enthused by the idea that Christ's church on Earth, though politically and theologically fractured, might be regarded as one unified army of the Church militant. A frequent light-hearted comment is "You're right, Protestants are Catholic -- just don't tell them that!" The point of all this isn't to bend my understanding of the world so that everyone belongs to MY church. Rather, it's to bend many people's understanding of the world to provoke an emotional belief that all Christians belong to THE church, universal, and catholic with a lower-case "c". - -- Boston ( talk) 20:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Is to let
User:Tb that I considered him Catholic/catholic before we even met! --
Boston (
talk) 19:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing "protestant" about the term "Maundy"; it was the English word well before the Reformation, and there is nothing "Protestant" about the use of the Angelus in Anglican churches. Shocking as it may be, many Anglicans are not Protestants. And nobody is "forcing" any usage on anyone. I found your edit history comments very unhelpful, and I would appreciate discussion rather than an edit war. Tb ( talk) 18:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Response to above: I'm particularly interested in the subject you're discussing, so I might have a fuller understanding of the complications of nomenclature than you would expect. Today I was in the mood to write (or rather shamefully not write my paper due at Harvard next week!), so I responded at length to your comments. Further, I've indulged in considerable " WP:POV/ WP:OR" in detailing a tripartite Catholic world view which is rigid and perhaps (?) surprising in its application. I've broken my comments down into sections in order to facilitate discussion on ant particular points you find objectionable, but you might find it helpful to first read all of the following as a single text to better grasp what I'm trying to say. NB -- I am not assuming that you'll want to engage in conversation in any of these points! However, feel free to drop commentary here anytime over the upcoming months when the spirit moves you. It's a "safe place" to burn off intellectual steam without having any concrete outcome, such as a decision about how an article should be edited. -- Boston ( talk) 17:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Anglo-Catholicism is a indeed a big phenomenon in the United States and Canada. However, I did not make a mistake in indicating the rarity of the Anglican Use group I mentioned. They really are the rarer kind as I indicated; the head of the congregation left the The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America to be in union with the Holy See under the Pastoral Provision issued by Pope John Paul II in 1980. He has a wife, but celebrates mass in a Roman Catholic church and is now an "Anglican Use Roman Catholic". If you look at the Wikipedia article on " Anglican Use" you'll see a small list of congregations at the bottom. This small list is either nearly or actually comprehensive. -- Boston ( talk) 17:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
In a related area of discussion about Anglo-Catholicism, I've been following news sources that indicate that the Traditional Anglican Communion might come into union with the Holy See sooner rather than later. According to the analysis I've read it's unlikely the TAC will become an Particular Church sui iuris, thus preserving the current model that of all of the 23 Particular Churches in accord with the Holy See, only one is Western and the other 22 are Eastern. The same sources of analysis indicate that if they do make union with the Holy See, the TAC might instead have the status of a Personal prelature (becoming the second Personal prelature after Opus Dei, or perhaps the third if the Society of St. Pius X re-joins the RCC first). -- Boston ( talk) 17:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
As for the Old Catholic Church which you say “are obviously not Protestant”, indeed I know they certainly don't consider themselves Protestant and I intuit that an Anglo-Catholic probably wouldn't consider them Protestant either. May I politely guess that you consider them an autocephelas Western Church analogous to the model we have of various autocephelas Eastern Churches? I think that is a very logical and smart way to look at them, but I can tell you that Roman Catholics who understand the history and circumstances of the Old Catholic Church absolutely do label them “Protestant” , “essential Protestant”, or similar. They might almost never be referred to such in writing as that might sabotage RCC hopes that some or all might come into union with the Holy See again. This may not be a verifiable fact by Wikipedia standards, but it is indeed what discussed around dinner in RCC rectories and seminaries. -- Boston ( talk) 17:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Remember that the Roman Catholic paradigm only has room for three categories of Christians. Those outside the 23 particular churches are never considered Catholic. If Catholics can't consider someone Catholic, only three categories remain: Protestant, Eastern Christian, and non-Christian. (For the purposes of this model only, "Eastern Christian" refers to Easter Orthodox and Oriental Orthodoxy who are not members of the a Particular Church sui iuris in union with the Holy See. Outside this model, Catholics of course consider the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, the Italo-Greek Catholic Church and the other 22 Eastern Catholic Churches to be both "Catholic" and "Eastern Christian".) -- Boston ( talk) 17:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Thus is comes about that Catholics consider the Old Catholic Church, Traditionalist Catholics not in union with the Holy See, all Canonically irregular traditionalist groups, and even all the myriad groups of Sedevacantists to be “Protestant” when forced to define them according to the Roman Catholic model. Catholics can recognize that certain groups have clear Apostolic Succession, but it doesn't make a difference in assigning groups to this rigid model. I know this is a bold statement I am making! I'll state it again so it's clear I'm not saying this accidentally: Catholics consider the Old Catholic Church, members of, the Society of St. Pius X, and a number of other groups self-identified as Catholics to be Protestant. -- Boston ( talk) 17:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
As for the Assyrian Church of the East you mention, here the point of discussion is whether one wants to consider them an Eastern Orthodox Church (I think that is incorrect) or church of Oriental Orthodoxy (which I would say is correct). Either way, they are simply non-Catholic Eastern Christians and their closely-related Chaldean Catholic Church up the road are " Catholic Eastern Christians." -- Boston ( talk) 17:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
With the rigid three-part model I defined, perhaps the greatest challenge to it comes in considering where to place followers of Western Rite Orthodoxy. (Perhaps reluctantly!), Catholics have to consider them indeed non-Catholic Eastern Christians with Western Rites and thus a part of the third group of the rigid model detailed herein. But zooming in closer, just as Catholics might say the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is "Eastern Christian within Catholicism", Catholics might say that Western Rite Orthodox are "Protestant within Orthodoxy." -- Boston ( talk) 17:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Related to this complicated distinction is a simple fact: The RCC abhors dissent and splitting away is the ultimate expression of dissent in the RCC. Whether or not a particular Eastern Orthodox Church is one of the "big 14" in mutual communion with one another matters in a political arena (who gets an Easter card from the pope and who doesn't), but it doesn't really matter to the RCC three-part model. From the plentiful Old Believers to tiny one-priest Orthodox operations not in communion with others, these are all part of Eastern Christianity not in Union with the Holy See. There are obviously Protestant groups with "Orthodox" in the title, but if a group has clear Apostolic Succession from a "legitimate" Orthodox group, they would have to get really wierd with their theology or practice before the Catholics would stop considering them "non-Catholic Eastern Christians" and start considering them "Protestant (dressed up as Orthodox)". It's a sort of double standard in which it's very easy "stop being considered Catholic" but hard to "stop being considered Orthodox Christian" (or Oriental Christian, for that matter). -- Boston ( talk) 17:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Having designated this a safe space to wax philosophical, I'll hope I'm not out of bounds in revealing a personal "belief choice". As a "cradle Catholic" the power and mystery of the RCC holds great weight for me. That being said, I've always been deeply attracted to myriad aspects of Eastern Christianity and am nearly as enthusiastic about various aspects of devotion among RC's "separated brethren." After fulfilling my Sunday Obligation, I'm often at another (non-RC) church an hour later. This has recently led to me venerating an icon of St. Herman alongside Orthodox Church in America followers, being the only White person raising hands to heaven among 200+ African American (and maybe 3 Latino) Southern Baptists, and standing in a prayer circle holding hands with Low church Anglicans. I take the phrase "one God, one baptism" to heart and based on that I've made a "belief choice" in viewing the all of Christendom as one, holy, catholic, and (more or less) apostolic church. This has led to some surprising questions I've posed to fellow RC's:
RC's almost inevitably agree with me and are enthused by the idea that Christ's church on Earth, though politically and theologically fractured, might be regarded as one unified army of the Church militant. A frequent light-hearted comment is "You're right, Protestants are Catholic -- just don't tell them that!" The point of all this isn't to bend my understanding of the world so that everyone belongs to MY church. Rather, it's to bend many people's understanding of the world to provoke an emotional belief that all Christians belong to THE church, universal, and catholic with a lower-case "c". - -- Boston ( talk) 20:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Is to let
User:Tb that I considered him Catholic/catholic before we even met! --
Boston (
talk) 19:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)