Talk:Anglicanism/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: Childish talk!  LOL.  Seeing you write "Episcopalian" like that, makes me laugh.  IP Address 10:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check Scottish Episcopal Church#Name: common nickname! ..dave souza, talk 12:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Piskies

message: ::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)
thread_title:  The Catholic Church 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: True, good point, though the difference could be made clearer in the 2 articles. Neddyseagoon 15:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, but that's not a reason to merge them. Angr (t • c) 15:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Overlap with [[Church of England]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Origin 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandal confusion. 

message: 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)
thread_title: WikiProject Anglicanism

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Architecture of Anglican churches

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Autocephalous?" 

message: 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)
thread_title: Ecumenism and the RCC

message: 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 . 
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)
thread_title: Pius V

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: ''Anglicana'' versus ''Anglicanus''

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Personal note 

message: 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)
thread_title:  SOLA SRIPTURA 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Moving stuff 

message: on 20 December 2006, this article was nominated to be a Good Article.  While I agree it should, it's not quite ready.  For one, such a long article and less than 10 citations.  More in this article needs to be referenced. A few grammatical and historical errors also jar a bit.  —ExplorerCDT 17:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I revised and expanded much of the material in June, and I'm happy to add references over the next couple of weeks. Fishhead64 18:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article candidacy on hold

message: Why is there an image of the Tridentine Mass on this page.  Whoever put it there would clearly have read that this was an image of a Catholic Mass.  While the old Prayer Book may have looked similar, it was definitely not the same thing.  If there is an image of Anglican worship, it would be appropriate to use it.  Still, this image really should come down.  129.74.120.74 00:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This accurately depicts the customary of the mass where I was a curate - its caption makes clear that such a customary is common in Anglo-Catholic worship both now and historically. Fishhead64 06:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image of Tridentine Mass