Talk:Anglicanism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Anglicanism was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: August 4, 2007
Anglicanism was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: January 4, 2007
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives
  1. Jan 2003-Mar 2006
  2. Apr-Dec 2006
  3. Jan 2006-Sept 2007
  4. Oct 2007-Dec 2007

Contents

[edit] Comment moved from Main article

I think you need to check on the interpretation of the phrase "Ecclesia anglicana". You will find that this term is the general term used by the Popes and Leaders of the Catholic Church both within England, and outside of it, to refer to that part of the Church which is situated in England....nothing more that this. Kind regards, Fr John Bonato Moved by Dabbler (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct but the term Anglican is derived from that phrase which surely can be translated as "English church" which is what the article says. The phrase doesn't claim that the Church in England was necessarily a separate entity from the Roman church at its beginning. Dabbler (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Sykes and the Integrity of Anglicanism

The article as it stands appears (to me at least) to be over-reliant on the self-designation of Anglicanism as a "via media" - with its consequent implicit denial that Anglicanism maintains a distinctive body of doctrine of its own - beyond those of the "universal church". An alternative perspective has been developed in the past two decades in response to the academic ecclesiology of Stephen Sykes; which (as I understand it) proposes that the 20th century Anglican experience of freely engaging in debate and controversy while maintaining fellowship, in the absence of the formal structures of doctrinal authority found in Catholic and Orthodox traditions, represents a distinct and positive model for future Christian Ecclesiology. Current Anglican division (on homosexuality, and on the ministry of women) may be understood as undermining the credibility of this proposition; or otherwise as a necessary prophetic journey in search of a common Christian future. TomHennell (talk) 10:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The works of Hooker and others seems to be the basis for the self-designation. The article seems to reflect the general view. Other views would be welcome if cited, but I don't think the emphesis should be shifted off of via media. -- SECisek (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
very hepful comment Secisek - and it has helped crystalize in my mind that the section on the definition of Anglicanism ought to be expanded - firstly to demonstrate the range of ecclesiology current within Anglicanism (as elsewhere the article discusses the range of sacramental theologies); and secondly to outline the historical development of Anglican identity. Those 16th century divines that we now regard as founders of Anglicanism, would have seen the then Church of England as firmly within the overall family of Reformed Protestantism (and as such were invited to and attended the Synod of Dort. The Tractarians (who are chiefly responsible for finding the "via media" doctrine within Hookers works) were engaged in controversy against those who defined Anglicanism in narrow categories of the enforcement of Parliamentary authority over the church through the Privy council. I would suggest that it was only after the consequences of this controversy had become evident (e.g. in the Colenso case), that we can begin to discern Anglicanism in its modern range of varieties. TomHennell (talk) 10:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
SECisek: I have inserted the MacCulloch citation into the opening section; and, since this requires the section on the development of Anglican identity to provide the main context, I have restored that too. it may well be that the current development section is rather longer than is needed to record the range of points that I agreed I would make in the para above, but some such sort of section is certainly required in the main article. It is important to be clear that the "via media" only really applies to Anglicanism after 1867, before that date this was a minority view as against a consensus that located Anglicanism within mainstream Protestantism (as British law always stated unequivocably); and that furthermore, in the 16th and 17th century Anglicanism was seen as firmly Reformed (as distinct from Lutheran) in its Protestant identity. TomHennell (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, I did not see this comment until now. The suggestion that the Church of James I (that all but persecuted Calvinists) or the Church of Laud, (who was executed by men who held the Reformed faith) were both some how "within the overall family of Reformed Protestantism" seems off base. The Anglican flirtation with Calvinism under the regency of Edward VI was largely purged and burned out of England by Mary I and, largely due to Knox's poor relationship with Elizabeth, it failed to find a foothold again. As you know, the Geneva bible was never accepted, it was too "Reformed". From the time of Elizabeth, to be Reformed in England was to be a dissenter, except during the Republic when Anglicanism was essentialy disestablished. To suggest that the Church of England's role as a middle way between Roman Catholic and Continental Protestant theologies began in 1867 is to deny broad academic consensus on the matter. MacCulloch is a good source, I use him often - see Cranmer, but I don't live and die with his work which I find to be coloured by his personal opinions. Were he an editor here and not a published scholar his work would often be rejected as synthesis and OR. He is a voice, but just one. A fairly recent one that at times can contradict long held understandings of his subjects.

If I'm not mistaken, the distancing from Calvinism did not occur decisively until late in James' reign, and really not until Laud's showdown with the Puritans under Charles I. James bullied the Scots Presbyterians to be sure, but we should not equate Presbyterianism and Calvinism. He also took great interest in the controversies at the Synod of Dort, in Holland, in 1618, which he helped organize (this was an inter-Calvinism affair) and to which he sent a delegation. The theological position arrived at by the English delegation there was within the boundaries of Reformed "orthodoxy." James, of course, was raised a Calvinist in Scotland. Even the Restoration church after the Act of Conformity included Calvinists factions--e.g. the significant numbers of Puritan clergy who conformed to episcopacy. And Calvinist Evangelicals in the Church were there to greet George Whitefield's and Lady Huntington's revivalism in the 18th century. Calvinism was certainly not burned out of Anglicanism by Mary--it became one of the many subcultures in the Church (not unlike today). Newman notwithstanding, the 39 articles bear the heavy imprint of Geneva, as much as it may pain latter-day Anglo-Catholics. I think that is right that much of the talk of via media, the stressing of apostolic succession and much else is largely a 19th century, post-tractarian emphasis. In the early 18th century it was to the Church of England that the Calvinist Prussian King looked for a compromise model to unite Lutherans and Calvinists in his realm--suggesting that if there was any notion of via media at this stage, it was between Lutheranism and Calvinism. Around the same time proposals were floated to bring the Churches of the Reformed Swiss cantons under the administration of the C of E. Mwd77 (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
along these lines, I wonder if "Protestant Reformation" could be added to the litany of historical influences on Anglicanism in the first sentence of par 2, i.e. in addition to 'church fathers, historic episcopate' etc. It's omission in this important introductory sentence seems a little misleading; a visitor to the page who knows nothing about Anglicanism has to get a ways into the article before the words protestant or reformation are first mentioned. I had added it and then erased the edit, now understanding, as a newcomer to wiki-interventions, these things don't normally proceed without collective consultation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwd77 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The opening paragraphs have been much tinkered with, so by all means improve them if you feel you can. I think you are right in suggesting that the current wording tends to obfuscate the degree to which Angicanism (certainly from the perspective of other Christian Traditions) derives inescapably from the Protestant Reformation. That said, I am not sure the proposed wording you introduced, and then removed, would be correctly placed in that specific sentence, which I take to be summarising the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral as the basis for Anglican belief. The article should concentrate on what Anglicanism is now - not what it has been and is no longer - and there are many who call themselves Anglican who would now balk at describing their faith in terms of Reformed teachings. But elsewhere in this para, I think your point could be well made. TomHennell (talk) 00:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Rather than debate content at this time, however, it is worth noting that Roman Catholic Church has gone GA and perhaps on that model Anglicanism and Anglican Communion should be merged. This would centralize the history in one location. Thoughts? -- Secisek (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that Roman Catholic Church did not get to FA - in part - because of the huge size of the article caused by the history sections. In other words, don't model on the RCC article. Not a good model. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

In the past, it was decided to eliminate a history section from this article and I think that was a sound idea. I reopened the question in light of the above post, however I agree with Wassupwestcoast that this isn't the place for "a history of" article. -- Secisek (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

point taken. I nevertheless am still inclined to feel that there needs to be a section on Anglican identity; in respect of the emergence of transnational "Anglicanism", in distinction from the Church of England established by the UK Parliament and the British Crown. Without such information, the sections on the Lambeth Conference etc are descriptive but lack any real context. I will draft a para from the perspective of 1867 - cross referencing all the Reformation and Tractarian history to the History of the Anglican Communion page. Please feel free to remove it. TomHennell (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe we should consider merging the communion and the -ism...any thoughts on that subject, Tom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secisek (talk • contribs) 11:47, 26 March 2008

The problem with that is the groups that self-identify as Anglican, but are definitely not in the Communion (whatever one might think of them). David Underdown (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with both Secisek and TomHennell! We do need a bit of history to provide necessary background to work up 'Anglican identity'. But that necessary history can be encapsulated in a brief discussion of the formation of The Episcopal Church vis-à-vis the Church of England 'cause that is the starting point of Anglican identity separate from the Crown. I agree with David Underdown in that the Anglican communion article has to be kept separate from the Anglicanism article because of the extra-mural Anglican groups. Cheers!Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Silly pun, but if we merge "the communion and the -ism" we will have "communionism". Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Good point Wassupwestcoast, though I have tended to think (follwing David L. Edwards) that the formation of the "Church of England in Canada" was in practice the more significant development; specifically in the development of local synodical government within Canada formed the model for both the Lambeth Conference, and for the subsequent proliferation of synods in all their glory at all levels in Anglican churches. Moreover, is is a point worth making that the Lambeth Conference is the paradigm for all the various international confessional conferences of Protestant Churches - Lutheran, Reformed, Methodist etc. To a considerable degree, the Anglicans of Canada and Southern Africa were the prime movers in developing Anglican identity after 1867; not the least because the Church of England itself has always been a bit sniffy about seeming to learn too directly from the Episcopal Church of the United States of America. TomHennell (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Totally agree with you TomHennell. I always laugh when I see 'Church of England in Canada' 'cause that name was in use by many Canadian Anglicans - including my parents - years and years after the official name change. Still, the Church of England in Canada modeled its synodical government after that of the Americans. A number of the priests and even bishops were Episcopalians at some point in their lives/careers. Essentially, American ideas went back to the Church of England through Canada. You are quite right in saying that 'the Anglicans of Canada and Southern Africa were the prime movers in developing Anglican identity after 1867'. However, direct diocesan connections to the Church of England (Canterbury) were not broken - at least in Canada until the 1920 / 30s (and 1940s for Newfoundland) - and direct financing until the late '40s. I think 'Anglican identity' independent of the Church of England but in direct communion with Canterbury is best formulated with The Episcopal Church. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have inserted a section as suggested. It is probably too long. Please anyone feel free to edit and correct it in accordance with your particular degrees of expertise, and confidence in Wiki procedures TomHennell (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is fantastic. One suggestion would be to add a note about that crucial sentence (or two) in the American BCP and canons that insisted that the American church would parallel the Church of England in doctrine. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This is GREAT work. There was one "Catholic Church" near the end that seemd to be RCC, if it wasn't I don't understand what was meant. If the "Roman" I added is incorrect, than that sentence needs to be clarified.

Absolutely Secisek, and thanks for the work of correction. There is a problem of terminology in describing Maurice, as he rejects talk of "Anglicanism", referring instead to the "Church of England" which he sees as a forerunner of the "Catholicism" of the emerging universal church; but inconsistently still uses "Catholic" to refer to one party within the then CoE. This Maurice contrasts with "Romanism" (i.e. the Roman Papacy), which he sees as an esentially parasitic corruption of Catholicism (as of course Newman had done too in his earlier days). TomHennell (talk) 10:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Eh! - did you get all that?...and yet there are still people who insist that the term Catholic Church can always suffice for the term Roman Catholic Church without confusion. Glad to know I am not crazy. I love it! -- Secisek (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, can it all be cited? If it can't the whole lot of it will have to be excised when we push for GA and that would be a crime! Well done. -- Secisek (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll do what I can from Sykes. I could do with better sources on the Canadian/American development, as I am here relying substantially on David Edwards. TomHennell (talk) 10:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quires and places where they sing/Chichester Psalms

I thougt that Chichester Psalms was commissioned for a concert, rather than for liturgical use (though it has since been used as an anthem), neither our article here, nor Grove on Bernstein are entirely clear on the point, I'll try and remember to look through my Proms programmes to see if the notes their provide any more clarity. David Underdown (talk) 10:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Commissioned for Chichester choir to sing the Southern Cathedrals Festival I think. But it certainly works as an anthem (with a Male treble or countertenor voice singing David), and I believe that was always the intention. TomHennell (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
That festival (like the Three Choirs Festival) may well include services as well as concerts, which is why I said the nature of the commission wasn't entirely clear, even if there was the idea that it could be used as an anthem long-term, I'm not sure it's the best example to use that's all. David Underdown (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
By all means substitute a better example. In my view the variations on a theme of Three Choirs Festival are as as central to the Anglican choral tradition as is choral evensong TomHennell (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The programme I found (Prom 11 2005), merely says commissioned for the Chichester Festival 1965, and performed there by the combined forces of Chichester, Winchester and a.n.other which I've forgotten whilst walking upstairs, which is still not entirely unambiguous. I think wider discussion of the choral tradition probably belongs in Anglican church music, rather than here though. David Underdown (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History

There was consensus to remove the history of the development of the Anglican Communion out of this article, seeTalk:Anglicanism/Archive 4#History. I have again removed text which exists verbatium in another article. -- Secisek (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British English -ize -ise

It is agreed that Wikipedia entries relating to specifically to British life and history should use British English. But this seems to generate problems arising from the erroneous assumption that verbs in British English should always adopt the spelling "-ise" in preference to "-ize" (see the discussion in Authorized King James Version.

The correct position (according to the consensus of usage guides consulted) is that American English prefers the verb ending "ize", while Australian English prefers the form "-ise". British English allows both forms, with different publishers tending to standardise their style guides one way or the other. Hence Oxford University Press prefers "ize" spellings, while Nelson prefers "ise". Some 30 words have to be spelled "ise in British English (advertise, advise, arise, chastise, ...). A good style guide will list them. A smaller list (baptize, prize, ...) have to be spelled "ize". Otherwise, both forms are acceptable, and the one should not be edited into the other in Wikipedia entries.

However, the texts and formulae of the Church of England tend consistently to prefer the "ize" form (check your copies of the Book of Common Prayer, and of the Authorized Version). So terms specific to Anglicanism e.g in "The solemnization of matrimony" would usually be incorrect if spelled with an "ise" ending.

I hope this makes the rule clear. TomHennell (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that spelling diversity is an accepted component of Wikipedia; and that articles begun using one form should remain using that form (see discussion at colour). Since Anglicanism is a worldwide phenomenon (like colour), your characterisation (yes, I said "characterisation"!) doesn't apply. The articles I've developed have used the "ise" since that is a perfectly acceptable spelling option in Canadian English (according to MS Word), which I use. So altering for a false uniformity is really unnecessary and disruptive, imo. fishhead64 (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This article does not relate specifically to British life and history, since, as Fishhead64 points out, Anglicanism is found worldwide. In cases like this, we look to the oldest version of the page. If you look at the version of this page from February 2002 you see "organisation", "modernisation", and "characterised". While it's true that both "-ize" and "-ise" are permissible in British English, the history of this article prefers the "-ise" spellings. The spellings used in the Book of Common Prayer are irrelevant, since Wikipedia has its own manual of style. —Angr 21:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Further, don't the style guides specifically state that articles should not be edited to change spelling based on country preferences unless the article in question is only completely applicable to one country? In that case, if an editor has created an article that uses -ize, it should stay -ize. If the editor uses -ise, it should stay as such. However, I will say that since I am an American, I would tend to see words that end in -ise as being misspelled; if both are acceptable in British English, I would think then that the largest user base of the article in question should be used to determine which spelling is best. Canada accepts both; Great Britain accepts both; America prefers -ize. Australia prefers -ise. Since more readers would be familiar with -ize, it would not be UNREASONABLE to use -ize. But I would never make changes to an article ONLY to change the preferred spelling of words with alternates. Bill Ward (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
So would you also consider that advertise, advise, enterprise, televise, etc are also misspelt? --203.220.170.31 (talk) 05:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem is specifically with the spelling of those specilised terms where Anglicanism has a standard form. As I said, for other words - unless they are on the "only -ize" or "only -ise" lists - either spelling is correct, and it is inappropriate WIKI editing to edit the one to correct to the other (but then does it mean that it is appropriate WIKI editing to revert an incorrect edit?). But leaving that aside - "baptize" is only spelled one way in Anglican formularies and texts; similarly with "solemnization of matrimony", and those are the spelling forms that should be used in the article for these words. TomHennell (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I can't see why one needs to replicate what a given Anglican formulary says unless one is directly quoting from a text (and wouldn't we need to have access to all of them, from Melanesia to the Windward Islands to know?). The concept is what is important. I can see your point, but I think it's hair-splitting a little too closely. fishhead64 (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Tom is correct (to my surprise) that baptize should be spelt that way. The OED normally lists both -ize and -ise (preferring -ize), but it doesn't give the option for baptze (baptise is only given as an archaic noun, equivalent to baptism). I'm less convinced by his argument in relation to the other spellings, again unless we are quoting directly. I think also that one of the spelings which was coorected was licence to license, which in British Engish is a matter of noun versus verb as the anon stated. David Underdown (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The OED is not the be all and end all for how to spell words in English. There are many other sources such as Chambers, Collins, etc. --203.220.170.31 (talk) 05:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
One thing the article definitely shouldn't have is a mixture of the two spellings. If we write "baptize" and "solemnize" we should also write "organization" and "recognize". If we write "organisation" and "recognise" we should also write "baptise" and "solemnise". —Angr 11:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree at all Angr; English spelling demands the "-ise" form for some common verbs - advertise, advise etc - and demands the "-ize" form for others - capsize, prize, size(as a verb). Baptize, at least in Anglican discourse, is in this second category. But most verbs can be spelled either way, and there is no reason why they shouldn't be. Any text of any length is therefore likely to have a mixture of the two forms. Forcing usages into consitency is no value in itself. TomHennell (talk) 01:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm all for improving articles on Anglicanism, but honestly, I think regularising the spelling to accord with one standard or another should be at or near the bottom of our priority list. Feelings tend to run high over such tokens of national identity, and I think that letting sleeping dogs lie is the best approach under the circumstances. The Old Testament axiom, "At that time there was no king in Israel, and everyone did as he pleased" is advisable in this case. fishhead64 (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Angr is right, if we write one form of "-ise" words then this form should be used throughout the article for the other "-ise" words, if we write one form of "-ize" then this form should be used throughout the article for the other "-ize" words. (Note: both do have exceptions where there is not an alternative spelling, eg: enterprise, capsize, etc.) But I think TomHennell is missing the point, baptise is not an incorrect spelling to use as he seems to think — "baptise/ize" belongs to the group of words that include "organise/ize", "recognise/ize", etc, where there are two acceptable spellings. The following sources disagree with him, indicating that both spellings are correct (but due to their own style guides they list the "-ize" form before the "-ise" form):

  • Chambers lists both "baptize" and "baptise" as correct.
  • Ask Oxford lists both spellings "baptize" and "baptise" as correct.
  • Dictionary.com lists the "-ize" form first and says the "-ise" form is chiefly a British form.
  • Collins lists both forms "-ize" and "-ise" as equally correct.
  • Merriam-Webster lists both "baptize" and "baptise" as correct.

A good indicator of modern British usage is the BBC, and a google search finds:

Which indicates the "-ise" form is ten times more popular than the "-ize" form in Britain. --203.220.170.31 (talk) 05:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Tom, the words you mentioned (advertise, advise, capsize, prize, size) play no role here because they don't end in the suffix -ize/-ise; they just happen to end with the same string of letters. The words that really do contain the suffix -ize/-ise (and its derivatives like -ization/-isation) need to be spelled consistently. Which spelling one chooses is a matter of style, and we're under no obligation to use the same style as the publishers the Church of England hires to print their materials. Now, I'm American, so obviously my heart is with the Z-spellings. But as the version from 2002 shows, people who prefer the S-spellings got here first, so they got to decide. —Angr 19:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Good final point Angr - but factually incorrect. The section in question - on the diaconate in Anglicanism - was created by user Secisek on 9th August 2007; and used there the form -ize for both baptize and solemnize. Since you do not dispute (I believe) that "baptize" is a correct spelling, there can be no case for having subsequently changed it. I agree fully with your general point, that the spelling of words in general should follow the conventions of those originating the article. But I would hope you would agree with me that these two words are not here appllied as general descriptors, but as specialised terminology relating specfically to Anglican rites. In consequence they should follow the conventions and rules of Anglican nomenclature. I have checked in the Prayer Books of 1549, 1552, 1559, 1662, 1928, ASB 1980, and Common Worship 2000; and the form "baptise" is found in none of them. Do you know different? TomHennell (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I take issue with the claim that "baptise" and "solemnise" are examples of "specialised terminology relating specifically to Anglican rites." They are terms which relate to Christian practices; and, as I pointed out elsewhere, the prayer books and formularies of one province of the Anglican Communion should not be taken as the arbiter of spelling. Rather, the dictionary will suffice for arbitrating the "conventions and rules" of any nomenclature. The fact that Anglicans use both spellings should come as no surprise, given their diverse nationalities and backgrounds, and the fact that they are not specifically Anglican words (are there any?). As Angr points out, it is the original article's use which arbitrates between spelling options, not sections thereof. fishhead64 (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The BCP and KJV use other spellings that are not typical of modern English spelling in any country, e.g. Publick or Quire for the group of choristers, and we don't change instances of those to match the archaic spellings unless they are direct quotations. Similarly in British English the -ize ending is now archaic in many words or at very least only used in a limited way. Dabbler (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Read the relevent section in the article. It is not about the sacramental theology of baptism and marriage in general, but about the canon law of Anglican rites in particular. Anglican theology recognises baptism and marriage conducted by ministers of other Christian traditions (and marriages undertaken by a validly appointed civil registrar) as being just as capable of delivering the sacrament of God's grace, as the equivalent rites would be when conducted by an Anglican clerk in holy orders. But if a civil registrar were to take it on himself to conduct a marriage ceremony not according to the civil form set out in the Marriage Acts, but according to the religious form in the Book of Common Prayer, then that marriage would be voidable, and the errant registrar would probably be sentenced to term in prison. And as the example of Common Worship 2000 demonstrates, the form "baptize" is in no sense archaic; but is current, is in Anglican usage, and is the standard spelling with no alternatives. Anglicans do not, as far as I have been able to ascertain, "use both spellings" in their rites of worship - unless of course you know better, and can quote an Anglican liturgy with the forms "baptise" and "solemnise" TomHennell (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So if someone was "baptised" in another denomination because that was the spelling in their service it wouldn't be valid for Anglicans, but if they were "baptized" it would be? That is the level of nit-picking that I read this discussion. Dabbler (talk) 11:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Not at all Dabbler. A valid baptism in any (Trinitarian) denomination is a valid baptism in all such denominations. Same for marriage. But that is not the point under discussion in this section of the article, which is about the sacramental rites specific to a deacon in Anglican canon law. Canon Law - in all Anglican churches so far as I am aware - is relatively strict in requiring the forms of rite used to conform with those approved by authority, and set out in the relevant Prayer Book. Those rites follow standard formulae, and have standard conventions for spelling. My point is simply that when we refer to those specific rites (as in this section) we should use the conventional spelling of that rite, and that is indeed what the original editor of this section did. The nit-picking would be to say that - because non-liturgical language elsewhere in the article uses a different spelling convention - the specific liturgical terms in this section should be altered to conform with the rest of the article, and hence cease to conform to the standard form of the formulae to which they relate. TomHennell (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
To extend your argument, if the word "recognize" appeared consistently in the canon laws of the majority of Anglican provinces, would we be compelled to use that spelling in articles related to Anglicanism? You may respond that "recognition" is not a technical word, but what if it's recognition of non-Anglican orders, for example? This is the level of absurdity we're dealing with here. It's abundantly clear at this point that your concerns are not shared by other editors, so continuing to pursue it seems unproductive. fishhead64 (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)