Talk:Episcopal polity/Archive 1

message: I don't think that the RCC holds that it exclusively has the apostolic succession.  The RCC does recognize the sacramental validity of the ordinations of the orthodox churches, including the sacramental validity of the bishops of the orthodox churches, which would make them legitimate successors of apostles.  The contention then is not on the apostolicity of the orthodox bishops but instead on the schism between the two churches. Pmadrid 05:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Catholic view of Orthodox apostolicity 

message: There should be some discussion of this, but it is outside my area of expertise. Fishhead64 15:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Episcopalian government in the Orthodox and other Catholic traditions

message: There are still traces of a Roman Catholic bias in this article, but I particularly see some POV issues in the discussion of other Protestant denominations. Do the Lutherans really describe their polity as "Synodical"? It's a bit hard to tell whether this is actually different from the semi-presbyterian polity of the Episcopal Church. The passage about Methodist polity is more concrete at least but comes across to me as a bit dismissive. Mangoe 11:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "other denominations" section 

message: The major edit by "129.74.202.244" is mine.  It took so long, I timed out of WP before saving it.  Anyway, do not be too alarmed. This was largely copy-editing and reorganization. 
It is organized now somewhat historically and somewhat by Churches reflecting the history of Xtianity rather than jumping around from past to present, this church to that.
As noted before, I changed the references to Byzantium to Constantinople.  This reflects the approach of contemporary historians.  The town of Byzantium was actually never Christian since it was re-developed into Constantinople as Christianity was being adopted.  Western historians have had the bad habit (from today's point of view) of calling the Eastern Roman Empire "Byzantine" in order to avoid referring to it as "Roman." Some of this was guilt for the sack of Rome by the West and the failure to rescue it from the Ottomans. "Byzantine" in the West came to mean strange, convoluted, archaic, bizarre, nonsensical. However, the "Byzantines" always called themselves "Romans."
I tried to remain true to the meaning of the prior text.  However, there was some vague wording which as I made more specific, may reflect my Catholic perspective, particularly in the era before the Great Schism. The prior text in explaining the primacy that accrued to Constantinople between the fifth and eleventh centuries, seemed to me unclear about whether it replaced Rome's role in the East as  the see of last appeal or matched it or what.  I know Rome has always claimed that role, but am not sure if the East ceased to recognize this before 1054 or oly after. Perhaps it is a false question somehow.  Anyway, you Easterners help us out.
BTW, I am glad we cleared up the "Episcopalian" thing.  Does this need to remain an Anglican page now that this misnomer is cleared up?
Also, have done nothing with "other denominations" as am not too qualified.  --Vaquero100 17:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This still needs an Anglican overhaul. Right now Anglicanism is just a footnote. Mangoe 17:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do that later today. Fishhead64 20:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Copy-Edit 

message: I am glad someone proposed a merger with Episcopal.   It should be done without delay as the topics and content overlap too much.  Also you might notice that Episcopal is weak or confusing as regards Catholic and Orthodox episcopal polity.  There is a heavy US bias in the discussion of Methodism, that would be made stronger by the merger, but that could be fixed by some deletions and a source of non-US facts.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 2 months have gone by since the merger proposal.  It is definitely time to do it.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger discussion

message: The article needs more references, especially the part about Anglicanism, as it is fairly long and without adequate sources. ADM (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of this article was written in 2003 and 2004, when Wikipedia references were rare indeed.  It is time to go back and put some in, if you are a willing volunteer.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 23:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Section Overview of episcopal churches says:
:Others, including the Church of Sweden, practice episcopal polity; the Church of Sweden also counts its bishops among the historic episcopate as do some American Lutheran churches like the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church and the Lutheran Orthodox Church.
Which is pro-forma correct but in practice wrong. The Church of Sweden is ruled by congregations elected from political parties of approximately the same kind as in the Swedish parliament, except there are additional church parties that aren't eligible for the parliament. A certain bishop congregation has some limited veto rights regarding religious issues. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 11:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Church of Sweden

message: Section 8 "Anglican Communion"
"Although it is impossible to pinpoint an exact moment for the arrival of Catholic Christianity in the British Isles, we know from the Venerable Bede and other early sources that the faith clearly was planted in Great Britain and Ireland independent of Rome and prior to Augustine (see Celtic Christianity)".
Dubious - Discuss
The article on Celtic Christianity directly refutes this statement.
These are opinions not facts. Ericqwerty (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. "Celtic Christianity" (as practised by the early organised Christians in the British Isles) was certainly different, but not independent of Rome. This is fact. The text in question should be removed. --Peter (Talk page) 00:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious

message: Patriot1423 pointed out that the section on the Oriental Orthodox churches referred to an "Apostle Mark". It's obvious that this was meant to refer to Mark the Evangelist. I changed the text accordingly and provided a reference. I see no indication that either denomination considers Mark an apostle. Huon (talk) 09:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Apostle Mark" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Episcopal polity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206111318/http://www.vatican.va// to http://www.vatican.va/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified