Talk:Anglicanism/Archive 1

message: 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
:: 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)
thread_title: Schism

message: 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)
thread_title:  Old Catholicism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  non-sensical paragraph? 

message: 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/ 06:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction changed

message: 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)
replies: text: 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/ 22:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Three-legged stool 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Divisions? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Anglican Template

message: 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)
thread_title: Another perspective

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  anglicanism in eastern europe 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Churchmanship 

message: Substituted at 20:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment