Semantics, it may be, CR, but do think 'Anglo-Catholic' relates to the Anglican (High) Church, which is a Protestant one (albeit barely !)  whilst 'Catholic' on its own usually implies (in a religion and belief context) the Church of Rome.

On 5 July 2013 19:10, Chokh Raj <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Thanks, David. But wasn't Eliot an 'anglo-catholic' by his own admission? An Anglican form of Catholicism?

Well, here is a brief excerpt from a review of Barry Spurr's 'Anglo-Catholic in Religion': T.S. Eliot and Christianity:

// Spurr points out, largely on the basis of evidence from the correspondence with Mary Trevelyan, that Eliot's involvements with the discussions at St Anne's Soho, the Christian News-Letter, the Christian Frontier Council and the Moot are not to be read as indicating uncritical agreement with those projects. 'He was at one with them, theologically, insofar as they could be seen to be Catholic; but he was generally dissociated from their political leanings.' 


David Boyd <[log in to unmask]> wrote  

"....his conversion to Catholicism."
I hope not too pedantic to observe that this is not so. It was High Church Anglicanism to which Eliot converted, and there's a fundamental difference, mainly relating to that fellow in the Vatican, to whom Eliot was polite but not exactly reverential.
Barry Spurr's recent book explains at length.
- who's off to Little Gidding Festival, Sunday: if anyone on here going too, please do holler.

On 5 July 2013 17:33, Chokh Raj <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Permit me, apropos the subject, to share a modified version of the preface I wrote for my book on Eliot's early poetry:

// The various attempts to find the fundamental axioms behind both good literature and good life, said Eliot, are among the most interesting experiments of criticism in our time.* And in 'Religion and Literature' (1935), he did not hold back to say that "literary criticism should be completed by criticism from a definite ethical and theological standpoint." The present book is a continuation of efforts in that direction. It unfolds layer after layer of Eliot's early poetry, specifically Prufrock 1917 and Poems 1920, to discover that it is here, for the first time perhaps, that the aesthetics of poetry has so subtly been wedded to the absolutes of a religious belief. 

The book is a concerted attempt to counter the widely prevalent but patently mistaken notion of Eliot's early poetry as something apart from his later poetry. For, despite the apparent differences between the two poetic modes, the leitmotif of Eliot's poetry, both early and later, remains the poet's desperate spiritual quest. In the early poetry what one envisages is that in the framework of symbolist aesthetics which commits the poet to the notion of impersonality, there is a constant personal struggle of the poet with his inner demons and, through this struggle, the poet works out a personal idiom, and a vision, with a spiritual orientation which finally culminates in his conversion to Catholicism. //  
(*I'm sorry I don't have the source at hand.)  

Well, so much has since been written on Eliot's early poetry that is in consonance with my views
(written in 2001).