Talk:Anglicanism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Religion Portal

This article is supported by the Religion WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Religion-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.

This article has been rated as A-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity.
To participate, edit this article or visit the project page.

This article is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Anglicanism is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Philrelig article has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale.

[edit] episcopalianism

whoever created the redirects from episcopalian and episcopalianism to anglican should be aware that episcopalianism is NOT a form of Anglicanism. There is a complicanted history involved, and I won't get involved in it here. There is a good article, episcopal, about episcopalianism. I have changed the redirects to that article.
Bobburito 03:32, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The above statement is right-wing lunatic fringe rubbish.

Nrgdocadams 22:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

How was it "right wing"? Maybe your pointless insult should be considered left wing rtardation, since it made no sense whatsoever. There are differences between anglicanism and episcapalianism, one of them being that episcapelians arent connected to the British monarchy...

Eno-Etile 21:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

And maybe your statement shows your ignorance and lack of understanding of Anglicanism. Many if not most, Anglican churches are not associated with the British monarchy either. If you don't know what you are talking about don't advertise it so obviously. 72.136.51.111 21:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

And maybe your statement shows that you're the kind of person who jumps to insulting people instead of discussing. Yes I do have a somewhat limited understanding of both religions being neither a member of either or a theological student/scholar, that is why I was reading the article in the first place. But there are differences in the religion that I am aware of. 1) The names, obviously 2)Ep. originated as the American version of Anglicanism while Anglicanism was and is in many cases still connected to the British monarchy (hence the "Angl") 3) as for the other poster's comment being right wing I still do not see how you came to that conclusion. The way I see it if somone types in Episcopelianism they want an article specifically about it not about Anglicanism, and visa versa. If we do that why dont we just have Eastern Roman Catholic redirect to Orthodox, or the other way around.Eno-Etile 03:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The Episcopal Church of the United States of America (ECUSA) and the Episcopal Church of Scotland are members of the Anglican communion which also includes a number of other churches worldwide, many of them, like the American Episcopalians and the Scottish Episcopalians, are derived doctrinally and liturgically from the Church Of England originally but, like the Americans but not the Scots, no longer owe any particular alleigance to the British monarchy. Other member churches of the Anglican communion have got there by other routes and have even less connection to the Church of England than the Episcopalians. Anglicanism is a name for the group of churches which are all independently governed but have enough history and/or some doctrines in common to band together with each other. There is a separate page about ECUSA but you will see that it is described as part ofthe Anglican communion there too. I don't understand about right wing either. Dabbler 04:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

My point is that if you type episcopal you want to see something about the ECUSA or another episcopal church not the Anglican, or you would type Anglican. Maybe a seach for episcopal, episcopalian, etc should go to an episcopal/episcopalian disambiguation rather than a specific page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eno-Etile (talk • contribs) 18:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

But most if not all the churches with Episcopal in their names are part of Anglicanism. All Anglican churches are lower case episcopal, as is the Roman Catholic Church for that matter, in that they have bishops. It is just that some Anglican churches use the word "Episcopal" in their names and some use "Anglican" and some, like the Church of England or the Church of Ireland, use neither. If you want to be more specific and look up a particular church, then you have to be more specific when you search. You will find links in Anglicanism to all the Episcopal churches that are part of the Anglican communion, so going there will help you find the one you are looking for. Dabbler 18:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Then maybe episcopal should redirect to bishops? Eno-Etile 00:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be Episcopacy which redirects to Episcopal polity which tells you to go to Anglicanism if you want Episcopalians. Dabbler 06:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok how about episcopal/episcopalian/episcopalianism/etc alll redirect to bishop or bishops or w/e Eno-Etile 23:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Each of those pages has links to Bishop and vice versa. Each of those separate articles has a good reason to exist and should not be converted into one huge Bishop article which attempts to provide all knowledge of everything concerning bishops. It would completely unreadable. Dabbler 11:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Why should somone have to sift through an extra page though? The word episcopal has no more direct relation to the Anglican church than it does to the RC and less than it does to bishops. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eno-Etile (talk • contribs) 09:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Eno-Etile—I also thought that at first. However, it turns out well over 80% of links to [[Episcopal]] in English wikipedia are looking for ECUSA, and most of the rest want the Scottish Episcopal Church. I hope that users realise quickly that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and that they can see from Episcopal Church (disambiguation) that episcopal means bishop, and also link to a definition of episcopal and one of Episcopal .
This issue is also discussed in detail at Talk:Episcopal Church in the United States of America#Name rehash and at Talk:Episcopal Church (disambiguation) .
Now I am confused as to whether you are discussing the redirect for Episcopalianism or for Episcopal — they go to different places.
Either way, we have tried to draw discussion of all these redirects together in one place. Please discuss this further at Talk:Episcopal Church (disambiguation) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schism

Why does this article say that schism occurred first with the Orthodox church and then with the Roman Catholic church? Does that mean the Church of England separated from the Orthodox Church in the 11th century because the Church of England was then part of the Catholic church, which separated from the Orthodox church in the 11th century? Is so, that could be stated much more clearly.

I think that's what it's supposed to mean. Feel free to state it more clearly. ;-) Wesley

I would say there was first a split in the Orthodox church between Eastern and Western Orthodox, the Western being generally known as Catholic. Then there was a split in the Catholic church, the C of E and other (Catholic) Protestant denominations splitting from the Roman Catholic branch. Gritchka

== The Catholic Church ==

I appreciate that you and many others do not agree with the usage of the term, Catholic, for the the Church based in Rome. I respect you freedom to disagree; however, I do not believe you have the right to tell people how to name themselves. The Catholic Church could claim the rights to all the names of the various Christian Churches saying that their use of their name is "parochial." Of course this would be rude and condescending, and we do not. For instance, we could say that "Baptist" really should only be used to refer to all Christians, since we all practice baptism. Presbyterian--well, Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans would all have a much fairer claim to that title than Presbyterians do, since that term is understood to mean "priest," which they do not actually have. Methodists hardly have a method, but many other churches claim to. Everyone claims to be "orthodox", many churches are "episcopal" in their governance. Oh, and precisely which church is not evangelical in some fashion? ...etc., etc. (Not to mention LDS!) So, the first argument is that it is a matter of respect to call churches by how they call themselves. That is a minimum decency that civil people afford eachother.

Also, it drives me crazy that Spanish speakers insist that the Americas are one continent and everyone on it is an "American," so, US citizens should really be "Unitedstatians," or some such other un-English formulation because it better suites their sensibilities. Let's just say that's not going to happen. In a likewise manner, it is very awkward English to use "Roman" in every reference to Catholicism. No one I know really talks like that. It is just poor (and idiological sounding) English.

Also, there are many Catholic Churches in the original sense of the term that do not call themselves "Roman," such as the Greek Catholic Church, the Ruthenian Catholic Church, the Maronite Catholic Church, etc. By original sense of the term I mean that "catholic" in the early church meant those in communion with the Church of Rome. Ignatius, if you read his discussion on the Church, literally says this! "Roman" Catholic within the Catholic Church means the "Latin Rite" almost always, though sometimes sometimes the term is used for the entire Catholic Church to ''emphasize'' the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, Primate of the West, Vicar of Christ, etc.

Now for the historical/institutional matter: No one in the 16th Century argued that the Catholic Church of Trent was a different institution from the one that Luther and the rest protested against and had sought to reform. Also, there was no Western Christian prior to the Reformation(s) that did not understand the Western Church as the Catholic Church. It is very clear that the Catholic Church after the reformation is the same institution that existed before and had always called itself since Ignatius of Antioch the "Catholic Church." The theology of sacraments, ecclesiology, etc. had not changed with the Reformation. So, the burden of proof is on someone who wants to claim that the Catholic Church ceased to be itself such that it needed to change its name, which it has never done.

Now this is where it gets interesting. The term "Roman Catholic" only came into vogue in the 19th Century for a number of reasons. It was a way for Catholics in local areas to distinguish themselves from others who broke away but kept the name, such as the "Old Catholics." It was also a way to distinguish Latin Catholics from Eastern Rite Catholics within the Catholic Church. And, most interestingly for this discussion, Anglicans which had never had much use for any claims to being "Catholic" suddenly became interested in the term when the intense study of the previously lost patristic texts showed how ancient the term was and how "Catholic" the early church was in its theology and ecclesiology. Such patristic studies gave rise to the Oxford Movement and eventually the claim to Anglo-Catholicism. Of course, that the Anglican church was clearly protestant historically is demonstrated by such names as "The Protestant Episcopal Church of American," which is the original name of the ECUSA.

The term "Catholic Church" is never used in capitalized form for the "universal Christian church," because that would be confused with the Catholic Church. Except in the creeds, this term is never used without qualification for that purpose. Besides, we are talking about corporate entities, concrete churches. The abstranct sense is not a practical term but a theological conception (which does not make it any less real, but does put it in another distinct specific conversation in which the speakers would know the difference).

While Catholics do occasionally call themselves Roman Catholics (only in the West) we have at no time in history ever ceased to call ourselves simply Catholics. This the name for our Church and ourselves in continuous use from the time of Igantius of Antioch ~107 A.D. Use of "the Catholic Church" is not "parochial," which seems to be an intentionally demeaning term, but is rather historical. Ignatius, by the way, was an Eastern Patriarch (of Antioch) and still claimed communion with the Bishops and especially the Bishop of Rome as the essential way to distinguish orthodox Christianity from false revelations, prophets, philosophies, etc. This explains the strangeness of WP aticles on publications such as the "National Catholic Reporter" with the word Roman interjected at every instance of the word "Catholic" except in the title of the "NCR" and the WP article title on the subject. It is just awkward, forced and ultimately a POV ideological imposition.

Lastly, the use by others of the term "Catholic Church" need not presume that they agree with the Church's historical or theological claims. When I call a Baptist a Baptist, I do not imply that I agree with the Baptist theology of baptism which by definition excludes me, a Catholic, from salvation. If "Catholic Church" is not acceptible, then in justice we should insist on some other qualifier for all the churches (perhaps, "Protestant Baptist," or the even more precise, "Protestant Anglo-Catholics," since all English Catholics are "Anglo-Catholics)."

Thanks for reading. --Vaquero100 03:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's also the slightly tongue in cheek view that the Bishop of Rome and the rest of Christendom broke away from the Church of England in the 16th Century ;-) 82.36.26.229 02:14, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anglicanism has always been characterised by a wide diversity in theology and liturgy.

Does this diversity include the use of other languages in the liturgy - something which might be relevant in parts of the (former) British Commonwealth?

  The first translation of the Prayer Book into another language

was the Latin translation made in (I think) 1559, for use in places like Oxford and Cambridge college chapels, where people could be presumed to understand Latin. Common Prayer in English was alright for the illiterate out in the parishes, but where there were numbers of people who could understand Latin living together they were expected to continue to use Latin in public worhsip. In practice, I have no idea how much use was ever made of the Latin Prayer Book. It is available on the internet.

  The Welsh translation has been in use since 1567, and
contributed immensely to the survival of the Welsh language. Nennius

Across the Anglican Communion, worship is now in the normal language of the participants; exceptions are rare and exceptional. When I visited Tokyo, for example, I went to the only English-speaking Anglican church there--and there are a large number of Anglican churches in Tokyo. All but St. Alban's use Japanese. (Unsurprisingly, St. Alban's serves a primarily ex-patriot community of non-Japanese.)

However, the diversity in liturgy is probably more imaginary than true. It is far more true to say that Anglicanism has more diversity than Orthodoxy, about the same as Roman Catholicism, and vastly less than most Protestant denominations, since nearly all Anglicans worship from an official liturgy which is mandated for all congregations in the country.

--Tb 06:59 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[edit] province

The link to "province" does not provide a link to the concept of a national church, but instead to political subdivisions of a nation (such as the provinces of Italy).

[edit] Old Catholicism

In the paragraph describing Anglicans' self-concept as being catholic but not Roman Catholic, it might be helpful to put something in about the Old Catholic Church (Utrecht Succession) and the 1931? Agreement made in Bonn? to be in full communion between Anglicanism and Old Catholicism. See, for example: http://netministries.org/see/charmin/CM00295?frame=N

The phrase Clerical celibacy is not enforced sounds like we believe in it but don't put it into practice. I'll change to there is no doctrine of Clerical celibacy --(talk to)BozMo 10:51, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] non-sensical paragraph?

This paragraph has too many 'howevers', and doesn't seem to make sense. Unfortunately, I don't know how it should read.

However, since the Elizabethan Age, practical authority has rested with the Archbishop of Canterbury, but Anglican churches outside England do not view the British monarch as the Church of England does. However it remains the case that the Archbishop of Canterbury, leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion, is appointed (in theory) by the Crown of the United Kingdom, (in reality) by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

Would this be an improvement?

However, since the Elizabethan Age, practical authority has rested with the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Archbishop of Canterbury, leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion, is ceremoniously appointed by the Crown of the United Kingdom. In reality, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom decides who is appointed as Archbishop. Anglican churches outside England do not view the British monarch as the Church of England does.

I don't understand the last sentence. Is 'the Church of England' different to 'Anglican Churches outside England'? How does the Church of England view the British monarch? What are the different views? Jenks 21:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see your problem. The main thrust of this paragraph is that British Sovereign remains Supreme Governor of the Church of England, but the Archbishop of Canterbury is the de facto leader of the church. The worldwide Anglican Communion looks to the Archbishop of Canterbury for its lead, but it does not give a special position to the British Sovereign. The Sovereign's authority is limited to the Church of England, but the Crown appoints the Archbishop who is the worldwide leader. Is that a wee bit clearer? --Gareth Hughes 22:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In fact, the Homilies set forth by authority of Queen Elizabeth I, as noted in the Thirty-nine Articles, make quite clear that only civil authority over the Church, primarily the authority to appoint Archbishops to their Sees, belongs to the Crown. No other authority is claimed and, in fact, spiritual authority is expressly denied.

Nrgdocadams 03:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

 I don't think it is true that the Abp. of C. took over from the

sovereign after the death of Elizabeth I. When king Charles I was executed the bishops were unable to function without him. The idea that practical authority rests with the Abp. of C. is, I suspect, a much later development. Nennius

[edit] Churchmanship Edits

Dear all,

I found the section of Anglicanism concerning "churchmanship" to be highly biased towards the Anglo-Catholic liberal understanding. It seemed that the current fight within Anglicanism was bleeding into the Wikipedia. I deleted some of that material, and did my best to bring the point of view back to the center. You may diagree, so feel free to edit me back!

Also, this section had a couple of paragraphs about pacifism. While I agree that this topic is of some interest, it is hardly a central issue in Anglicanism, either presently or in the past. Therefore, I deleted the references. Once again, no harm intended.

The Reverend Thomas McKenzie (Anglican clergy)

I reverted your deletion of the paragraphs on pacifism, because it's generally a good idea to discuss it here before making a major edit like deleting four paragraphs. I must say I'm baffled by your equation of Anglo-Catholic with liberal, though. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 21:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted a few of the edits because they went overboard against the NPOV policy in stressing Evangelicalism over and against Anglo-Catholicism and true Broad Churchmanship.

Nrgdocadams 06:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

[edit] Introduction changed

I removed the paragraph: As with the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches (but unlike other Protestant churches), Anglicans claim authority within the church through apostolic succession from the first followers of Jesus. Anglicans traditionally date their church back to its first archbishop Saint Augustine of Canterbury in the 6th century and centuries earlier to the Roman occupation.

I think that statement is factually incorrect. Apostolic succession as it is understood and taught in the Roman and Eastern churches, is not taught in the Anglican church.

I restored the paragraph. Apostolic succession as it is understood and taught in the Roman and Eastern churches is also an extremely important aspect of the teachings of the Anglican church. The absence of apostolic succession in several Protestant churches has been the major stumbling block against establishing full communion between those churches and the Anglican churches. It's why there's full communion with the Lutheran churches of Scandinavia and the Baltic states, but not Germany, because A.S. was broken in Germany. It's also why Episcopalians were unwilling to merge with other churches in the original plan of Churches Uniting in Christ. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Three-legged stool

I piped the mention of a three-legged stool to the article Tripos, which discusses a three-legged stool metaphor in the context of Cambridge. It was reverted by an anon without an edit summary. Is there a reason why it is not a useful wikilink? Jkelly 21:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I saw that it was removed and considered reverting the removal, but then I read Tripos and it doesn't seem to be a particularly useful link for someone wanting to read about three-legged stools. So there's no particular reason why the phrase "three-legged stool" should be linked to it. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 22:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. I thought that the article was relevant, given the Cambridge connection. Thanks for the response. Jkelly 22:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Divisions?

I kind of get the impression that most of this article has been written and edited by active Anglicans. One thing I can't help noticing is that the current divisions in the world communion are rather skipped over in the final paragraph of the 'Churches' section. It seems to me that such divisions exist within Anglicanism - both in the C of E and world Anglican churches - over issues such as the ordination of gays and women that this topic merits a section to itself. I'm quite happy to research and write this, unless there's anyone out there who is closer to the centre of things? Bedesboy 17:04 18 November 2005 (UTC)

If you can do that while remaining NPOV..... its an on-going event with developments occurring at intervals. It does seem to me as though the traditional Anglican virtue(if that is what it is?) of compromise has been lost by at least some senior archbishops of the communion in favour of a very un-Anglican emphasis on only one reading of one of the three legs of the stool. Dabbler 19:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm - I'll have a go over the weekend. I think the trick to remaining NPOV on this could be to look at the way things have gone over the past few years rather than actually trying to keep pace with events that are going on right now. I'm not suggesting this should be lengthy, but it seems to me that the traditional/progressive rift (and I admit that calling it that is an over-simplification) is important, if only because it highlights the relative decentralisation of the Anglican church when compared to a more apparently monolithic faith such as Roman Catholicism. Bedesboy 21:45 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if this might properly be a seperate article - as Dabbler states this is an ongoing issue that will become part of the history of the church regardless of how, when and if it is resolved. In addition seperating it might avoid dispute in the main Anglican Article Cantis 22:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting viewpoint from the vicar of Putney in the Saturday Guardian which suggests that a reason that Nigeria's archbishop is so anti-gay is because of the struggle against fundamentalist Islam in northern Nigeria. Guardian story Dabbler 03:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I was logging on to write about that myself. Dabbler, what do you think about Cantis's idea about having it as a one-liner in here, linked to a separate article? Or do you think someone will just come along and merge it? I can certainly see how it could cause controversy if it were written in here - but somebody more distant and objective about the whole thing might not agree. Bedesboy 10:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Generally I am not a fan of endless sub-divisions of topics as that can cause people to miss the article they are looking for in a maze of links. But they can also prevent a relatively unimportant (I am writing generally here), but current, issue from overwhelming an otherwise well-balanced article. More specifically in this case, we have an organization with a centuries long history and the events of a few months or years have the potential to become the main focus of the page. Now it may be that this will prove to be a pivotal time in the history of Anglicanism and in future more will need to be placed on the main page but right now I suggest that we have a separate page and that way all the contentious isses can be thrashed out there. Eventually it may be seen as better to merge it back, or it may become an important article in its own right. Dabbler 12:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The whole thing is a current bugaboo, not communion-dividing according to the St. Michael Report--and Akinola is something of a fringe figure in the church. (Don't scoff: we're talking about someone who wants to kick the C of E out of the Communion.) Carolynparrishfan 19:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the best form for the 'Divisions' page would for it to be a news / history page, not comment, just a record of the current actions, letters, statements etc. by all of the parties. This lets us do what we have been asked to do - listen to each other. Cantis 04:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anglican Template

Hello everyone. I just started a new template for articles on Anglicanism here: template:anglicanism I'd love some comments, revisions, suggestions, etc. I added the template to the main article. This follows the precedent set by Methodism, etc. See template:methodism Thanks --circuitloss 04:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another perspective

I just got back from Simple English Wikipedia and its a strange place. This is what they have to say about Anglicanism.

"Anglicanism is a strange type of Christianity as it is a cross between Catholisism [sic] and Protestantism. Priest can call themselves 'priests' (very Catholic) or 'ministers' (very Protestant) and the members of the Church of England can choose how Catholic or Protestant they want to be!"

Good heavens. Isn't simple: subject to NPOV? Or accuracy? --Angr (t·c) 22:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anglican Orders Considered Valid by Orthodox

Csernica removed the statement in the article that Anglican Orders are considered valid by the Orthodox. I am restoring it. The Statement by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople to that effect can be found at this link. Nrgdocadams 08:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

That was 1922. You could find comtemporary statements (well, a decade or two earlier) from Russian hierarchs to the same effect. Show me a modern authority who says this and I'll let the statement stand.

And please place new threads at the bottom of the page, which is where I'm moving this one. That's where everyone expects new threads to be. You don't even need to do it manually. Click the "+" tab next to the "edit this page" tab and you get a form to fill in for a new thread, which is automatically placed at the bottom. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

If we're really interested in Anglican/Orthodox relations in the first decades of the 20th Century, see [1] which is an Orthodox impression formed, not from hasty consideration from a hierarch now generally discredited, but by a bishop now canonized as a saint and based on a long-term association. This essentially reflects the general modern Orthodox attitude as it happens.

See also the 1993 edition of The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware, pp 319-321. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

If the Orders were valid in 1922, they're valid now. Moreover, your position about the Ecumenical Patriarch betrays your OCA affiliation, as opposed to the majority of SCOBA Orthodox. Worse, you removed a reference that proved the point, which is an act of vandalism. Let it stand, now, or we'll be taking this to mediation.

Nrgdocadams 09:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

It seems to me that some sections of Orthodoxy consider Anglican orders valid and that some do not. Perhaps we could change the article to incorporate both of your links and with a statement to this effect? --G Rutter 13:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No, this is incorrect, and Nrgdocadams has drawn an incorrect inference. My OCA affiliation could be determined from my user page, but he has mistaken a statement I made specifically about Meletios Metaxis to apply generally to the office of the Ecumenical Patriarch. The EP currently does not recognize Anglican orders, nor does any local Orthodox Church, so there is no difference of opinion to be taken into account and any compromise that does will simply be giving wrong information. Whatever any Orthodox Patriarch (and the EP does not speak for all of them in any event) may have said, what has always been universally done is to re-ordain Anglican convert clergy. (As is not universally done for Roman Catholic clergy.) See the Ware reference above -- the author is a bishop under the EP, so Nrgdocadams attempted ad hominem where he attempts to discredit my information because of my church affiliation, cannot apply there.

Furthermore, even if the Orthodox did recognize Anglican orders in the past, now that they ordain women this would be extremely problematic. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Nrgdocadams -- your threats and spurious accusations are unwelcome and uncivil. Yes, the strictly correct response on my part would be to add the references that contradict yours, but that seems to add too much weight in the article to the debate over the inclusion of a few words. I therefore removed the misleading "External link" as a simpler solution -- this is not vandalism by any stretch. You're the one wishing to make a positive statement, I therefore must insist that you're the one who needs to provide the evidence to support it. A single statement from a highly controversial Patriarch made over 80 years ago that has had no discernable effect in the intervening decades is not such evidence, and I have provided two references to contradict it. Should this one sentence require three references to establish it whether part of it is true? Sorry, but that's ridiculous. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I have written to the Ecumenical Patriarch's office about the issue, and I shall post the Patriarch's reply when I receive it. Since there are several letters on the Ecumenical Patriarchate website to the Archbishop of Canterbury from Patriarch Bartholemew which begin with the address, "Your Grace Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of all England, most beloved and dear brother in Christ God: Grace and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ be with Your Grace," I trust that I'll be receiving notice that the Patriarch actually does recognize the Anglican Archbishop as a valid Archbishop, and Anglican Orders as valid Orders, but since you so insistently contend that this reality is not reality, I'll let the Ecumenical Patriarch speak for himself.

Nrgdocadams 07:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

The standard flowery form of address, a holdover from Byzantine etiquette, has misled many Western observers into thinking more was being conceded than really was. When the Patriarch of Alexandria counts "Judge of the Universe" among his titles, the reasonable conclusion to reach is that they're not taken very seriously. Even Cyril of Alexandria addressed Nestorius in like style, and we know what his opinion of Nestorius was.

Since you continue to claim that what I'm saying is fiction, I take it you didn't even bother to check out the references? TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It occurs to me that even if you do get a reply from the Patriarchate, and even if it does support your contention, you would not be able to cite it here. Since it would be private it would not be verifiable, and may well qualify as original research. Really, I would think a simpler way of supporting your point would be to cite some current published literature. The Ware book I mentioned above is the standard English-language popular reference book on the subject, but if your contention has any merit you should be able to find some support for it elsewhere -- reflecting the modern situation, not the historical, which is fairly useless. Go back far enough and you'll even find the Eastern church in communion with Rome, after all. Same goes for the C of E.

I should mention that Ware bends over backwards to give a balanced presentation of issues related to ecumenism, for which he has received some criticism from the conservative side. His point when it comes to recognition of orders is that for the Orthodox it cannot be separated from issues of faith as a whole; that Apostolic Succession is, for the Orthodox, more than simply the historical chain of laying on of hands. "Orders" cannot therefore be discussed or "recognized" in isolation. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The lengths you will go to to maintain your fallacy are astounding. With the response from the Patriarch's office, whcih will be verifiable by other editors, I simply hope that when we go to mediation over this, the facts will take precedence over your POV.

Nrgdocadams 00:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

Do you even bother to read anything I reference? Go look at WP:V. It's Wikipedia policy, meaning that edits that don't adhere to it can be reverted for that reason alone. Any source you reference has to be generally available. I quote from that page just in case you don't feel like clicking:

Articles in Wikipedia should refer to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have been published by a reputable or credible publisher. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. (emphasis in original)

And further down the page

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit.

And yet further down

For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable. An encyclopedia is not primary source material. Its authors do not conduct interviews or perform original research. (emphasis mine)

That's not "lengths to maintain a fallacy". That's the standard to which we must adhere when editing articles. I have provided such a reference for my position: you have not. Please refrain from further sneers until you do. (Actually, I think it's plain that you cannot, and this explains your strident tone, hoping to accomplish through intimidation what you cannot through normal means and civil discourse. I'd like to WP:AGF, but you're making it very, very difficult.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The orthodox (bearded guys who celebrate mass with a crown on their heads) would certainly never recognize anglican ordinations, since women and male homosexuals were "made" priests and even bishops in anglicanism, both of which is impossible and capitally criminal based upon the Bible and Holy Tradition, which the orthodox totally observe and uphold.

[edit] anglicanism in eastern europe

Can someone explain to me why there are anglicans in countries like Rumania???--Burgas00 14:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can say why there are Anglicans in Germany, and the same reasons probably apply to Romania. First of all, there are people from English-speaking countries who grew up Anglican who have moved there. (I grew up in the Episcopal Church and have lived in Germany for nine years.) Then there are the locals who have married an Anglican foreigner and converted, or didn't convert but just attend the Anglican church to be with their partner. Then there are the children of such people, who grow up in an Anglican church in a non-English-speaking country. Then there are the locals who decided to go to an English-speaking church to practice their English, and liked the theology enough to convert. --Angr 14:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I saw this programme on TV on immigration in the US. There were these Rumanian women who were applying for political asylum because they were persecuted for their religious beliefs (anglicanism). Apparently their spiritual leader was this guy in Gibraltar... In the documentary they said that they checked everything she said and it was all true... I still find it seriously weird since these Rumanians didnt even speak English...--Burgas00 18:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Romania is in the Church of England's Diocese of Gibraltar in Europe, so presumably "this guy in Gibraltar" was the Bishop of Gibraltar (who actually lives in London and only travels to Gibraltar for special occasions). But if there really is a "native population" of Anglicans in Romania, I don't know how that came about either! --Angr 20:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV in the intro

FIRST PROBLEM The intro refers to "the conduct of eucharistically-centred worship services". This is before any discussion on the churchmanship divide and therefore makes the claim that this is somehow common to all of Anglicanism. This is surely POV towards the Anglo-Catholics. Most Low Church Anglicans do not conduct "eucharistically-centred worship services". In fact many Low Church Anglicans would object to the whole theology behind the use of the term "Eucharist". "Eucharist" and "eucharistic" are NOT BCP terms and arguably therefore not Anglican. The various terms "mass", "eucharist", "Holy Communion" and "Lord's Supper" while all describing the ceremony/ sacrament of bread and wine each have different emphases. Arguably the Anglican Reformers rejected both "Mass" and "Eucharist" because of their faulty theological connotations. "Mass" signifies the re-presentation of Christ's propitiatory sacrifice which the Reformers clearly rejected as blasphemous. "Eucharist" signifies our "thanksgiving" to God. What is so objectionable about this term you ask? Well in the words of the Order for HC "it is very meet, right and our bounden duty, that we should at all times, and in all places give thanks unto" God. So the Reformed Anglican would say that the Holy Communion is NOT primarily about us giving thanks to God since we are to do that at all times and in all palces. The term "Eucharist" and its emphasis on thanksgiving puts the emphasis on us rather than on God. In other words it connotes a ceremony of man acting God-ward whereas the BCP order for HC (on the Low-Church understanding) is very much the opposite: a memorial meal whereby we celebrate a perpetual memory pf God-in-Christ acting manward. It's all about God and not about us the Calvinist decries. The only two BCP (and therefore on the Low Church view authentically Anglican) terms are "Holy Communion" and the "Lord's Supper". The use of the term "Eucharist" is therefore POV towards High Churchmanship.

A second objection is factual. It is simply not factually true that Anglicans conduct "eucharistically-centred worship". Has whoever it was who wrote this attended an Evangelical parish or chapel? In most low-church parishes etc the normal Sunday worship is the order for Morning (or Evening) Prayer and not Holy Communion. Holy Communion takes place less often -- typically once a month nowadays but as will be seen below even less often in days gone by.

A third objection is historical. The rubric to the Order for HC states that Anglicans are to communicate at least three times a year (not once a week as is typical in tractarian circles). Until the onset of tractarinism this was still pretty much the norm. If the BCP rejected the terminology "Eucharist" and enjoined celebrating the Lord's Supper only three times a year, how can we honestly call Anglican worship "eucharistically-centred"?

In sum, it is not "Anglicanism" but "High Church Anglicanism" that conducts "eucharistically-centred" worship. Simply because in certain parts of the world (typically North America) High Church Anglicanism dominates (there being almost no Low-Church tradition in North America) and High Church Anglicanism has "eucharistically-centred" worship, you cannot make this claim for "Anglicanism". You are only speaking for one part of Anglicanism and not Anglicanism as a whole.

SECOND PROBLEM Reference is made to the agreement of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Consultation but stating that the findings were rejected by the Roman hierarchy. This is misleading for it would suggest that the ARCIC agreement actually represented the "Anglican" view. ARCIC has no authority to speak for Anglicans or Anglicanism. It is simply a body whereby discussions are conducted between some Anglicans and some Roman Catholics and then the outcomes are reported to the Archbishop of Canterbury. ARCIC statements have no binding force and they do not speak for Anglicanism or Anglicans. Most of what ARCIC says contradicts (Low-Church understandings of) the authoritative Anglican Reformation Formularies and Most Low Church Anglicans would therefore distance themselves vehemently from pretty much everything ARCIC has ever said. The article as written would seem to indicate that the ARCIC speaks for "Anglicanism" when in fact it is inhabited by Anglo-Catholics and has its own agenda. This is therefore arguably (Anglo-Catholic) POV. Apodeictic 10:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I read the words "the conduct of eucharistically-centred worship services" as being one aspect of how Anglicanism shows its links to the Roman Catholic tradition, it then goes on to say that it is also "deeply connnected" to the Protestant Reformation. It doesn't say that all services are eucharistically centred, just that there are eucharistically centred services in the catholic tradition. Dabbler 12:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I now understand what the maker of the comment was trying to say. I don't want to press this whole issue too hard as the differences of opinion might be so fundamental as to make saying anything useful too hard and in the end you do have to say something about Anglicanism. But how about we say something like "The conduct of eucharistically-centred worship services is seen by some to be in keeping with the catholic liturgical tradition ..." ?

Whether eucharistically-centred worship is or is not in keeping with the "catholic" litugical tradition is a theological hot potato. For what does it mean to be "catholic"? Who says that Romanists and Anglican Ritualists are "catholic" and that Anglican Evangelicals are not "catholic"? This all depends on your definition of catholicity. Protestants claim to be "catholic" in the true sense of the word and that (so-called) Roman 'Catholics' and Anglo-'Catholics' have strayed from the Catholic Faith. But as I said, maybe my objections are too fundamental to achieve any kind of consensus. Apodeictic 16:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You wrote above, "'Eucharist' and 'eucharistic' are NOT BCP terms", but that depends on your BCP. There are at least as many BCPs as there are Anglican churches. The 1979 ECUSA BCP does call it The Holy Eucharist (although the 1928 prayer book calls it Holy Communion). Therefore, using either term is POV. Angr (talk • contribs) 17:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that the 1979 ECUSA prayer book calls it the Holy Eucharist. I didn't know that -- but I'm not surprised that the move has been made. On one level I don't object to calling it the Eucharist per se. Eucharist means "thanksgiving" and it is in a way our clebrating the Lord's Supper is an expression of Christian thanksgiving. After all, we are exhorted to feed on Christ in our hearts by faith with thanksgiving. Given a choice between the terms "mass" and "Eucharist" I know which one as a Protestant I would choose! But the Protestant objection is that "Eucharist" (thanksgiving) doesn't capture the right emphasis of the Sacrament for Eucharist puts the emphasis on us (viz. our response of thanksgiving) and not on Christ's action (viz. his death upon the cross for our redemption whereby he made by his one oblation of himself once offered a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world). "Eucharist" implies man acting God-ward, while the 1662 Order for HC emphasises God acting man-ward.

Of course my preference for the terms Lord's Supper and Holy Communion over Mass and Eucharist are POV. But stating that the BCP doesn't use Eucharist (assuming it doesn't) is not POV -- it's just reporting a fact. By BCP I meant the BCP of 1662. So once again thanks for pointing out the 1979 ECUSA book.

The fact that the 1979 ECUSA book has adopted the term Eucharist raises some interesting issues. And I'm going to be a bit of a "controversialist" -- but this is the talk page and not a Wiki article so I think I can be less than non-POV here :-)

1. ECUSA doesn't sit too easily into any discussion of "Anglicanism" as it doesn't officially take the BCP of 1662 and the 39 Articles of 1562 as its official doctrinal standards (as do most other Anglican churches throughout the world). So right from the beginning ECUSA makes it difficult to talk about "Anglicanism" as we aren't singing from the same hymn sheet so to speak. What is "Anglican" doctrine? The doctrine of the C of E? The doctrine of ECUSA? The most that all "Anglican" churches taken together have in common (the "lowest common denominator" approach)? What about those "Anglican" churches not in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury? And what about those non-Anglican churches in Communion with him?
2. Nomenclature. Pretty much everywhere in the world "BCP" refers to the 1662 Book of the Church of England. So nearly everywhere in the world subsequent liturgical revisions are seen as alternative liturgies to be used alongside 1662 but not a replacement of 1662. When I say BCP I mean 1662 which reflects the Anglican Settlement after the Reformation, English Civil War and Restoration. For me that's the definitive statement of Anglican Doctrine (although as an Evangelical I personally prefer Cranmer's book of 1552). Moreover in most countries (ECUSA and Scotland are the excpetions I can think of) the 1662 Book and the 39 Articles of 1562 are authoritative statements of Anglican doctrine. That is why I quite confidently asserted that the "Eucharist" is not an Anglican term. But I was obviously out of step with ECUSA. I'm not surprised as ECUSA certainly does like to go its own way :-)
3. The retreat from "Common Prayer". Prior to the liturgical revision of the 20th Century there truly was "common prayer". There was one standard form used by Low, Broad and High Church. Amazing really when you consider our differences. But now we have God knows how many alternative forms of liturgy catering to every theological and liturgical whim. It is increasingly difficult to define "Anglicanism" in such an environment. Is it the first, second, third or fourth order in the new liturgy for Holy Communion/ Eucharist that reflects "Anglican" theology? At least with 1662 I know what I'm dealing with and what text to refer to in arguing with my Anglo-Catholic and Liberal antagonists.
4. The retreat from Protestantism. It is not at all very partisan of me to state that the Tractarians have been seeking to rid Anglicanism of its Protestant distinctives. Before liturgical reform all they could do was act contrary to the BCP, the 39 Articles and the law. Now they have changed the liturgy and the law to their liking which also has the effect of marginalising traditional Low-Church Anglicans. I am not overemphasising in stating that one only need to read what Newman, Keble, Pusey and co wrote to see the vitriol they had for the Reformed faith. The terminology for the Lord's Supper/ Holy Communion is (in my view) one such protestant distinctive that the Tractarians and other High Churchmen have been seeking to rid us of. It looks like they hav won in the USA (which doesn't surprise me given that there are almost no Radically Low-Churchmen in ECUSA as there are in other Anglican churches). But it is telling that it took until 1979 for the American Church to call it the "Eucharist". What does this say about the term's pedigree within Anglicanism? It's quite new-fangled and revisionist really. Cranmer didn't use it and nor was it adopted in 1662. It has simply taken 430 years to effect this anti-Protestant revolution.

If the term is officially used in ECUSA then IMO ECUSA has departed from the historic Anglican faith (as is the case with regard to a certain Bishop). And it is harder for an Evangelical Anglican in ECUSA (what few of them there are left) to argue against use of the term Eucharist because it's now in a "BCP". But my argument that the "Eucharist" is not an authentically Anglican term still stands regardless of whether a 1979 ECUSA prayer book calls it that. But perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree and just get on with one another like nice Anglicans/ Episcopalians :-) Grace and Peace.Apodeictic 20:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to calling it Communion in this article, but I do think it's far-fetched to claim Eucharist isn't an Anglican term. I think it's even farther fetched to suggest the ECUSA isn't "really" Anglican anymore just because of Barbara Clementine Harris. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I suspect the bishop in question is Gene Robinson rather than a female. Other Anglican churches have ordained women bishops. Also the Anglican Church of Canada adopted the 1928 BCP (albeit modified a bit from the version that didn't get adopted in the UK).Dabbler 23:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I did say I was being a bit of a "controversialist". So don't take all this personally. Just imagine I'm writing a tract for the Evangelical party at the height of the Oxford Movement :-) It's all rather light-hearted and a chance to hear a Low-Church perspective that you might not otherwise get to hear as we no doubt walk in very different Anglican circles.

I wasn't at all trying to suggest that ECUSA is not Anglican. All I was saying is that it's really hard to talk about "Anglicanism" and give some kind of definition for Anglican belief when we all have different Prayer Books. That's what I meant. Comparing the Anglican Church of Australia and the C of E is hard enough -- but at least we have the BCP 1662 and the 39 Articles of 1562 in common, despite our cultural and modern litugical differences. With ECUSA the common link of a doctrinal standard is harder to find. I think that's a fact and not too controversial/ POV. So that means the Anglican Communion is largely defined (a) historically (can you trace your derivation to the Church of England) and (b) politically (are you in current favour with the See of Canterbury) rather than (c) doctrinally. There are obviously some doctrinal things we have to hold in common to be called Anglican (although it is often quipped that many Anglican clergy don't even believe in God!). But the question is how many and which ones.

I was referring to Mr Robinson particularly, although the whole issue of women bishops (and priests) also raises many difficulties. That's another thing that makes it hard to identify what "Anglicanism" teaches. Some dioceses consecrate women as bishops while others still won't ordain them as priests, let alone allow them to become bishops. So what is the "Anglican" position on the ordination of women as priests and the consecration of women as bishops? Well arguably there is no "Anglican" position on this topic. Only the positions of various schools of thought. Some "Anglicans" are in favour of it while others are opposed to it.

ECUSA doesn't "cease" to be Anglican because it has officially called the Holy Communion the "Holy Eucharist" (or consecrated a homosexual man as a bishop or whatever pet issue you want to identify with). Rather the argument is simply that it is acting in contradiction to the principles of Anglicanism. And this gets to the very heart of my argument. What are those "principles of Anglicanism"? Is calling the HC in accordance with or in contradiction to those "principles of Anglicanism"? Well, simply put, the view you take will depend on your churchmanship. For a (radical?) Lowchurchman it's not at all "far-fetched" to say that calling it the "Eucharist" is against the principles of Anglicanism. For a middle-of-the-road- to highchurchman it probably is a bit "far-fetched".

Ultimately it comes down to what our vision of Anglicanism is and the effects of the Reformation. Most High Church Anglicans like to emphasise the "catholic" nature of Anglicanism while also stating the fact that it avoids some of the pitfalls of Rome. So to put it crudely, the silence of the (original) BCP and 39 Articles (on the use of the term "Eucharist") amounts to tacit consent. Most Low Church Anglicans, on the other hand, see things rather differently. They like to emphasise the "Protestant Reformed" nature of Anglicanism noting that its catholic nature means that it avoids some of the pitfalls of separatist Protestantism. They view most things through the lens of the Protestant Reformation. To put it crudely, the silence of the (original) BCP and 39 Articles is a cause for grave doubt on the appropriateness of the term "Eucharist". It is not an argument from silence for Cranmer & Co weren't silent but spoke and used the words "Holy Communion" and "Lord's Supper". The argument is that they used their words very deliberately and for theological reasons. That Cranmer (ultimately) chose "Holy Communion" and "Lord's Supper" means he was making a theological point; i.e. that he disagreed with the theology behind the terms "Mass" and "Eucharist" and that it is therefore inappropriate for Anglicans today to call this sacrament the "mass" or the "eucahrist".

But I suspect you don't share my (radical?) low churchmanship and we'll have to agree to disagree :-) Apodeictic 12:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't; I'm a liberal "Middle Church" Episcopalian, but I've come down from being as High Church Anglo-Catholic as I was 10 or 15 years ago. If I still lived in the U.S. and had a greater variety of churches to choose from than here in Germany, I'd probably be going to a United Church of Christ or maybe American Baptist church instead of an Episcopal one by now. Angr (talk • contribs) 12:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia and have just been (helpfully) informed that I have strayed a bit off topic by debating the subject of the article itself and not limiting comments to the structure/contents etc. of the article and suggestions for improvement. But my original comment on "eucharistically-centred worship" as being either POV or factually inaccurate stands. I just wanted to give some reasons for that comment and that's how I ended up digressing/ transgressing. I'm learning about Wiki-etiquette as I go. My sincere apologies to everybody concerned for clogging up the talk pages. Apodeictic 14:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, better the talk pages than the articles! :p But you do bring some valid points: there isn't one monolithic Anglican theology or dogma, and the article should better reflect that. Angr (talk • contribs) 14:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Churchmanship

The use of the term "deuterocanonicals" is perplexing. This is a term used by the Roman Catholic Church (and Orthodox churches?) and means "second canon". Bound up in this term is the idea that in addition to the books of the Hebrew (and Protestant OT) canon, these books are fully canonical in the Christian church. In Anglicanism they are not canonical -- for Article 6 lists the 39 books of the Protestant OT (and Hebrew Scriptures) as canonical and refers to the Apocrypha simply as "the other Books" and then lists them. So it is wrong to refer to them as "deuterocanonicals" in an Anglican context for they are not canonical. Moreover, there is not strict identity between the Roman (or Orthodox) Deuterocanonical books and the Protestant OT Apocrypha (or "the other Books" of Article 6). If you get a Protestant Bible with Apocrypha and compare that with a RC Bible, apart from having a separate section between OT and NT for the Apocrypha (RC and Orthodox Bibles incorporate the deuterocanonicals into the OT itself), the Protestant Apocrypha contains more books than the Roman Deuterocanonicals and less than many Orthodox churches' deuterocanonicals.

Article 6 refers to the following "other Books":

3 Esdras (= 1 Esdras) ==> Not Canonical in RCC; canonical in Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches
4 Esdras (= 2 Esdras) ==> Not Canonical in RCC; canonical in Russian and Oriental Orthodox churches
Tobias (= Tobit), Judith, Rest of Book of Esther, Wisdom, Jesus the Son of Sirach (= Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, the Song of the Three Children, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees ==> Canonical in RCC and Orthodox Churches
Prayer of Manasses ==> NOT Canonical in the RCC; canonical in some Orthodox churches (Ethiopian; not sure about others)

Apodeictic 11:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

However, the Anglican/Episcopalians DO use them liturgically, which is why Anglican/Episcopalian churches always have to include them (a unique set: the RC Deuterocanonicals, plus 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Mannaseh). The Eastern Orthodox will tell you that "canonical" just means "Books that are used liturgically" and would regard the claim that the Apocrypha are to be used "liturgically, but not doctrinally" as an absurdity.Carlo 18:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Piskies

The Scottish Episcopal Church has its roots in post-Scottish reformation attempts to reintroduce bishops, resulting in two church traditions before James VI acceded to the English throne, and developed separately. You're missing out on a significant part of the development of the world-wide communion if you ignore the piskies. ....dave souza, talk 10:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Childish talk! LOL. Seeing you write "Episcopalian" like that, makes me laugh. IP Address 10:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Check Scottish Episcopal Church#Name: common nickname! ..dave souza, talk 12:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No one's suggesting they be left out. It just seemed to me to be very odd to say at the very beginning that the Scottish Episcopal Church isn't a daughter church of the Church of England when there had been no previous mention of the concept of daughter churches at all. If it comes to that, the Episcopal Church of the USA isn't a daughter church of the CofE either, but rather of the "Piskies", as you call them. Angr (talk • contribs) 10:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Because the Scottish Episcopal Church is a part of the Anglican Communion and therefore Anglicanism, many assume that it is a Scottish district in Britain...or something like that. IP Address 11:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps inevitably, the article's a bit anglocentric. James VI was undoubtedly influenced by his relatives Henry and Liz, but his attempt to foist bishops on the kirk led to the communion being a coming together of traditions rather than one line straight from 'Enery, and this should be made clear early on. ..dave souza, talk 12:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Catholic Church

Thanks for reading. --Vaquero100 03:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the bottom line for Anglicans in this matter is that we need to avoid using the word 'catholic' in any way which--203.214.141.208 05:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC) implies that members of the pope's church are catholics and we are not. My St. Joseph Daily Missal from the 1960's has the expression "Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church" on the title page, so I dont see what all the fuss is about. I was also under the impression that objection to the term 'Roman Catholic' was an Irish quirk, and that Roman Catholics in other parts of the world were quite happy to be Roman Catholics Nennius, 3/9/06

[edit] Overlap with Church of England

Obviously there's always going to be some overlap, but might it be an idea to have a clearer split between the institution (Church of England) and the 'ideology' (not quite the right word, but you see what I mean) (Anglicanism), or even merge the 2? Neddyseagoon 14:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)neddyseagoon

I'm definitely against merging. Not all Anglicans belong to the Church of England; in fact, most don't. This page should be about Anglicanism as a whole (including Anglicans outside the Anglican Communion). The only place where there should be significant overlap is in the early history. Angr (t • c) 14:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

True, good point, though the difference could be made clearer in the 2 articles. Neddyseagoon 15:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)neddyseagoon

Indeed, but that's not a reason to merge them. Angr (t • c) 15:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The Church of England is not the same as Anglicanism. Yes, it was identical in 1700, but today Anglicanism embraces also the Church of Nigeria, the Episcopal Church (to mention two extremes) and the Church of England has its own distinction within Anglicanism (e.g., to my knowledge, the only Anglican state church, has the Queen of England as head, etc.

It might be well to put everything general to Anglicanism and refer to it in Church of England as well as in the other Anglican churches - but that's sorting out, not merging. --Irmgard 13:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm definitely against merging this with "Church of England" for all the reasons outline in the previous entry. Irmgard is quite right. Cor Unum 07:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the tag since it's clear a merger has been rejected. IMO what needs to be better delineated is not the difference between Anglicanism and the Church of England (I think this article is clearly not about the CofE), but rather the difference between Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. We need to work out what we want this article to say and what we want Anglican Communion to say so that (1) there isn't redundancy between the two and (2) the views of Anglicans outside the Communion are duly (but not disproportionately) represented. Angr (t • c) 08:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definitely not true!

>anglicans are second largest sect of Christianity globally with over 77 million member

There are over 150 million orthodox christian people (those who believe the apostolic succession of their priests originates from Apostle John, the youngest disciple).

In turn catholic belive the apostolic succession of their priests originates from Peter and Paul, who died in Rome. They are the most populous religion worldwide.

Actually, there is no difference in belief in "who" they succeeded from. The Orthodox ALSO believe that Peter and Paul were the first Bishops of Rome, but Peter was also the first bishop of Antioch; Mark of Alexandria; James first bishop of Jerusalem; Andrew of Constantinople. John was first bishop of Ephesus.

Actually the group that is perhaps most associated with hearkening back to John are the Celtic Christians would were in Britain before Gregory sent Augustine of Canterbury. At the Council of Whitby, the disagreements between them and Rome were characterized as Disagreements between John and Peter. Carlo 18:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sign your freaking comments. Haizum 22:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ummm...I did. Get slightly less of an attitude. Carlo 01:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

actually there are around 77 million and over 300 million Protestants and 1 billion catholics. AngryAfghan

Right, but neither "Protestant" nor "Orthodox" is considered a single sect. The largest sect is Roman Catholic, followed by Anglican, because Protestants and Orthodox are divided up into many sects. Angr (talk) 05:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"Sect" is misleading then,Angr. The terms most often used in these comparisons are "Church" and "Communion." As a communion, Anglicanism is the third largest. I doubt many readers will understand what is meant by "sect" in this instance which appears to be a term employed to avoid numerical comparison with the Orthodox churches. In fact, considering the lack of juridical authority possessed by the bishop of Canterbury, I can't see any real distintion in the relations among Anglican churches and the Orthodox churches. In fact, Orthodox Churches are likely closer to being whatever is meant by "sect" in that the have a greater degree of internal discipline than do Anglican churches as has been recently demonstrated in the gay bishop ordination scandal.

Furthermore, "sect" is a sociological term which does not actually apply to the Catholic Church the Anglican Communion nor the Orthodox Churches.

Whatever is hoped to be achieved by the use of "sect" as a criterion for comparison, it is spurious at best. --Vaquero100 06:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  Why couldn't the word 'larger' be substituted for 'largest'? Nennius

[edit] Origin

I think that King Henry VIII should be mensioned in this article as he is in the article about himself. In schools when children learn about ANGLICANISM they learn that the founder of this religion was King Henry VIII.

Henry VIII is now mentioned as not really intending too much of a split. This contradicts the fact that, by the time he died, his Privy Council was made up predominantly of humanists and moderate Protestants. The main Catholic, Gardiner, who was instrumental in arguing against Rome when Henry needed him, rarely was allowed into Council meetings. Similarly, Edward VI's teachers were humanists and protestants. Edward VI was raised to be Protestant. My studies don't touch on what Henry meant at first, but certainly by the 1540s he was in the Protestant camp. JoshNarins 01:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal confusion.

A vandal made some edits to this page, which I reverted. However, they may be a problem with the See Also section. If somone more familiar with this article could check it out, I would be much obliged. - Dr. Zaret 02:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Anglicanism

A new WikiProject focussing on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion has just been initiated: WikiProject Anglicanism. Our goal is to improve and expand Anglican-reltaed articles. If anyone (Anglican or non-Anglican) is interested, read over the project page and consider signing up. Cheers! Fishhead64 06:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Architecture of Anglican churches

I've always wondered about this. What is the symbolism and origin of the four spires in a square that marks most (all?) anglican churches? Thanks. El Gringo 18:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not know of any church in the UK bearing four spires. The most common pattern for churches in England (built both before and after the Reformation) is a cross-shaped building, with a square tower either at the crossing or at the west end. This tower may bear a single large spire, or four small pointed turrets at each corner (simply for decoration). Less common patterns include the saddleback tower (with a small pitched roof at the top), the round tower (locally in some parts of England). Cathedrals and very large churches may have other variations, such as an octagonal lantern-tower or a dome. Myopic Bookworm 12:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected, MB. This is the type of church square tower that I am speaking of: http://www.wicklow.ie/Wicklow%20400/Photo%20Gallery/images/Church%20of%20Ireland,%20Nuns%20Cross%20Ashford.jpg And this: http://www.interment.net/data/ireland/dublin/stbrigid/DX-211.jpg And this: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~rosdavies/photos/KilkeelKilhorneCofIAnnalong.JPG And this, the most important Anglican church in Ireland: http://www.planetware.com/i/photo/cathedral-of-the-church-of-ireland-armagh-arptcth.jpg I have thought that it symbolised the crown's supremacy over the church, but I have no basis for that. All I know is that it is extremely rare- I cannot recall one instance of it- to see such a tower on a Catholic Church in Ireland. El Gringo 21:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Could be a problem seeing as though many of the catholic churches in Ireland have round towers. 'Tis hard to put spires on the corners of a round tower. :-P I think they're there just because they look pretty, it's a high-gabled ornamental extension of a crenellation...just as barrel vaults went from round to pointed ellipses...crennelations went from simple squares at the roofline to pretty, elongated spires. Notice most English gothic churches are crenellated (is that a word?) —ExplorerCDT 01:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic Church

I don't want to get into an edit war with someone who seems to be irredeemably hostile to the Anglican churches. However I have decided to put up the disputed section template until some of the statements can be conclusively verified with citations or at least to warn others that I consider them to be totally POV and wrong asthey are written now. Dabbler 01:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten and added citations in the disputed area and I have removed the tag.Dabbler 04:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The Anglican Communion refers to itself as 'catholic and reformed'. I see that this has been changed to 'anglo-catholic and protestant'. This is simply incorect wording. I am going to change it back, as I'm certain that the correct wording should be used. Please discuss here if you feel otherwise. — Gareth Hughes 21:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be our friend Vaquero100, a Roman Catholic priest with a bone to pick with Anglican claims of catholicity. Fishhead64 21:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"Catholic and Reformed" is a term used by Anglo-Catholics to affirm Catholicims and avoid the term Protestant. Actually, there are a great many in the Anglican Communion who identify themselves as Protestants. The Church of Scotland "which is not a daughter church" of the Church of England is decidedly Protestant.--Vaquero100 21:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have no problem with Anglo-Catholic claims to being catholic. I have a problem with all efforts to rob the Catholic Church of the use of her name which appears to be a common Anglican project on WP. I have a problem also with Anglo-Catholicism speaking for all Anglicans who are, in fact, mixed on the issue.

Also, after 2 months of Fishhead's hounding and Catholic-baiting on the RCC page, it is time to take the argument to the source of the bigotry.

My work on WP is consistant and principled and aimed at seeking justice against Anglican Anti-Catholicism.--Vaquero100 21:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually it looks like you're on a campaign. A number of the churches refer to themselves as catholic, not just Anglicans. I quote you from the CofE Revised Catechism: 'The Church of England is the ancient Church of this land, catholic and reformed. It proclaims and holds fast the doctrine and ministry of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church'. This is what the church says it is: this is the wording the article should use. — Gareth Hughes 21:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"Catholic and Reformed" is the term preferred by intoductory works on Anglicanism (see, for example, "The Study of Anglicanism" by Sykes and Booty or "This is Our Faith" by Stuchbery).

"Robbery" implies taking violent possession of something belonging to another. Nobody is claiming that your institution does not have the right to describe itself as the Catholic Church. You, on the other hand, claim that other movements which have never surrendered the description may not describe themselves thus.

Our argument, which is now seeping over here, is over naming conventions and the ambiguity of the term. My Roman Catholic friends and acquaintances - lay, clergy, and religious - would be amused to hear that I'm an anti-Catholic bigot...and most are well aware of my opinions on this matter. But I guess this is what sitting in front of a computer screen does to others' perceptions of oneself. Fishhead64 21:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you told all your Catholic friends that you and your Anglican fellows are systematically irradicating the use of the name of the Catholic Church on WP? I assure you their amusement would cease if you did. You and your fellow have acted utterly without sensitivity to Catholics. This is hurtful and maddening. I have no problem with any member of the Anglican Churches. This all started with the intollerance of Anglicans toward the Catholic Church in the use of her name.

I am sure it is socially acceptible in England and other Anglican dominated circles to refuse to acknowledge the name of the Catholic Church. But you need to know that it is patently uncivil. This discussion WILL NOT END until until the name of the Catholic Church is recognized. --Vaquero100 21:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

How am I systematically eradicating anything? Certainly were it true, I would expect my acquaintances to be dismayed. In cases where the term is ambiguous (e.g. Catholic sacraments), I have suggested a term (e.g. Roman Catholic sacraments) - used by the institution itself to refer to itself - to provide specificity. Otherwise, I have no problem with the term Catholic Church being used in the manner you describe - indeed, if you read my edits to this article, you will see I use it myself in this way. It is you who have claimed, without evidence, that your institution does not refer to itself as the Roman Catholic Church, and hence the use of term is unjust and uncivil. This claim is simply belied by the evidence, e.g., the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission (which must be more linked to my talk page comments than anywhere else, but you never refute its use). Fishhead64 21:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

PS, Vaquero - Don't edit my talk comments. This is considered vandalism, and is certainly reportable. Fishhead64 21:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

ARCIC, as I have said before is a rare instance of a concession by the Catholic Church to appease Anglicans on the comission. It was never intended as a justification to irradicate the name of the Catholic Church in all public fora such as WP. If you look closesly you will see that the Catholic Church calls itself such in all its encyclical letters and conciliar documents. --Vaquero100 22:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Anglo-Catholic is a rather informal term to refer to a theological party within the Anglican Communion. Changing 'catholic and reformed', which is how the church describes itself, to 'Anglo-Catholic and Protestant' is a simple misunderstanding of the history and make-up of the Anglican Communion. I understand your issue with the designation Roman. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it is a disambiguation to distinguish between Roman Catholic Church and Catholic Church (disambiguation). Therefore, if a link to the former document is changed to Catholic Church, it is being passed through a redirect. It is better to link directly to an article. — Gareth Hughes 23:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it is Anglicans that have forced the Catholic Church off of the Catholic Church page. That is what is at issue here. Your fellows are engaged in a campaign to irradicate the name of the Catholic Church on WP. Please. Please. Please. Stop the suppression of the Catholic Church's name! Anglican bullying tactics might work in England, but they wont for long on the internet. --Vaquero100 23:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I see no bullying tactics. There is a procedure for renaming articles, and it requires consensus. All I've seen so far is a Catholic telling Anglicans what to call themselves and then calling them bullies. You seem to have a real personal issue going on. I urge you to tone down your language: calling other contributors bullies while asserting your will against them (see above This discussion WILL NOT END until until the name of the Catholic Church is recognized!) will not help you. Please start having some respect for the opinions of others. — Gareth Hughes 23:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Gareth, it has been Anglicans who have been telling Catholics what to call ourselves for a few centuries. Now, maybe you know what it is like. There is a systematic campaign by Anglican on WP to prevent the use of the Catholic Church's name. It is time for this to end. It has been spearheaded by Fishhead64 and been going on for almost 4 months on the RCC page. This has got to stop.--Vaquero100 23:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Eh, aren't you talking about the Roman catholic church? If you're unable to share catholic, meaning universal, with all the other kirks, why not just call yourselves Papists? There you are, a name all to yourselves! By the way, the Piskies are indeed not a daughter church of the C of E, but rather a sibling of the Church of Scotland. ..dave souza, talk 23:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, true Anglican colors now show. Papist? why not just call us fisheaters? There is only one entity by the name of Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has no problem with other churches incorporating the word Catholic in their names. Glad to share. But all groups and organizations have the right to name themselves. The campaign to irradicate the name of the Catholic Church is a abuse. --Vaquero100 00:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, slurs like "Papist" and "Romish," born of bigotry are the very origin of the name "Roman Catholic." This is one reason we Catholics object to the term. Besides, where is this other "catholic church?" --Vaquero100 00:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

How about the one the Piskies say they belong to as part of their service? If you're too ashamed of the Pope to want him in your name, don't go around demanding a monopoly on a name other churches have an equally legitimate right to. ..dave souza, talk 00:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is asking other churches to change their names. They all have fine names. The Catholic Church is what the pope calls his church, so there is no shame issue here. The issue is Catholic baiting, Piskies and all.--Vaquero100 00:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Philip Jenkins, an Episcopalian historian, in The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice (Oxford University Press 2005 ISBN 0195154800) maintains that some people who otherwise avoid offending members of racial, ethnic or gender groups drop their guard regarding religion. Earlier in the twentieth century, Harvard professor Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr. characterized prejudice against the Catholic Church as "the deepest bias in the history of the American people" and Yale professor Peter Viereck once commented that "Catholic baiting is the anti-Semitism of the liberals."

Philip Jenkins, an Episcopalian historian, in The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice (Oxford University Press 2005 ISBN 0195154800) maintains that some people who otherwise avoid offending members of racial, ethnic or gender groups drop their guard regarding religion.

Do tell. Fishhead64 01:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the desire of some (Roman) Catholics to reserve for their own church the designation "Catholic Church", but since every church which recites the Apostles' Creed affirms a belief in the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church", I am sure that it cannot, in practical terms, be so reserved. I expect the Roman Church to refer to itself, in its own documents and formulae, as "the Catholic Church", because it believes itself to be such; but it cannot expect to enforce that usage in external context, because other Christians do not believe it to be such. Myopic Bookworm 13:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Autocephalous?"

The claim that the churches of the Anglican Communion are "autocephalous" is ridiculous. A Googles search (Anglican autocephalous) produced only one occurance and that was the WP article on the Anglican Church in Canada written by Fishhead. This is just another example of this Protestant church donning the clothes of Catholics and Orthodox in an attempt to gain an elusive legitimacy. This is especially shameless in a time when the Windsor Report and other Anglican documents using the term "independent" and "interdependent" are flooding the internet. Nice try.

Vaquero, what is the definition of "autocephalous"? Is it not a church whose episcopal primate is autonomous and independent? Autocephaly and independence are synonymous to an extent, by autocephaly is more precise. The Anglican Church of Wherever is as autocephalous as the Roman Catholic Church. Or perhaps you have evidence to the contrary? Fishhead64 21:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the term fits, but you are correct - it does appear to be used exclusively in reference to the Orthodox Churches. "Independent" is better. But please, please, please assume good faith. Fishhead64 21:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Fishhead. I HAVE assumed good faith, but all evidence is to the contrary. --Vaquero100 21:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I belong to the Anglican Church of Australia, the Primate of which is elected without reference to any ecclesiastical authority outside of Australia. If that doesn't make the Anglican Church of Australia autocephalous what on earth does autocephalous mean? Nennius 3/9/06

[edit] Ecumenism and the RCC

First, I really think the back and forth on this is not productive - it's a question of who suffered more, and I think we all know that the Reformation and Counter-Reformation produced enough bloodshed and repression on all sides. Moreover, any comprehensive discussion of the English Reformation (and its discontents!) should properly be at English Reformation, and the abusive and bigoted legislation and its impact can be fully unpacked at Catholic Emancipation.

Second, if one is going to make claims about ARCIC (e.g., that the RCC views the process as "increasingly irrelevant," or that it is placing more emphasis on dialogue with Anglican schismatics), these should be backed up in some way. Part of my ministry is in ecumenical and multifaith dialogue, and I wrote a comprehensive review of the ARCIC document on Mary. That is certainly not my perception of the official position. Fishhead64 04:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pius V

The papal bull of 1570 excommunicated Elizabeth and urged her subjects to depose her (Dickens, The English Reformation, 2nd ed., p. 366). In what way does this not constitute an authorisation of rebellion? It is true that few English Catholics sought the violent overthrown of the crown, although papal supremacy was definitely a factor in the Anglo-Spanish War. Nonetheless, in the end, the bull did authorise rebellion [2].

I can understand a concern for balance - which I thought my edits had achieved - but historical revisionism is unjustifiable. Fishhead64 19:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It needs to be recognised that what Pius V did was issue a fatwa against Elizabeth. Nennius 3/9/06

[edit] Anglicana versus Anglicanus

It is the case, is it not, that the Church is feminine but the country is masculine? Unfortunately, my Latin is very rusty. So, my question is, etymologically, which is more appropriate - Church or State? LOL! Fishhead64 22:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

hehe, I'm not honestly sure about this one. I only intended to conform it with OED, which suggests a root of medieval Latin Anglican-us, from Anglic-us. If consensus wants it changed back, I've no objection. Carl.bunderson 22:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a Latin adjective and, therefore not inherently masculine or feminine. However, the noun ecclesia is feminine, so one can only speak of Ecclesia Anglicana. However, if the adjective is quoted alone, and without reference to a noun (explicitly or implicitly), it is quoted in the masculine form Anglicanus. The Latin adjective is formed after the noun Angli (masculine plural), the tribe of the Angles. — Gareth Hughes 22:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Since the term originates with regard to the church, I have preferred to give the whole phrase, ecclesia Anglicana. According to the OED, it occurs in Magna Carta (1215): Quod Anglicana ecclesia libera sit. Myopic Bookworm 09:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that, Myopic. I had only looked at the etymology, I'll be sure to check out the quotations as well in the future. Carl.bunderson 16:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal note

I would like to offer my apologies to the Anglicans on WP and especially those who edit this page. I realize that I have let my frustration boil over into some outrageous verbal vengence on this page in recent weeks. This was clearly out of order. I regret the offenses I have given.

I might add here that I did go to confession today, and am now in much better spirits. Accordingly, I have made the resolve to "amend my life" as the Act of Contrition states and this applies to WP.

Have a good night. --Vaquero100 02:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance. (Luke 15:7) 72.136.51.111 11:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] small "c" problem.

In the "Post-Reformation" section, the article shows:

For the next century, through the reigns of James I and Charles I, and culminating in the English Civil War and the protectorate of Oliver Cromwell, there were significant swings back and forth between the Puritans and those with a more catholic understanding of the Christian faith. The failure of political and ecclesiastical authorities to submit to Puritan demands for more extensive reform was one of the causes of open warfare.

Surely the (in this specific case) equivocal term "catholic" within such a passage, within such a section, and within such an article will be most generally misinterpreted; especially since the Anglican Church -- at least in those times -- had a far stronger connexion with the views of the Vatican.

I feel that a better, more informative, and different term must be chosen. Lindsay658 07:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The term should be Catholic, in keeping with the concept of Catholicism central to Anglicanism's identity as a Reformed, yet also Catholic tradition. Fishhead64 07:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The sentence is an awkward one. The phrase those with a more catholic understanding of the Christian faith is a piece of circumlocution that does not balance with the simple phrase the Puritans on the other side. In the language of the day, one might say the Puritans and the Ritualists. The phrases refer to the breadth of Anglicanism: from thoroughly Protestant Puritans through the Episcopalian Low Church to Ritualist High Church through to those who wished to see reunion with Rome. However, these labels may not be appropriate either. Perhaps it would be better to use something more descriptive: between those who wished to see further reform of the church and those who wished to see Catholic traditions retained or reinstated. How's that? — Gareth Hughes 10:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. Myopic Bookworm 11:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose my point was something like this:

(a) given that the movement towards "Anglicanism" (in a more specific way) was a move against Roman Catholicism, was the writer trying to say something like "and those whose loyalty still lay with Rome"?, or

(b) given that the towards "Anglicanism" (in a more general way) was a move away from the wider European community towards a far narrower, far more local, and far more English focus, was the writer trying to say something like "and those who still looked beyond the Straits of Dover to inform their Christian faith?

It just seemed to me, that the use of small "c" catholic (meaning "universal") made the intention of the passage rather hard to identify.

I'm still not certain that big "C" is the solution. However, best to you all Lindsay658 17:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right. With a small c, catholic means 'universal'. However, some do use it to mean Catholic but not Roman Catholic. The problem is that there was no move towards 'Anglicanism': Anglicanism is what developed from among the competing forces in the English Church that did not either refuse to split with Rome or dissent from what many Puritans saw was a Reformation made in part. Thus, Catholic could either describe those who remained loyal to Rome or those who parted with Rome but desired a non-papal English Catholic Church. The way that the original author worded the phrase — more catholic understanding of the Christian faith — does not suggest to me a referrence to those who remained faithful to Rome, but those who wished the English Church to remain fully Catholic yet independent from papal control. — Gareth Hughes 17:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Gareth Hughes, thanks for the clarification. My point was not that I wanted one or other view to prevail within the article. It was that I simply could not (and still can not) make sense of the equivocal passage "and those with a more catholic understanding of the Christian faith" -- or, in its current form "and those with a more Catholic understanding of the Christian faith" (given your explanation of the various usages of big "C" Catholic, it would seem that the passage has become even less clear).

Given an assumption that the writer originally meant to transfer a meaning something like either of the options you have described ("loyal to Rome" or "parted with Rome") the passage in its present form does not specifically and unambiguously deliver either of those meanings (or any other clear meaning for that matter). I still think that the piece needs to be rewritten so that (a) it unambiguously says precisely what it is intended to mean, and (b) that meaning is immediately understood by all readers. Anyway, Best to all of you. Lindsay658 23:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Since 'catholic' (big or small c) is not usually an opposite to 'Puritan', it might be better to avoid the word altogether, and refer simply to "those favouring more traditional forms of belief and church practice" in contrast to the radical reforms sought by the Puritans. Myopic Bookworm 09:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Those who fancy themselves "Anglican Divines" appear to have nothing but contempt for the office of St. Peter. They have a bad habit of always speaking of Rome in terms of politics, using terms like "control" or power or domination. This of course is not how Catholics feel toward the Pope who is their shepherd, instrument of unity and final arbiter. He is exactly what Peter was to the apostles and the popes to the Early Church. Sts. Ignatius, Clement, and Ireneus were all clear about the central, essential and indispensable role of Bishop of Rome. Being "free" of his ministry is like being "unburdened" with the Gospel, which I suppose in some cases is not far from the truth. Divorce anyone? Vaquero100 05:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The remorse expressed above in #Personal note seems to have worn off. User:Angr 07:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

In Anglican thought and tradition, it is important to note a difference between ROMAN Catholic and Catholic. Philosophically, the distinction is huge. TrulyTory 11:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Tell me about it! Fishhead64 21:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly why (a) the use of the word is a problem here and (b) it would be better to avoid using it in such a confusing context. Myopic Bookworm 10:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"Philosophically" you may think the distinction is HUGE, but as a practical matter and as a matter of plain fact, the distinction is FALSE. Vaquero100 05:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that I'm not sure there is another word with the same meaning. "Catholic", alone and undisambiguated, is the word that is used for that end of Anglicanism which emphasises tradition and continuity, usually associated with high-church ritual. Is there another word for it? "Anglo-Catholic" could be used, I suppose; there are subtle shades of meaning but it generally means more or less the same thing. TSP 10:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Somehow, it seems that my original point has either been lost in the on-going struggle, or that it is such a simple one that, in attempting to engage in the issue I have raised, so many highly conditioned "buttons" have been pushed that all of the protagonists have now become so immersed in their eternal patterns of discord, that they are unable to understand the mundane simplicity of my request. May I now state it in a different way:

I have some understanding of "Anglicanism", and I am a native speaker of English. The way that the sentence in question is currently written -- no doubt due to the fact that it contains unusual and very specialized usages of English words, which otherwise have solid and substantial meanings in everyday English -- is totally incomprehensible to me. Could somebody (or some group) please, please, come to a consensus of whatever it is that the sentence is intended to communicate; and, then, simply write down that meaning in other words, so that the sentence's meaning is immediately transparent. Best to you all Lindsay658 07:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"For the next century, through the reigns of James I and Charles I, and culminating in the English Civil War and the protectorate of Oliver Cromwell, there were significant swings back and forth between two factions: the Puritans and other radicals who sought more far-reaching reform, and more conservative churchmen who aimed to keep closer to traditional beliefs and practices." Myopic Bookworm 09:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This is better, in that it doesn't have an anachronistic movement of Oxford Movement ideas into the 17th century. But Laudianism was not terribly conservative. The Church of England as it existed in 1625 was fairly Calvinist. Laud and Charles wanted to make it more ceremonial and ritualistic, and also advocated Arminianism, which was widely considered a radical theological movement. It is true that there were radicals on the other side, and by the time the Civil War was actually fought, Laudianism had been pretty well destroyed by the Long Parliament, leaving the Civil War itself as a struggle between supporters and opponents of episcopacy, more or less, but I don't want to over-simplify. We must, on the one hand, avoid retroactively making Laud and Charles I into predecessors of Newman and modern Anglo-Catholics, but also recognize that their vision of the Church was considered by many supporters of the Elizabethan and Jacobean consensus as being as radical as the plans of the hard core anti-bishop types. john k 00:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SOLA SRIPTURA

Every so often I try to insert a few sentences to explain that article six of the XXXIX articles very subtly alters the Protestant principle that all aspects of Christian faith and practice must be justified by an appeal to the Bible to a recognition that not all aspects can be, and that Christians ought to be able to disagree but continue to worship at the same altar. Yet someone always deletes it. Why? I would have thought that this was one of the English church's most distinctive features. Nennius

I don't think that Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary for salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought necessary and requisite for salvation at all means a recognition that not all aspects of the Christian faith can be justified by appeal to the Bible, and there's certainly no implication about people being able to disagree but worshipping at the same altar. Where are you getting tht from? john k 13:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Article VI is phrased in a negative way; 'whatsoever is NOT read...','NOT to be required of...'. As I understand it, the position of the continental reformers was that all things MUST be proved by scripture. The Anglican position, as enunciated in Article VI, subtly changes this, in the hope that it might allow people of different beliefs to continue to worship together without wanting to tear each other to pieces, or to set up rival religious establishments, which 16th century European rulers were unwilling to countenance, as likely to lead to civil unrest, treason and foreign invasion. Article VI recognises that outside a few core beliefs that hardly anyone in 16th century Europe was questioning, there are a whole range of Christian beliefs and practices where the Bible does not give definitive answers, and where it is legitimate for Christians to differ. Nennius, 2/9/06

I have re-inserted a sentence on how Article VI differs from the classical Protestant position. If anyone deletes it could they please explain why. Nennius 22/10/06

[edit] Moving stuff

I moved a load of stuff about ordination and sucession to the ecumenism section: Roman Catholic and Orthodox opinion about Anglican orders is not a part of Anglican doctrine. But there's still too much detail about recognition of orders interrupting the general disuccion of Anglican doctrine. Anglican Christianity is not primarily about the validity of orders. Myopic Bookworm 15:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No, but the validity or otherwise of Anglican orders does make an interesting discussion topic, even if it has no significance beyond that. Nennius 3/9/06

[edit] Other protestants

In today's updates, Lima wrote an interesting new sentence. I am afraid I quickly deleted it for discussion:

Other Protestants do not maintain the historic episcopate, and therefore have no real interest in the validity or otherwise of Anglican ordination.

Firstly I am not sure how it fits in with 'Doctrine - Catholic and Reformed'.

Secondly, I am not sure it says what you mean it to say. As an example, Westminster Confession presbyterians require that an ordained pastor conduct the (two) sacraments. This follows through to ecumenical presbyterians, who expect that an Anglican priest should be validly ordained. Of course, validity for them has less to do with the historic episcopate, and more to do with church order. But, all the same, they are concerned about 'validity'.

It is an interesting issue that I feel belongs in paragraphs and articles about ordination and protestant ecumenism, rather than a piece about Anglican doctrine.

Rather than debating this, how do you feel about leaving it out altogether? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hroðulf is under a misapprehension. I did not write the sentence in question. I have not bothered to check, but firmly believe it is not new. Anglicanism is not on my watchlist. I dropped in casually and corrected two inexact statements. Myopic Bookworm has moved to another section what I wrote. I agree with the move. Signing off, Lima 18:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The statement is for all intents and purposes, false. It should be removed. —ExplorerCDT 00:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

When I wrote that sentence I had forgotten that Presbyterians retained the concept of order, even if they didn't retain the episcopate, so I should have phrased it differently. But I agree that validity for Presbyterians doesn't have anything to do with bishops. I have a theory that the fundamental difference between episcopal and presbyterian church government is that in the episcopal system 'oversight' is concentrated in the person of the bishop, but in presbyterianism it is diffused over the entire presbyteral body. Nennius 3/9/06

'diff must have confused me.

Nennius, I think that is more than a theory, and I think you will find it stated as fact in more than one place on WP. Sorry for creating a fuss about one sentence. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

But you are correct in that the line should be removed. Other protestants do maintain the episcopate: Methodists, some Baptists, Pentacostals, for example. —ExplorerCDT 19:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Episcopal Baptists? tell me more! Nennius 22/10/06

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/g/Talk%7EAnglicanism_5cf4.html"