Talk:Anglican Communion/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Undated enntries

Anglicans and Romans

You said something about efforts for reconciliation with the Roman Catholic Church. I think it would be good if there was either a link to a page directly adressing this or further discussion of the efforts on this page.

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!

Dated entries

Anglican Church?

Is "Anglican Church" just another name for Church of England? If not, please don't just create a redirect. Even if it is just another name, it would be useful to explain a little about the phrase "Anglican Church" and its (semantic) relation to "Church of England." --LMS

I'm not quite sure what is most appropriate here. The original article was essentially about the history of the Church of England. I created a new entry called 'Anglicanism' discussing people and churches that follow the traditions of the Church of England and also explaining the use of 'Anglican' and 'Episcopalian' to describe such churches. Would it be better to rename that page to 'Anglican'?

The Anglican communion includes 60 million members outside the UK and is not the same as the Church of England (with a few million members in England). ----BozMo|talk 10:04, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think it is important that Anglicanism as a set of doctrines and practices has its own entry, as should the Church of England which is the historical origin of these doctrines. However, 'Anglican church' in some contexts is part of the formal name of an institution (the Anglican Church of Australia, the Anglican Church of Canada etc) and in other contexts is used informally to describe, eg the Church of England. This suggests to me that 'Anglican' would be a more useful name, but I'll think about this a little more. --Claudine


"The ultimate head of any Anglican church is the Primate, head of the church at the national level" - this is wrong. The Archbishop of York is Primate of England but not "head of the church at the national level". Even on the assumption that it was only ever intended to refer to clerical positions, that is reserved for the Archbishop of Canterbury as Primate of All England (these are technical terms). PML.

As you said, "Primate of England" and "Primate of All England" are technical terms. The Archbishop of Canterbury is still the "Primate of the Church of England", the highest clerical position within the national church. (Although the article should mention that the Queen is the "Supreme Governor of the Church of England"). - Efghij 04:19, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
What clarification would you suggest, that wouldn't simply add to the confusion? If nobody provides a good one soon, I'll have a stab at it myself. PML.


Let me get this straight, more than half of what is to be said about the Anglican church is a minor news item from the last few weeks? I think this article massively confuses current events with long-term significance. Daniel Quinlan 01:33, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)

I agree. I think we should have a seperate article on Anglican views of homosexuality, where we could incorperate this as well as information on the Blessing of Same-Sex Unions. - Efghij 02:54, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Yes, good call. Evercat 14:00, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)


I have deleted the word Protestant. Please see discussions elsewhere. Although the Roman Catholic church sometimes describes the Church of England as Protestant it does not declare itself to be Protestant on its official website or anywhere. It does contain many Protestants but that is not the same thing. There are official websites declaring it to be Catholic and ones explaining why it is not Protestant (the latter are a bit scarse) but since on religions we abide by the principle that organisations can say what they are, I have deleted the word Protestant. I have not included the word Catholic since I do not want to start repeated reruns of the arguments on the Catholicism page. Historically it is a Catholic Schism from the time of Elizabeth the First. --BozMo|talk 10:02, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I completely agree. The Anglican Churches are not Protestant, but "Reformed Catholic" --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I wrote the above 6 years ago, and today I get agreement. Actually there is something in the Coronation of the Monarch referring to the Protestant faith which I came across at some point in the intervening 6 years (but it is exceptional). --BozMo talk 20:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


I also disagree with "The Archbishop of Canterbury is regarded as a symbolic leadership figure among many Anglican denominations, but does not hold formal authority and cannot be accurately compared to other religious leaders such as the pope." I think the position of the ABC wrt the AC (outside the CoE) is exactly the same as the pope wrt non Roman Catholic churches in communion with Rome? Albeit there is no belief in the infallibility ex cathedra and stuff--BozMo|talk 10:06, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Anglican_Communion article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Anglican_Communion}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:38, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

I changed the cleanup tag (added by User:JW1805) from Template:Cleanup-tone to Template:cleanup-rewrite to make clear that nobody is suggesting that the tone is unfair or unprofessional. The problem, rather, is that the rather florid 1911 Britannica text on which it is based remains entirely undigested. I'm gonna be working on this; feel free to help. Doops | talk 18:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Whilst I agree this article needs work, I fele to say it needs a complete re-write is unfair. Are you sayin you feel that the entire article needs a change in writing style? Tompw 19:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

No; but the bulk of the article is undigested 1911 Britannica; those portions need a complete rewrite. Furthermore, they are far too long; this makes the article unreadable. Finally, the article is rather short on current information. I don't interpret "complete rewrite" as meaning that every bit needs to be re-wrtiten -- but every bit needs to be examined. Doops | talk 20:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree, a "substantial" rewrite is necessary.--JW1805 20:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the tag, as our recent efforts have given us a page free of 1911 text, which was the original reason for the notice. There are still things imperfect about the page — the vagueness at the end of the history section, the rather "tacked-on"-feeling little sections at the end about current controversies & RC relations — but it's a lot clearer now without all that gobbledygook. Doops | talk 21:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

biased language

In the first sentence of the final paragraph of "What holds the communion together?" appears ...for certain liberal steps they have taken unilaterally.

The words "liberal" and "unilaterally" are both strongly biased towards a certain (for wont of a better word) conservative viewpoint. In particular, the idea whether the steps taken by the American and Canadian churches could be properly defined as "unilateral" is hotly debated.

I would suggest replacing these with more factual and non-biased descriptions.

Yeah, you see, lemme explain: I am a liberal and I wrote that sentence originally. You can chalk it up partially to an earnest desire to be fair to the other side; but there's another reason too: those two words are convenient shorthand. In attempting to respond to your request today (with two different versions successively -- check the edit history), I rediscovered the fact that attempts to use scrupulously NPOV language make that bit considerably longer. There are two downsides to that: firstly, it gives the conservatives a bigger and more prominent stage; and moreover that § ("what holds the commmunion together?") should be about structures, not issues. Anyway, do you like my revised version? Doops | talk 16:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, and yes - I think the revised version reads in a much more neutral, well-balanced manner.

Under "Recent Controversies", it referred to the controversies being over "biblical authority", which is POV. The debate is not over the authority of scripture, but its interpretation. No church in Communion disagrees that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but not all agree that it condemns homosexuality. Carolynparrishfan 13:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

QEII and Church of Scotland

I believe the British monarch is the supreme governor of the Church of England and also an ordinary member of the Church of Scotand. I wonder: does QEII ever attend an Anglican church in Scotland, and is her status as an ordinary member of the Church of Scotland one that may be assumed by any member of the Church of England? Laurel Bush 15:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC).

I don't know if the Queen ever attends the Scottish Episcopal Church. I don't think there is a legal impediment from her doing so. I am fairly certain that a member of the C of E would have to formally convert if they wanted to become a member of the Church of Scotland, but I don't know what that process would be. A member of the Church of Scotland who wanted to convert to C of E (or SEC in Scotland) would have to be confirmed by an Anglican bishop.Rockhopper10r 19:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. Not quite the story I am getting in Talk:Church of Scotland#Church and monarch. However, I do get the impression that the idea of QEII as an ordinary member of the Church of Scotland is a bit of official fiction, that her real persstatus in that church is quite special and privileged. Laurel Bush 10:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC).

Rockhopper is wrong. You do not need to convert to join the Church of Scotland. The Church recognises baptism of all Christian denominations, and will admit any Christian into full membership. Normally, if someone has been a member otr 'confirmed' in another denomination, the local Kirk Session will be willing to admit them to the role of the congregation without any further vows or rites. Member of the Church of Scotland do not have to be presbyterians (elders do), they only have to be Christians. --Doc ask? 10:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
From an Anglican POV, an Anglican going before a Presbyterian Session to request admittance into a congregation could very well be seen as converting.Rockhopper10r 14:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Fine, but that's an Anglican POV. Actually it is a lot less formal that 'going before a Kirk Sesson', mostly (and it happens all the time) folk jusy 'I'd like to be a member' and the minister says OK (with the Session rubberstamping at the next meeting). If that's converting, I'm not sure what it is converting to or from? I even know of one Church of Scotland minister who is also an ordained Anglican priest - that's more unusual, but not problematic. --Doc ask? 15:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. Still seems to leave QEII in a somewhat special position, by which the Church of Scotland gets some guarantee/protection of its status as the national church. Also, wondering whether QEII is listed on any particular role. Laurel Bush 11:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC).

It does leave the Church in a special position with regards to the law, but not the Queen in regard to the church. (The Kirk gets the best of both worlds, recognised and protected, but not answerable). I'm not sure what the answer is to the second questions - interesting thought. --Doc ask? 11:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

A quote from Doric Loon in Talk:Church of Scotland#Queen's status which seems to me to make some sense of the situation: The "ordinary member" bit is a reference to a famous speech by John Knox, and sure, that is slightly propagandistic. The Queen is respected by the Church as the head of the secular establishment which the church acknowledges. That means she IS special. But on an entirely different plain from her importance in Church of England thinking. Laurel Bush 12:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC).

My current understanding re QEII and the Church of Scotland is as follows:

The monarch is recognised as a member of the Church of Scotland, but whether she is listed on the role of any particular congregation (like any other member) is unclear.
The monarch has no position in the Church equivalent to that of Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Which means, for example, that she has no role in appointments to office within the Church of Scotland.
The monarch is sworn to protect the Church of Scotland, and the Church is recognised as the "National Church".
The monarch or her representative is routinely invited to speak at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, an invitation not routinely extended to a simple member of the Church or member of the general public.
There is a widespread but questionable belief that the monarch is a simple or ordinary member of the Church of Scotland. The monarch is not the Supreme Governor, anything like it, but she does appear to have a special position, representing or symbolising the relationship between Church and State or the status of the Church with respect to the State.

Laurel Bush 17:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC).

"recent" anonymous edits

This page dosn't have a lot of editing activity, but two different IPs edited the same paragraph to read the same way. The material added seems highly POV and is not supported by references. I dispute its factual basis. I reverted the material back to the immediately preceeding edit. The most recent such edits are here Ruidh 20:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


Efforts have been underway at least since 1966 to effect a reconciliation with the Roman Catholic Church, focusing on theological issues [2] and ways "to further the convergence on authority in the Church. Without agreement in this area we shall not reach the full visible unity to which we are both committed." [3] Since that time, two major developments in the Anglican Communion have rendered such reconciliation virtually impossible, at least in the near future, namely, the ordination of women and the ordination of (and approval of) practicing homosexuals.

The term "practicing homosexual" can be construed as very offensive and patronizing to GLBT persons. I'm not quite sure to word this without using it. "Noncelibate" doesn't sound much better and, honestly, "homosexual" in and of itself can be problematic. Any suggestions?Rockhopper10r 20:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Refusing to ordain "noncelibate people" (whether homo- or heterosexual) would seem to be an impediment for the Roman Church in its quest to be reconciled with its Anglican counterpart. Rome does not ordain "practicing heterosexuals" either.--Bhuck 06:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Not entirely correct. In some circumstances, the RCC will ordain married males if it is understood that no furture marriage is possible. For example, there is a program to ordain clergy who leave the member churches of the anglican Communion to join the RCC. The RCC also ordains married deacons. I think that non-celibate is the best term as long as it is understood that celibacy is sexual bahavior consistant with one's state of marriage. An alternative is chaste. Ruidh 16:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thirty-Nine Articles binding?

This phrase that may be confusing to naive readers like me:

These Articles, while never binding, have had an influence on the ethos of the Communion,...

The Subscription (Thirty-Nine Articles) Act (1571) sounds binding to me, but then, as I said, I am not a historian nor a church lawyer. Was it not binding to both assent to and read aloud the Articles ? What do the better secondary sources say? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Clergy had been required to assent to the articles upon their ordination for many years. Assent had never been required of the laity. A 1968 Lambeth COnference resolution recommended making the assent to the articles no longer mandatory for clergy.Ruidh 14:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Requiring clergy to assent to them sounds 'binding' to me. At least saying they are not binding is misleading if many national churches require assent from clergy. I'll add that in.Sbmackay (talk) 03:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
They're not binding on clergy in the US Episcopal Church. They may still be in the Church of England. I think 'never binding' is correct for the laity but the recent revision is incorrect as well. We need a better way to put this. Suggestions? --BPMullins | Talk 04:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I suggest simply stating the facts, rather than all the politicking which goes on in Anglican-related wikipedia articles. It's really quite confusing to the average readerSbmackay (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Weasel words tag

This has been placed over the article as a whole, it would seem, but the editor who has placed it has failed to note here what the perceived difficulties are. In the absence of such, any problems cannot be reviewed or corrected since I don't believe any of us are mind readers. In the absence of such information, I will remove the tag. Fishhead64 18:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the tag to an in-line one. My concern was with the phrase "It is estimated ..." when there is no attribution. Who is "it"? I doubt that the source is from The Addams Family's Cousin Itt. The verbal phrase "is estimated that" too often equals "guess". According to Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words:

“Either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed.”

Another solution:

“a) to name a source for the opinion or b) to change opinionated language to concrete facts”

Either way, citing a source is essential in a project like Wikipedia.

Cheers. Wassupwestcoast 02:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Anglican Church Schisms

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a blog. While controversies exist, Anglican Communion should discuss those churches in communion only. Otherwise, why don't we include the Baptists, Methodists and Quakers in the Anglican Communion. All three are schismatic from the 17th and 18th century Church of England.

Cheers. (Stirring the pot where I can.) Wassupwestcoast 02:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is more appropriately discussed in Anglicanism. If someone wants to include information about schismatic movements within Anglicanism, that'd be the place to do it. Fishhead64 21:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


They have been listed as the third largest "communion" - are they a communion? I thought they were a branch of Protestantism. Fishhead64 02:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Umm... so is Anglicanism. Or at least it seems so to many Anglicans. I don't think that Pentecostals are organized enough to be identified as a communion, and I'm not sure that they outnumber Anglicans around the world. They're clearly growing quickly, though. -- BPMullins | Talk 03:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Correction, Anglicanism is actually Catholic not Protestant. They are "reformed catholic". Some individual members (mostly Episcopalians) consider themselves to be protestant, but the church itself maintaina a catholic belief, not protestant. Nctennishco12 (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The monarch's (or Supreme Governor of the Church of England) coronation oath states that the Church of England is a Protestant reformed church, see Oath_of_office#Coronation_Oath. There are some Anglicans who are closer to the reformed Catholic attitude and some who are closer to the Evangelical Protestant attitude and a large number who are somewhere in the middle taking on aspects of each. Dabbler (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, both Protestant and Catholic are used officially. Pre 1910 I think the Oath was just worded as anti Roman Catholic and the wording was changed to try to make it more palatable to our Roman brethen. And it is certainly as you say broad. --BozMo talk 10:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
'Catholic' for most readers will imply Roman Catholic. Wikipedia needs to aim for clarity. Anglicanism is clearly historically an heir of the Protestant reformation. It's articles are Protestant through and through. It would at least be correct to say that Anglicanism is a product of the Protestant Reformation or something similar. It seems to me that history has more weight than a statement on a website somewhere - especially as Anglicanism is a communion rather than a 'Church' in the RC senseSbmackay (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, the above comment shouldn't be taken as a recommendation to remove the word Catholic, rather to clarify the meaning being used in this article. As far as I can see, reformed Catholic means Protestant. Catholic not Protestant is a fallacy, because in this sense of Catholic you can be both. All of the Protestant reformers believed themselves to be Catholic in this sense, and all the historic Protestant churches believed themselves to be Catholic. I don't know why we think Anglicanism gets out of that definition, apart from political reasons. For the purposes of Wikipedia, it is not accurate to avoid the word Protestant simply because some in the Anglican Communion do so to soften their political dialog with Rome. My recommendation - the Anglican Communion is historically Catholic and Protestant. Sbmackay (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not so much about softening the political dialogue with Rome as it is about Anglo-Catholicism's distaste for the word "Protestant," dating back to the Oxford Movement, and the fact that wikipedia articles about anglicanism are disproportionately written by Anglo-Catholics. I fully agree with everything else you have written. john k (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Homosexual ordination and realignment of the Communion

This sub-section and the link Anglican realignment is off-topic. The section repeats much of what is found at Anglican realignment. It is best placed in Anglican realignment. The article is about the Anglican Communion: worldwide. A single-interest U.S.-centric schismatic debate seems out of place. Some of this might appear in Anglicanism but not here. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 17:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the problem here? You seem he!! bent on covering up this information on main articles as if this were something that wasn't happening? Perhaps you are ashamed of homosexual ordination or something. But, it is an essential element for understanding the Anglican Communion today. This material in now way can be removed from this article! This is not single-interest and not US only. If TEC splits, the Church in Canada will likely follow as well as New Zealand. The CofE is poised for a split which has already been threatened by the Evangelicals. Read up on the Covenant for the Church of England which was delivered to the ABC on Dec. 17, the same day the Virginia parishes voted to separate. That was a threat of schism.

Before you go about editing willy-nilly on these topics, you really need to educate yourself on them! 03:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wassupwestcoast, and think your response to his comments was rather disrespectful. I also think your edit changing the heading is a good example of sensationalism. The realignment issue is more complex than "homosexual ordination." --Anietor 05:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Anglicanism COTM

The Anglicanism Collaboration of the Month for April was late in being designated, due to my Lenten and Paschal wikibreak. It is Anglican views of homosexuality, always a favourite topic. Please consider reviewing the article, and helping in its assessment and improvement. Thanks! Fishhead64 02:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Anglican communion and ecumenism

Created and moved text to Anglican communion and ecumenism that was appropriate there. This was under the sub-headings "Ecumenical relations" at Anglican Communion and "Ecumenism" at Anglicanism. Some of it was an exact duplicate. Some of it was oddly contradictory. Best to have all the info at one page to make best use of time and effort. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 12:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Further reading

Is it ok if I delete this section and the tag? We have an EL section, as well as the references, to which readers can go if they want more info. I have found that "further reading" sections invite long lists of books, which just looks like spam to me--if they're really that useful people can make footnotes to them. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and done--BozMo talk 21:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This right?

I thought entities like the old Catholic church were in communion with Canterbury but not members of the "Anglican Communion", which runs against the text. Not confident enough to change it though.--BozMo talk 18:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Both mentions of the Old Catholics that I can see do indeed say essentially that, in the image caption, "A world map showing the Provinces of the Anglican Communion (Blue). Also shown are the Churches in full communion with the Anglican Church: The Nordic Lutheran churches of the Porvoo Communion (Green), and the Old Catholic Churches in the Utrecht Union (Red)" and in the nav box, well actually looking at it again, I suppose there might be the posibility of confusion there since, the title of the box is "Churches in the Anglican Communion", and then it's a line within that which says "Churches in full communion: Mar Thoma Syrian Church · Old Catholic Church · Philippine Independent Church", maybe that title should be promoted to the same level as the main title for clarity? David Underdown (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
It was the recently added bit at the beginning "Churches are not considered to be in the Anglican Communion unless they are in full communion with him" which I thought might to taken to imply in the Anglican Communion meant full communion with Canterbury. --BozMo talk 09:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
that's a matter of logic, saying that it's necessary for churches to be in communion with canterbury to be a member of the Anglican Communion does not logically imply that if you are in communion you must also be a member of the Anglican Communion. David Underdown (talk) 10:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks I can do the logic. But I am concerned about how it may be read and interpreted hence I said "might to taken to imply". It is a weird statement anyway with no obvious purpose.. --BozMo talk 10:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Memo to self - always check the otehr person's user page.... Well it is a major defining characteristic of the Communion so it certainly needs to be mentioned in some form. David Underdown (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. It already says "and specifically with its primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury" in the second sentence. Do we really need it again here anyway? --BozMo talk 13:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Good point, taken it out, and moved the ref that was being used to support it up to the initial mention (fixing the url at the same time). David Underdown (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

History q

In the history section shouldn't we give the date of E1's excommunication which I think was 15 years or so after the Act to which the article says it was responding? (1570 according to elsewhere on WP) Otherwise it gives the impression that the Communion was only remade for a couple of years whereas it was made whole for well over a decade? --BozMo talk 06:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

'Communion' or 'communion'?

Communion>>communion is not an obvious application of policy to me. goes to great lengths explain an additional relationship is implied by being in the Communion versus being in communion with and as it isn't a no-brainer application of WP policy I suggest we discuss it first/ --BozMo talk 15:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The WP policy on such things seems straightforward to me. This is an issue of style and WP has opted for one style over another. Whilst the style of organisations often capitalise such words - "the Church does this", "the University does that" - WP does not need to follow their style conventions. Personally I would often prefer to capitalise these words but it is not a matter of personal preference. Afterwriting (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition, the Church of England is not a church of the English nation but of the state, they are not the same. Dabbler (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please explain the difference instead of just asserting it to be a fact. What is your reasoning? I may well be wrong but it seems to me that 'state' would refer to the whole of the United Kingdom. Afterwriting (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Church of the nation would seem to me to imply something more acclaimed by the people, rather than a state church being government controlled. Cofe is Established, Church of Scotland, after much too-ing and fro-ing is the national church, and not legally established. Remember that England (+Wales) has a different legal system from Scotland, and Northern Ireland is different again. The church of England was originally established in both England and Wales, until the creation of the Church in Wales in teh 1920s. With regard to capitalisation, it seems the most natural way to disambiguate between the various different senses in which "communion" is used in this article. I note though that a rather similar debate has been raging over the use of "Church" as a specific short form for Roman Catholic Church over at talk:Roman Catholic Church. The only way to be clear is to either adapt the convention of capitalising when referring specifically to the subject of the article, or writing it out in full every time, which seems to me to be clumsy. David Underdown (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The Church of England is established as part of the state apparatus, bishops in the House of Lords and appointed by the government and with the monarch as Supreme Governor etc., but it is not the church of the English nation as a whole as there are many people who follow other denominations, religions or none. As for Communion/communion, doesn't Wikipedia also have a policy to ignore all rules (at least where they hamper comprehension). Dabbler (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Church splits (The Jerusalem Declaration)

I have just added this to Timeline_of_Christianity#21st_century but note there is nothing here yet. Have I jumped the gun? I am not very conversant with this, perhaps it is not a formal decision yet? (see [1] rossnixon 02:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd tend to think so- it may come to be seen as a defining moment, but it's hard to tell at the moment exactly what this will mean for the furture of the Communion. David Underdown (talk) 09:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Parish church template

Warning: there is a [proposed deletion discussion] about to windup on this and other templates of interest to Anglicans/Episcopalians. clariosophic (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

introduction needs simplification

The long, relatively complicated introduction omits a key point: The Anglican Church (there is now no entry there, so any-one trying to find out what the Anglican Church is is perforce at this site on "Anglican Communion" - already a complication) is a Christian religious institution. (Sorry, it does no good to protest that the word "church" implies Christian: just go to Wik's entry on church.) Kdammers (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Unlinking common country-names


"Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, it is generally inappropriate to link plain English words and terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia, including the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, common professions, common units of measurement."

And concerning the article on "Supply and demand", MOSLINK says:

"Do not link to the "United States", because that is a very large article with no explicit connection to supply and demand."

Someone reverted my unlinking of "Australia" and "Canada". I would like a demonstration of why the linking of these huge articles is relevant to the reader's understanding of the topic "Anglican Communion". It seems to me obvious that the style guides say not to link such items. Perhaps there is a more focused link in each case ("Religion in Australia"?). Tony (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK as quoted above really says it all. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Given the dispute over the definition of the Anglican Communion as a Protestant as well as a 'Catholic' Communion (under Pentecostals and elsewhere), in addition to the number of unreferenced sections, including unsourced claims about Apostolic Succession, I'm placing a NPOV tag on the page. The discussion above about the place of the Thirty Nine articles is also relevant. Evidently the place of the articles has been downplayed, in comparison to it's historical place in the communion, in light of current debates. Rather than aiming to portray an artificial consensus within the communion, the diversity of opinion about the place of the Articles, etc, should be communicated. Likewise under History, there is a distinct lack of emphasis on early Protestant and Calvinistic shape of Anglicanism. The Reformation was more than an organisational re-shuffle. Sbmackay (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, could you elaborate a little further what exactly the dispute is, and produce some sources if they are outside the article? I am not sure that there is much doubt about what is what so much as what means what; viz there is dispute on things like what "Catholic" means? But that isn't a problem with the article? --BozMo talk 21:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Some examples: 5th paragraph of Eccesiology, polity, ethos. Apparently the 17th century church was "deliberately vague about doctrinal principles". I don't know if that really describes the 39 articles.
The same section contains no mention of the place of the scriptures (only mentioned once in the next section), which have always been foundational and the ultimate authority in the Anglican communion.
Misunderstandings of the word 'Catholic' do need to be made clear for the average reader I believe.
There were a few other things which I've actually altered slightly, so I'd be interested in feedback.Sbmackay (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think you are continuing to spin a line that is not flying for me. (Is that too much of a mixed metaphor?) You haven't even suggested a POV problem; you've identified what you think are problems with the article. Of course the diversity of opinion should be described, but it needs to be sourced. I think you'll find that, outside England and perhaps Sydney, the articles have essentially no role to play except as historically valuable documents. Changes can be discussed, but it's not POV that the article needs work in this or that area. Tb (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to remove the NPOV. However, not all of those improvements I made were unwarranted, and other users agreed (see here).
1. Richard Hooker's views are hardly insignificant in a discussion of Anglicanism. In my view that was an unwarranted deletion.
2. The 'needless' parenthesis about the difference between Roman Catholicism and Catholicism is important for the average reader. What's wrong with clarity in the article? It's a common point of confusion for non-religious people and non-Anglicans.
3. "I think you'll find that, outside England and perhaps Sydney, the articles have essentially no role to play except as historically valuable documents." That is incorrect, and your Nth American bias is clearly evident here. That is a unique aspect of the Nth American Anglican province, but not true of most others places in the world.
- Anglican Church of Australia here
- CofE - here
- Aotearoa New Zealand - here page 114
And I don't see any reason to think it isn't the same in other Provinces.
4. Anglo-Catholicism should be referred to as Anglo-Catholicism. That correction was necessary, otherwise it implies that evangelicals in the Anglican church aren't 'Catholic' in the broader sense which is clearly not true. They aren't mutually exclusive.
5. There is a discussion on the interpretation of Apostolic Succession over here. I'm convinced the Anglo-Catholic interpretation of the historic episcopate isn't a universal belief in Anglicanism, although succession is practiced, and this may again be evidence of a Nth American bias. I'm still trying to work out how it's possible to prove a negative though, otherwise how on earth do you correct an unreferenced statement? Sbmackay (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
1. I don't think it's insignificant, but it was quoted as if he somehow determined the proper Anglican view on holy orders. This article should focus on the present day, not historical figures, when it speaks of current considerations, and current considerations should be paramount. I would welcome a discussion of the esse, plenum esse, and bonum esse language which could help here, but not simply quoting Hooker (and first?!) as if that was the most important thing.
2. The needless parenthesis quite clear in the article. Nobody will think Anglicans are Roman Catholic from the article. The parenthesis conveyed the POV that the Catholicism meant when Anglicans are "Catholic and Reformed" is different from the Catholicism meant by the Roman Catholic Church. You may be aware of the existence of Papalist Anglo Catholics, in fact, for whom the parenthesis might even be incorrect.
3. The Australian and New Zealand and South African clergy I have known do not care more for the 39 articles than the North American clergy I know. Perhaps we don't need any comment in that section at all about what the current "status" of the articles is, since there simply isn't any general agreement on it across the communion.
4. Adding "Anglo-" does not advance the reason you claim, since it would remain that one party was called "[Anglo-]Catholic"; if that implies that the other parties are not Catholic, does not their name "Evangelical" get used to make a similar converse implication?
5. It is not "north-american bias", it is simply the language of the Lambeth Quadrilateral. Tb (talk) 04:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
And, over at here your arguments have gotten even less traction than here. Tb (talk) 04:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
1. Why didn't you relegate the statement to a different position then rather than deleting?
2. What if they don't read the whole article (it's pretty long!)
3. I don't know if anecdotal evidence is really sufficient. It's a true, substantial, referencable claim that clergy in many parts of the Communions are canonically required to assent to them. If you want to reference a lack of honest on the part of many clergy that is fine too. But to refuse to admit this into the article smacks of bias.
4. Fact remains that this party is very commonly referred as Anglo-Catholic in worldwide discussion
5. The lanugage of the Quadrilateral is 'historic episcopate', not Apostolic Sucession. They are very different things according to many (i.e. the world's Anglican evangelicals. Funny you would admit anecdotal evidence on one point, while disregarding canon law, and on another point do the opposite and even when Lambeth declarations aren't binding in local provinces like canon law. Sbmackay (talk) 06:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
1. It's not a page on the Anglican theology of holy orders; it can't include just every theologian.
2. The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead already completely distinguishes Anglicanism from Roman Catholicism.
3. With references, we could say that most clergy are not required to assent to them, which is certainly true. But it seems that we don't need to make any comment on the fact at that point: it's quite secondary in its context.
4. The party is referred to both ways. You've given no reason to change it, and simple parallelism suggests keeping it parallel with the other names.
5. I would be agreeable to changing the language to "historic episcopate", so that we said, The churches of the Anglican Communion hold that ordination within the historical episcopate is a core element of the validity of clerical ordinations. Tb (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Saints in the Anglican Use

Since Roman Catholics only venerate saints canonized by the Roman Catholic Church, and Anglicans venerate the Saints within their calenders, what do Christians of the Anglican Use do? Since the Anglican Use are Christians who were in the Anglican Communion but left and joined the Latin Rite (Catholic Church), do they only venerate Catholic saints, or do they keep Anglican saints as well? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

third or fourth

FWIW I think the latest edit relegating the Anglican Communion to fourth is probably in error. The Anglican Communion is a full communion whereas as far as I can see the World Communion of Reformed Churches is only a communion. As such it should be compared in size to the wider group of Churchs in communion with the Anglican Communion, which adds the Old Catholic Church and Lutherans of the Porvoo Communion, Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada. The comparison is in any case OR unless there is a credible third party making it. --BozMo talk 20:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I've reworded - the only press release implies that the merger hasn't yet been ratified either (though it dates from earlier in the year. David Underdown (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Catholics not in communion with Rome?

This category is really obnoxious, especially considering that all references to the Anglican Communion as protestant are quickly removed. The category "Catholics not in communion with Rome" very strongly implies post-Reformation breakaways from the Roman Catholic Church - primarily Old Catholics who rejected Vatican I and the sede vacantists and others who rejected Vatican II. Including Anglicanism in this category is an effort to advance a POV, and to use a non-standard definition of "Catholic." The standard which counts Anglicanism as Catholic would have to count at least the Scandinavian Lutheran churches and the eastern churches as well; one should also mention the fact that pretty much all churches derived from the historic reformation churches, especially the reformed and Lutheran churches, also consider themselves in some sense to be "Catholic." Counting Anglicanism in this category is just blatant POV pushing. If it's going to be kept, we should also add categories for protestantism, given that the 39 Articles are indisputably protestant, the supreme governor of the Church of England took an oath to uphold the Church of England as a protestant church, and so forth. john k (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the category should be removed. The category describes itself as: "A list of professed Catholic groups, or persons, who identify themselves with Roman Catholicism (at least as it was since the Council of Trent) and who were (or have been) officially censured as excommunicate by Rome." While the AC will say its catholic, I don't think the case can be made they "identify themselves with Roman Catholicism" [emphasis added]. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I will remove the category from both this article and Anglicanism. john k (talk) 04:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Good call. --BozMo talk 05:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I have restored the category for the time being on the simple basis that Anglicanism defines itself as being "Catholic" ( although the category's definition requires some clarification ). Most of the arguments above are based on the apparently Roman Catholic POV that Anglicanism isn't Catholic. This POV isn't definitive in articles regardless of how strongly it is believed by many Roman Catholics. Afterwriting (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
The category itself is defined in a way to exclude Anglicanism. And it's not Roman Catholic POV that it's misleading to use the word Catholic to describe Anglicanism without providing context. It's the POV of everyone who isn't an Anglo-Catholic, including many Anglicans. Yes, Anglicanism defines itself as Catholic. So does every other denomination which uses the Nicene Creed. Anglicans perhaps emphasize their Catholicity more (or, at least, Anglo-Catholics do) but the sense that they mean it in is not the sense that is generally understood by people who are not Anglo-Catholics. The dominant meaning of "Catholic" in English is "Catholic as opposed to Protestant" - i.e., followers of the Roman church as opposed to followers of the churches established during the Reformation. In the broader sense stated by the category, it is used to refer to groups which trace their origins back to the post-Tridentine Roman Catholic Church who are no longer in communion with Rome - i.e. Old Catholics, sedevacantists, and the like. Including Anglicanism here is wrong and misleading. john k (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
It is overly simplistic to define "Catholic" as meaning the opposite of "Protestant". The historical facts are considerably more complex and encyclopedias don't have to pander to ignorance regardless of how widespread it may be. Are you an expert on Anglicanism? Obviously not going by your sweeping generalisations and factual errors regarding this tradition. Your opinions on this matter seem to reflect an American understanding of what is "Catholic" and what is "Protestant". In England and elsewhere these understandings can be very different so please try to broaden your perspectives on such matters. Afterwriting (talk) 07:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm not an expert on anglicanism, and I wouldn't be surprised if I've made a few minor errors of fact. That being said, my not being an expert on anglicanism is kind of the point. My argument is based not on expertise in Anglicanism, but on usage in the English language. Beyond that, my meanings have nothing to do with an American understanding. Queen Elizabeth II swore an oath to defend the true protestant religion and has no problem being both supreme governor of the Church of England and a member of the (certainly protestant) Church of Scotland; the 39 Articles are pretty close to Calvinism in their doctrinal positions; the word "protestant" itself was used in the 18th century to refer to Anglicanism as distinct from dissenters. The Church of Ireland is the largest protestant church in Ireland. The most common usage of the word "Catholic" in the English language is to refer to the Roman Catholic Church. This church is normally placed in opposition to the "protestant" churches which emerged from the Reformation. One such church is the Church of England, and, by extension, the Anglican Communion. The Anglican Communion defines itself as "Catholic and Reformed." "Reformed" in this context is a synonym for "Protestant." The definition's usage of the word "Catholic" is idiosyncratic; originally, it meant "catholic" in the sense of the Nicene Creed, and was, as such, no different from any of the other major reformation churches (Reformed and Lutheran), which also claimed to be "catholic" in this sense. In the nineteenth century, the Oxford Movement, basing itself to some extent on earlier anglican works, invented an entirely new meaning of Catholic. This meaning, having to do with the apostolic succession, was widely adopted among Anglicans, but is unfamiliar and unused by anybody else. It should obviously be discussed in our articles that specifically deal with the subject, but it absolutely should not be used when context cannot be provided. For most readers, calling Anglicanism "Catholic" will be highly misleading. john k (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the Category is not terribly helpful and probably should go. It is hard to see how it serves a useful purpose but as defined with a definition out of synch with its title, the AC is in on title not in on definition. Broadly "Catholic" means tracing valid Apostolic Succession to the Catholic side of the great schism, and pretty much all those who are in this status not in communion with Rome have been excommunicated (generally as entire churches with bishops at the time). Therefore by definition Rome tends to deny the Catholicism of those Catholics it has excommunicated, including Anglican ones... --BozMo talk 09:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
It is not defined out of sync with its title, and "broadly" Catholic means nothing of the sort, except to Anglo-Catholics. Somehow a sectarian definition of "Catholic" which is not in sync with its typical usage by the vast majority of speakers of the English language has been imposed as the working usage throughout wikipedia. Put simply, "Catholic" should never be used in the Anglo-Catholic sense without an explanation, because the vast majority of people would be misled by it. Which gets to the basic issue. The category is for post-reformation breakaways from the Catholic church; Anglicanism is not such, it is a reformation church, and including it in this category will only create confusion. The category might be renamed in a clearer way, but it absolutely is useful to have a category for Old Catholic, sedevacantist, etc., organizations, and such a category should not be muddled with by adding Anglicanism. I'm having a hard time coming up with a good name, though. john k (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)