Talk:Ritualism in the Church of England

Untitled

I have suggested a change in the section dealing with the "eastward position," which the current article opposes to the "westward position," with the priest facing the people across a free-standing altar. Both the eastward and westward position have been in use since ancient times, depending on the orientation of the church itself. The official Anglican practice in the late nineteenth century was the "northside" celebration of Holy Communion, with the celebrant standing at the north side of a wooden table placed lengthwise in the chancel. This appeared first in the 1552 Book of Common Prayer, and remained in the 1662 edition, which was the only official version at the time of the ritualist movement.

The only Anglican church at which I have observed use in modern times of the "north end" celebration is All Souls' Langham Place in London, a bastion of low churchmanship. 216.243.164.5 00:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the interpretation of Northside in the 1662 BCP is incredibly complex and probably without resolution here, given that A). Laud reintroduced the altar's traditional place, B). the insertion of the ornaments rubric in 1559 and its retention in 1662, and C). that in liturgical language 'side' is different from '-ward.' In any rate, it'd be well-nigh impossible to determine what 'official Anglican practice' was in the years preceding the Ritualist movement. After the rebuilding of st. Pauls in 1668, the altar was placed in such a way that would have made 'northside' celebration impossible. Percy Dearmer makes note of this in Parson's Handbook, IIRC. 86.152.149.107 20:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The claim with the heading "Anti-Ritualism, homophobia, and "muscular Christianity" is completely uncited (and arguably POV) and should probably be removed unless a quality reference is found to support it.71.207.192.47 05:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

A good reference to the contention that there was a homophobic undertone to the "Muscular Christian" reaction to Ritualism has long since been found and included both in a footnote and the bibliography.Pgg7 10:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

this article should be called "Anglican Christian Ritualism" since it is only about that topic. Obviously, there are a number of other topics that could be included under the header of "ritualism" such as Catholic Ritualism or other denomination Rituals. From a sociological and cultural standpoint it is a very broad topic that does deserve coverage on Wikipedia since many social or cultural behaviors involve "Ritualism". This article needs to be expanded to reflect that. Stevenmitchell 00:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree (despite the fact that I wrote the article). Mind you, I organised it in such a way as Anglican Ritualism can become one part of a larger article. If it's thought that it should become a separate article, I don't see a problem with that either. User:Pgg7 5th May 2006

At the moment it should be renamed and the general intro should be changed to reflect the content. If someone wants to create an overview of Ritualism in general, or Christian Ritualism specifically, then they can summariase this article there, adding other material. Paul B 14:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Anglo-Catholic Ritualism?

I'd argue that wouldn't be a bad title. In any case, the new bibliography section includes references specifically for that particular variant of Anglican ritualism alone.

Calibanu 15:51, 21 May 2006

Legacy of the Ritualist Movement

I have removed the implication that the effect of the movement was positive, because that seemed to me to be an unsupported POV. I hope I have left it neutral. ro 07:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to remove the speculation, opinion and uverified facts from the "legacy" section. The sentence about the Diocese of Sydney contained too many errors to bother correcting. The subsection "Deciphering and evaluating the cultural significance of Ritualism in the Church of England" contained nothing but (acknowledged) points of view contained elsewhere in the article. There are still a couple of facts that need verification. Sir rupert orangepeel (talk) 07:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"Bells and Smells" or vice-versa?

It is my understanding and experience that in England, especially in the Church of England (and also with Anglicans elsewhere), the expression is nearly always "bells and smells". The reverse form, "smells and bells", seems to be used more in North America (and often by Roman Catholics for some reason). I suggest that as this article is principally focused on the history of Ritualism in the Church of England that it is more appropriate that the usual C of E form of the expression be used in this article. I think it is also more likely to be the original version. Anglicanus (talk) 09:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

How many points?

The text mentions "the six points", but lists seven. Is it actually "the seven points", or is one of them not really a member of the group? +Angr 11:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Needs sections on Ritualism 1500-1800

This is a good article, but I came looking for a discussion of ritualism and Bishop Laud and the Puritans. Someone should write on the place of ritual in the Church of England before the Oxford Movement.editeur24 (talk) 13:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)