Talk:Archbishop of Canterbury
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Archbishop of Canterbury is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images. |
 |
Archbishop of Canterbury 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. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Top | This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Anglicanism To-do:
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] Qualifications for the gig
In theory can ANY anglican archbishop (any vicar? any member?) be made Archbishop of Cantabury. I'd always thought you had to be from the Church of England but Rowan Williams isn't. A Geek Tragedy 12:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
It probably helps to be a bishop in/from the U.K. Theoretically, I suppose, any Anglican bishop could be named, but I am not clear on that, one way or the other. Since the Church of England is established, meaning it has an official relationship with the government of the U.K., the Archbishop of Canterbury is appointed by the Government, with the Queen basically rubberstamping the choice of the ruling government. This means, of course, that Tony Blair is responsible for the fact that Rowan Williams is the current Archbishop of Canterbury. --Midnite Critic 18:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear God, for a second I thought that said Robin Williams was the new Archbishop. :) --Dante Alighieri 13:27 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)
Well, Robin Williams IS an Episcopalian...--Midnite Critic 18:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Does the Roman Catholic Church appoint its "own" Archbishops of Canterbury, to "compete" with those who head the Church of England?
The head of the Roman Catholic Church in England is the Archbishop of Westminster. When the Catholic hierarchy was re-established in England in 1850, parliament passed a law saying that the Catholic Church was not allowed to use any of the same diocesan names as the Church of England did. john k 18:34, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Catholic Heirarcy in England
No, there is no Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury. The Catholic Heirarcy is seperate.
Interestingly, however, a pall appears on the Arms of the Archbishop. This is a CATHOLIC symbol of a metropolitian Archbishop and can only be received from the Pope.
-
- ABCs used to be RC... Greentubing 05:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- It was received from the Pope. Fishhead64 02:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
And it's a pallium not a pall. A pall is what covers the coffin at an RC/Anglican/Lutheran funeral. --Midnite Critic 18:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, to be fair, the similarly shaped heraldic "ordinary" is called a "pall". But the archbishop's arms don't have a generic pall; they have an actual pallium. Pallia also appear on the arms of the Anglican Archbisops of Armagh and Dublin; and although the current arms of the Archbishop of York doesn't have a pallium, there is some evidence of alternate medieval set that did. Doops | talk 23:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arms
I've created a image (right), but will resist from adding it until others are okay with it, due to the high visibility of this page. You can see other examples by me at Diocese of Auckland and Diocese of Christchurch. Greentubing 11:17, 30 January 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 06:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Changes
A very fine article but I suggest one change. In the first paragraph, this section should be removed and placed in the section called Origins.
- "This claim is disputed by the Roman Catholic Church, in whose name St Augustine established the diocese. After the Act of Supremacy, the Catholic Church considered this diocese suppressed, and the line of succession broken on 17 November, 1558 with the death of Reginald Cardinal Pole."
It is of historical note that the RC Church considers Pole as the last valid successor, but Dr Williams is the current incumbent recognized by law. Placing this in the first paragraph of the article gives undue weight to the opinion of the RC Church. The RC Church has the same problem with the Archbishopric of Uppsala in Sweden and many other formerly Roman Catholic sees. Again a fine article, very well written. --Highdesert 16:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Very technical start
Shouldn't the detailed stuff about exactly what Roman Catholics think about the Anglican communion be removed from the start? After all the article on Roman Catholicism claims to go back to the apostle Peter without everything about the great schism with the orthodox churches and every point in which the papal succession is questionable being detailed, nor do most WP articles on a religious or church group contain so much on differing point of view. I think perhaps this article degrades its own quality in this way and should just refer interested parties to a history article. --BozMo talk 11:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Head?
The Archbishop of Canterbury is the head of the Church of England and of the worldwide Anglican Communion. Is 'head' the right word here? --Docg 21:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think so, that's the Queen. http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/role/index.html uses the terms "Primate of All England" and "Leader of the Anglican Community". Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The term 'head' is absolutely the correct term to describe the Archbishop of Canterbury: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4405844.stm Head is understood to be the "CEO" of an organisation - this role in the Church of England is filled by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Tony Blair is the Leader of the Labour Party, but he is also the head of it. In a like manner, the same analogy applies to the Archbishop of Canterbury in respect to the Church of England. Reference to the Queen as the head of the Church of England is inaccurate. The title "Supreme Governor" is given to British Monarchs largely historically - and relates to administrative functions only - the Queen is NOT an ordained priest and therefore CANNOT be constituted the head of any portion of Christ's church as apostolic succession would not allow this. The Pope is the head of the Roman Catholic Church and churches in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church are said to be in communion with the See of Rome. As churches that are in full communion with the Anglican Communion are said to be in communion with the See of Canterbury, then the Archbishop of Canterbury must following the same logic, be the head of the Church of England. This evidence is augmented by the fact that recently meetings regarding Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism were held in Rome - between the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury - if the Archbishop is the not the head of the Church of England, then why did he attend such an important meeting? An organisation such as a the Church has a hierarchy, and therefore a head. Christ did not ordain prophets and princes, but priests to lead his church. Therefore, if the Archbishop of Canterbury is NOT the head of the Church of England, who is? Csh1066 00:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Unfortunately the term 'head' does not just mean leader in Christian context, it has theological connotations, which make it the wrong word here. Biblically Christ is 'head' of the church, and Protestant Christians have often criticised Roman Catholics for calling the Pope 'head' - as that's Christ's role. So for us to call the archbishop the head would be inaccurate. It might leave people thinking they made the same claims for him as RCs do for the pope. No Anglican AFAICT would call him such.--Docg 00:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- The problem with this reasoning is that Anglicanism stands in both a catholic "and" reformed tradition. Christ is the only head of the (entire) Church, but the church still has governance here on earth. Therefore, in relation to the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury is its head on earth. If he is not the head of the Church of England here on earth, then why is he the highest ranking British citizen (outside the Royal family) in the British Order of Precedence? Why is the Archbishop of Canterbury the focus of unity for the Anglican Communion? Why is it the Archbishop of Canterbury who meets with the Pope? Why is it the Archbishop of Canterbury who calls the Lambeth Conference? The term 'theological connotations' is rather vague - what does that mean precisely? Even though the phrase 'AFAICT' is used, it seems a rather sweeping statement to say 'No Anglican' - the Church of England is a broad church, there are some in it, who would shudder at the thought of being called a 'Protestant' for example. Csh1066 07:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Can you provide a reliable source to show that the Church of England refers to him as its 'head'. If you can, then I retract my objection.--Docg 13:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- The problem with this reasoning is that Anglicanism stands in both a catholic "and" reformed tradition. Christ is the only head of the (entire) Church, but the church still has governance here on earth. Therefore, in relation to the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury is its head on earth. If he is not the head of the Church of England here on earth, then why is he the highest ranking British citizen (outside the Royal family) in the British Order of Precedence? Why is the Archbishop of Canterbury the focus of unity for the Anglican Communion? Why is it the Archbishop of Canterbury who meets with the Pope? Why is it the Archbishop of Canterbury who calls the Lambeth Conference? The term 'theological connotations' is rather vague - what does that mean precisely? Even though the phrase 'AFAICT' is used, it seems a rather sweeping statement to say 'No Anglican' - the Church of England is a broad church, there are some in it, who would shudder at the thought of being called a 'Protestant' for example. Csh1066 07:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the term 'head' does not just mean leader in Christian context, it has theological connotations, which make it the wrong word here. Biblically Christ is 'head' of the church, and Protestant Christians have often criticised Roman Catholics for calling the Pope 'head' - as that's Christ's role. So for us to call the archbishop the head would be inaccurate. It might leave people thinking they made the same claims for him as RCs do for the pope. No Anglican AFAICT would call him such.--Docg 00:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lead
Personally I prefer Doops' version of the second para (diff) to Stevertigo's - just doesn't read well to me. "Punctuated" doesn't seem to make any sense in context, and calling it a "Roman Catholic station" makes it sound more of a military role! I don't want to start an edit war over it though so I won't revert - any thoughts anyone else? David Underdown 09:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] apostolic succession
Hi. Just a note on apostolic succession — yes, there is an unbroken line of archbishops from Augustine to Williams; and yes, there is also an unbroken line of apostolic succession. But they're two different lines, so we can't mention one and then use the pipe trick to link to the other article. (Why are they two different lines? not every archbishop has been ordained by his predecessor — some were not yet bishops upon election; others were ordained not by their immediate predecessor but an earlier one; others were ordained in a different province, e.g. York or (in the present case) Wales.) Doops | talk 08:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- The Anglican understanding of apostolic succession differs from the Roman Catholic, but it is important to emphasise apostolic succession as a key tenet of Anglicanism, which is why I had links to the other article. Where the Roman Catholic Church considers apostolic succession in the terms of all Popes being directly descended from Peter (one line), Anglicans consider it in the generic sense that the 12 apostles were the first Bishops of the Church and through the laying on of hands, have translated that ministry throughout all generations subsequent to the present time in the maintenance of the three-fold ministry of bishop (episcopal), priest (presbyteral) and deacon (diaconal). All Anglican priests at their ordination have to affirm that "the Church of England is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, worshipping the One True God" - consecration of any Archbishop in the Church of England must be by an Archbishop (or his Deputy) assisted by at least 2 other Bishops. In this way, apostolic succession is continued in the Church of England - all Archbishops of Canterbury can trace their minsitry back to the 12 apostles. I hope this clarifies that to see the issue as "apostolic succession one line" and "line of Archbishops one line" is to apply a Roman Catholic interpretaion of the succession in order to suggest its irrelevance in this article. I think the Anglican understanding of the succession should be inherent in the article and therefore the link to the article on apostolic succession restored. Csh1066 20:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Nope. We don't do 'inherent' understandings of one POV. We do neutral point of view. So, if what you say is correct, we can say "is in the apostolic succession, according to Anglicans" - which is to describe an Anglican POV. But we can't say "is" because that would take an Anglican POV. However, I've no problem with the Anglican POV being most prominent in an Anglican article - we just can't say it is 'true'--Docg 21:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- The Anglican understanding of apostolic succession differs from the Roman Catholic, but it is important to emphasise apostolic succession as a key tenet of Anglicanism, which is why I had links to the other article. Where the Roman Catholic Church considers apostolic succession in the terms of all Popes being directly descended from Peter (one line), Anglicans consider it in the generic sense that the 12 apostles were the first Bishops of the Church and through the laying on of hands, have translated that ministry throughout all generations subsequent to the present time in the maintenance of the three-fold ministry of bishop (episcopal), priest (presbyteral) and deacon (diaconal). All Anglican priests at their ordination have to affirm that "the Church of England is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, worshipping the One True God" - consecration of any Archbishop in the Church of England must be by an Archbishop (or his Deputy) assisted by at least 2 other Bishops. In this way, apostolic succession is continued in the Church of England - all Archbishops of Canterbury can trace their minsitry back to the 12 apostles. I hope this clarifies that to see the issue as "apostolic succession one line" and "line of Archbishops one line" is to apply a Roman Catholic interpretaion of the succession in order to suggest its irrelevance in this article. I think the Anglican understanding of the succession should be inherent in the article and therefore the link to the article on apostolic succession restored. Csh1066 20:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
