Talk:Gallicanism

Wikify!

The entry in the old cleanup page said:

• Gallicanism - looks like someone pasted in a bunch of info from the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, which is fine, but it needs wikification & editing. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:05, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

I wikified some, but there's a lot to be done in that department, including adding some sections and maybe moving some explanations to other articles, a list of popes, a list of kings, etc. etc. The Catholic Encyclopedia text is quite NPOV so it can be mostly left alone content-wise. --Pablo D. Flores 15:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To me, this page seems way too long, and much of the information belongs elsewhere. 202.147.85.94 07:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

POV?

The final section looked like POV polemic (and 90 years out of date in its arguments) so I removed it. --Audiovideo 13:29, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Removal seems to me to be inappropriate, until it can be replaced with something better (and, BTW, when you make a substantive cut like this, you should copy the cut paragraphs to the talk page). I am restoring it, with clearer attribution. If you want to actually rework it, fine. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:22, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

I don't need to copy the cut paragraphs here. First, they are in the page history. Second, they are much too long. (And third, with hindsight, now the link is there, they can be read in their original form.) But I still think it is really innappropriate to put such a long POV piece in the article, even it is labelled as such. It is an apologetic of its time. I will not enter a revert war on this, but it is my clear view that it does not belong here (unlike the previous parts of the article). Perhaps others may wish to comment. --Audiovideo 22:57, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As a quotation, the passage is far too long. It might make sense to quote a small part of it and refer the reader to the original Catholic Encyclopedia article for the rest. I'm not sure offhand what part to quote, though. --Jim Henry 23:32, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This could, and probably should, be replaced with a more modern Roman Catholic critique. Alternately, shortening and paraphrasing might be in order.

As far as I know, Gallicanism is pretty much a dead issue, at least in France. If it is still a live issue (in France or any other country) then the article needs an additional section on developments since the first Vatican council. But if it is a dead issue, it's not likely we'll find a more up-to-date commentary; more recent commentary, sure, but probably drawing on the same old sources and commenting on the same historical period.

Actually, now that I come to think of it, Gallicanism (in a broad sense; maybe Febronianism or Erastianism would be a better term) might more or less fit what the People's Republic of China has done in forming a schismatic Patriotic Catholic Church. I don't know a lot about that, though, so I could be drawing a mistaken analogy. --Jim Henry 23:32, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is a dead issue under that title, but tensions still exist where local behaviour is not always the same as the Vatican's official line. Two areas where this can be seen are Christian ecumenism (i.e. relations with other local Christians), and teaching on contraception in the face of public opinion and AIDS. --Audiovideo 00:45, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In what countries do you see the government pressuring bishops and priests (or laypeople, for that matter) to act in an un-Catholic way with respect to ecumenism or contraception and (this is the important part) the bishops, priests and laypeople accepting the state's authority against the church? That's the essense of Gallicanism, Febronianism, Josephism or Erastianism: the state's authority on a level with or above the church's authority in matters of faith and morals, or liturgical practice, or other areas where the church's authority should come first. Other than China, I can't think of a contemporary example, though there may be others I don't know about. --Jim Henry 13:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gallicanism is not primarily about monarchs or the civil power, and certainly not whaen the state is non-Catholic. It is primarily about whether the Pope decides everything, or whether local bishops and theologians can develop their own local positions on contentious issues, and whether collectively (in a strong form) they can impose their position on the Pope or indeed depose the Pope or (in a weak form) the Pope needs their consent to impose his position on them. The issue of the monarch (the "Lord's annointed") was secondary to this.

You asked for an example: my perception is that the Catholic Church in the Netherlands is considerably more liberal in its attitudes on many issues than the Catholic Church in Germany, and that this largely stems from the attitudes of the laity in the Netherlands and what teaching they will accept from their bishops.

Again, I have no problem with someone shortening and paraphrasing. This article could use a lot of work. However, in my experience, if we simply remove it, we'll never end up with a paraphrase, the issue will simply be lost. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:58, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

I just saw recent French TV footage of a Gallican service with a couple of hundred people at it, there is obviously a modern Gallian church operating (I added a link to their website) so perhaps the article should be updated by someone knowledgeable enough to reflect this and the reference to a "dead" church removed?Benvenuto (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Haller?

The text copied from the Catholic Encyclopedia cites someone surnamed Haller without giving any Christian name, book title, or date. My guess is that it means Karl Ludwig von Haller or possibly his father, Gottlieb Emmanuel von Haller; or perhaps Johannes Haller, 1865-1947. --Jim Henry 16:38, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Celtic and Nordic areas of the former Gaul"

"Celtic and Nordic areas of the former Gaul": where did this phrase come from (what is the basis for it)? As far as I know, this doctrine basically originated in circles close to the French monarchy, which is not usually counted as "Celtic" or "Nordic". I am cutting it, unless someone has a citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"Galicianism"

The usage and primary topic of Galicianism is under dispute. For the discussion, see talk:Galicianism (Galicia) -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Merge from Gallican Church

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was not merge. Veverve (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Moved from Talk:Galicianism

In November 2015 Mannanan51 (talk · contribs) suggested a merge from Gallican Church into Gallicanism. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, The Gallican Church "was the Roman Catholic Church in France from the time of the Declaration of the Clergy of France (1682) to that of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy (1790) during the French Revolution." Gallican Church was a specific historic and historical organization that existed in France. It is notable on its own. Gallicanism is a political philosophy about subordinating the Catholic Church to the civil government akin to a national church; the political philosophy is not limited to France or the time period of the Gallican Church. The term Gallican Church is also a colloquialism used by fringe monarchist groups focused on revival of old customs and a French monarchy – combining the two articles obfuscates the fact that the term Gallican Church is about something that is extinct and was extant 1682–1790. Combining the articles frees the term Gallican Church for creation of a pseudo-historic fringe article while reducing the actual Gallican Church from a historical organization into a political philosophy.

Both articles should be rewritten to clearly explain the difference. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Query:Isn't there a distinction between "Galicianism" and "Gallicanism"? Mannanan51 (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes they are different, Galicianism has two senses: about a movement in Galicia (Eastern Europe) and about a separate movement in Galicia (Spain). –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I need to move this to the correct talk. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2022 merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was DABify. Veverve (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

---

• Support: merge the content of Gallican Church into Gallicanism, and turn Gallican Church into a DAB with Catholic Church in France, Église gallicane (Loyson), Gallican Rite, and Gallicanism.

The subject of the Gallican Church article as "the Roman Catholic Church in France from the time of the Declaration of the Clergy of France (1682) to that of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy (1790) during the French Revolution" - as BoBoMisiu put it a specific historic and historical organization that existed in France - is not supported by any source. Veverve (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support if there's anything to merge. The "Gallican Church" thing is baloney. The Declaration of the Clergy of France was rescinded by the king in 1693. Srnec (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I will soon close the merge proposal, and turn Gallican Church into a DAB as I proposed. I will not merge anything into Gallicanism as per Srnec. The Wikiproject Christianity has been made aware of the merge proposal 10 days ago. Veverve (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.