Talk:Anglicanism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Anglicanism was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Religion (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Christianity / Anglicanism / Calvinism / Methodism (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Calvinism (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Methodism work group (marked as Top-importance).
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject England (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
This article has an assessment summary page.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
Note icon
This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.


Moving forwards[edit]

I added two tags to the article: the need for a general clean up and also the complete lack of citations in many sections There are some immediate issues that need to be resolved, for example the contradiction in the lede with Christianity over the major divisions of Christianity. There are various ways of dealing with that, one of which is not to make any such claim but simply talk about its origins (at which point Catholic and Reformed makes sense with a 17C ref). I pinged an old contact on the SCM Press (I was briefly a director back in the 70s/80s) and have a couple of books en route and when I get them will attempt some changes. Best overall to discuss what needs to be done first however. Comments? --Snowded TALK 08:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to note, that I plan to do some work on this over Christmas now I have the text books at home. --Snowded TALK 08:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Principal traditions[edit]

The lede phrase "Anglicanism forms one of the principal traditions of Christianity" is at odds with the much better sourced statements at Christianity which correctly (given the 39 articles) place it in the Protestant tradition all be it with some qualifications as nothing is neat and tidy in this area. I suggest we change this to say something along the lines of Anglicanism is within the Protestant tradition, but had retained some beliefs and practices from Catholicism or something similar. --Snowded TALK 08:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the lede is unsatisfactory; but categorising Anglcanism as "within the Protestant tradition", is (in my view) something that can only be done by robbing the term 'Protestant' of its positive character. Protestants (in a simplified catetgorisation) must believe in justifcation by faith, the priesthood of all believers, and the sole authority of scripture. Anglicans may claim to hold all three doctrines; but most Protestants would consider the Anglican doctrines of the apostolic succession of episcopacy, the liberal interpretqtion of scripture, and of the authority of the ecumenical councils and creeds, to be incompatible with a strict applicaiton of these three doctrines. Anglicans often describe themselves as 'both Protestant and Catholic'; but it is plain that neither strict Catholics, nor strict Protestans would accept them as co-religionists without strong reservations. In my view, it is much better to describe Anglicanism as "originating within the traditon of Reformed Protestantism". The idea that all Christianity could be divided into Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox camps, is fundamentally a construct of late 19th century Euro-centric Orientalism, and should be abandoned as lacking any real content in the current context. TomHennell (talk) 10:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree its problematic and I understand the Protestant position here and the conflict in the Anglican Church between traditional and liberal, protestant and anglo-catholic further illustrates it. Not so sure I agree with you on the "construct" argument. We do have the two great schisms although the Protestant one is messy and extended. Whatever it is clear that they are not one of the major divisions. I like your idea of originating within the traditon of Reformed Protestantism" however. If no one else contributes I'll try and edit along those lines--Snowded TALK 11:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I assume you meant to say three great schisms: Chalcedonian/Mononphysite; Greek/Latin; Catholic/Reformed. Strictly, you might add a fourth; Trinitarian/non-Trinitarian. My point is that the label 'Protestant' has no constant understanding in this schema; in the sixteenth century it broadly denoted Lutheranism, i.e. those Trinitarian reformed traditions that did not acknowledge the leadership of Geneva. In the 17th century - in the context of the Thirty Years War - it came to mean something like 'Reformed and Lutheran together'. In the early 18th century the UK parlaiment adopted a definition broadly equivalent to "Established reformed non-Catholic Christianity" (but this really was a construct, since neither of the two specificqally churches so designated would acknowledge the validity of the other). In the nineteenth century it came to mean something like 'Western non-Catholic Christianity' - under the influence of the American Revolution, and of the missionary movement. The problem with all of these lables is that they are essentially negative; protetants are varioiusly those who are not; Calvinists, Catholics, Anabaptists; as the designation of the 'other' changes, so the content of 'Protestantism' changes. I think it is better to identify Anglicanism by how it is constituted now, rather than according to historical sub-divisions and schisms. TomHennell (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Anglicanism does not generally identify itself as being a 'Protestant' tradition so it is therefore entirely incorrect for others to claim that it is. Also, the Roman Catholic Church itself usually makes a clear distinction between Anglicanism and Protestantism. Anglicanism's understanding of itself is expressed in the phrase 'Catholic and Reformed' which is already in the article. This is also sometimes expressed as 'Catholic but not Roman, Reformed but not Protestant'. The 39 Articles do not have anywhere near the kind of doctrinal authority within Anglicanism that many in other traditions imagine they do. Regardless of how the articles are interpreted they have very limited authority are not definitive of what constitutes Anglican doctrine. There is no valid reason, therefore, to define Anglicanism as 'Protestant' and doing so is ignorant. Anglicanus (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
There is of course a difference between how Anglicanism chooses to define itself, and how it is defined by reliable third party sources. Those on Christianity appear to place it as Protestant. I've heard both sides of the 39 articles argument by the way and accept that you represent one perspective. My real problem however is not to bracket Anglicanism into a Protestant group, but I do think it is not sustainable for it to be claimed as a 4th major tradition. I am happy with Tom's suggestion that we just define it within its historical context and current constitution. --Snowded TALK 14:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Then that is your POV. And you certainly seem determined from these and previous comments to insist that Anglicanism be defined as 'Protestant' despite the fact that Anglicanism generally understands itself to be distinct from that tradition. As a distinct tradition it cannot be correctly classified as being within the 'Protestant' tradition. Also, as the numbers of Anglicans worldwide, I believe, place its membership third after the Roman Catholic and Orthodox traditions - and before any Protestant traditions - this would make it a major tradition within Christianity as the article correctly states. Anglicanus (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
At the moment we have a weak source here (and I would like to see the actual text) to support your position. The stronger sources on the Christianity article do not support a statement that it is a major tradition. Maybe you could deal with that content issue rather attempting somewhat lamely to distract with personal comments (your user name of course has no implied POV of any type). Tom's suggestion is a neat way of avoiding any conflict here and you have failed to comment on that. Maybe you would? --Snowded TALK 09:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I can live with the recent edits as a compromise even though I don't necessarily agree with the reasoning behind them. My principal objection is with your insistence that Anglicanism should be defined as Protestant. That is clearly a POV - which you are entitled to have but not to insist on - which is in conflict with how Anglicanism is usually described, at least in academic circles. How it is understood or described on the 'popular' level may be another matter. I am an academic theologian and, in my world at least, most Roman Catholic Catholic and Protestant theologians I know would not describe the Anglican tradition as Protestant and clearly see it as a being a largely distinct tradition formed from aspects of both Western Catholic and Reformed theology and ecclesiology. In fact it is the Protestant theologians I know who are the most definite in saying that Anglicanism isn't a Protestant tradition. As long as you refrain from insisting on your point of view that is then we can avoid conflict on this issue. Anglicanus (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not aware that I am insisting on anything, neither have I expressed a particular POV but rather referenced the sources on Christianity which classify it as protestant. Also the Anglican references I have found don't see it as a distinct tradition, but rather as a collection of traditions. Individual opinions, including professional status are not really what Wikipedia is about. Its all about the reliable sources. If I reference a classification on another article you should not assume a POV for myself, or for that matter any other editor. --Snowded TALK 13:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I am not just 'assuming' a POV on your part. You certainly do have a very definite POV on this issue - as well as, it seems, an attitude that your POV is the only possibly acceptable one. This comes across very clearly in your previous comments on this issue and your intention to rewrite the article to reflect them. Your appeal to the references in the article on Christianity is especially weak and unconvincing. As you should be well aware, reliable sources can be found to support all sorts of positions and viewpoints on complex issues. When there is significant disagreement about the facts or interpretation of an issue these should be addressed in a balanced and NPOV manner. You, however, seem to want to dismiss any viewpoints or reliable sources that conflict with your apparently entrenched opinions. This seems evident from your attempts above to reject the numerous reliable sources which define Anglicanism as 'Catholic and Reformed'. So I do not consider your claims that you are not insisting on anything or have not expressed a particular POV to be credible. Your own comments contradict this and the appeal to selective sources that support particular opinions is not how Wikipedia articles are meant to be developed. Anglicanus (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
You don't like disagreement do you? Maybe you confuse disagreement with dismissal? Consistency between articles is a valid concern and the authorities used on the Christianity article are more substantial than those which were used here. Calling this"weak and unconvincing" may give you personal satisfaction but it does not deal with the content issue raised. If you think they are selective sources then I suggest you go to that article and challenge them. As to Catholic and Reformed, my point stands that this is an internal description not a third party one. I've taken that off line to research it and will return to it at some stage in the future. That is called responsible editing. Name calling and broad brush accusations represents a failure to follow WP:AGF and are hardly worthy of your claimed profession. --Snowded TALK 21:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
In fairness to Anglicanus here, the Christianity article is not at all satisfactory in its general categorisation of the traditions of Christianity, and the references it contains are not to leading authorities in the subject. Furthermore, the text of that article is not consistent with the illustrative tree diagrams that supplement it (allthough, if anything, the diagrams are even less satisfactory). Wikipedia is not at its best in very general articles (few encyclopedias are). More authoritative works of reference (such as the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church) state explicitly that the degree to which Anglicanism may be considered Protestant continues to be strongly disputed.
I think the diagram is dire, if you want to propose its deletion you will have my full support. I'm also happy to agree that many protestants dispute that the Anglican Church is Protestant, and ditto for Catholics. Maybe its more accurate to say that it has facets of the major divisions. The SCM study guide (to take one source) avoids the whole issue by simply describing each faction and makes no pretense to say that they are integrated in any way. --Snowded TALK 21:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Snowded here, that Anglacanism (notwithstanding the total headcount of its constituent churches) cannot be considered a distinct 'major' tradition within Christianity overall. I think the section on Anglican identity within the article explains why. Some Anglicans, especially those who are Evangelical in theological orientation, certainly do see themselves as within a common 'Protestantism'; other Anglicans see themselves as essentially 'Catholic' (but currently separated from Rome); others (perhaps a majority in England at least) would deny that there is any distinctive Anglican identity, over and above the underlying shared identity of all Christians. The most recent trends in Anglican ecclesiology (Booty and Sykes) reject these 'easy' reach-me-down identities, since they imply counterpart identities for Protestnatism and Catholicism that neither of these major traditions would accept. These theorists would say that Anglicanism is indeed distinct - and would identify that distinction in terms of an understnading of prescribed liturgy, the systematic public reading of scripture, and an apostollic ministry; all within an explicit structure of canon law. This has certainly been found to be a way by which a wide variety of Christians have been able mutually to re-examine, develop and share their stories of faith - though whether it capable of surviving some current challenges is still moot. What it isn't is either Catholicism (as traditionally defined in terms of communion with Rome), or Protestantism (as it has developed since the 19th century). Paradoxically perhaps, it is close to an application of the principle: 'semper reformanda' as found in the reformed theologies of Luther and Calvin. Alister Mcgrath proposes that this Protestanism of Reformed Method (as distinct from the standard understanding of Protestism as a defined Confession of Faith) should be seen as the true core of the Protestant Idea (but of course McGrath is an Anglican as well as a self-defined Protestant). In my view, if you are going to categorise Anglicanism within a tradition , it is as Reformed, not as Protestant or Catholic; but certainly not as a distinct tradition in its own right. TomHennell (talk) 10:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Two of the sources I have don't talk of it as a distinct tradition, but have separate chapters on Protestant and Anglo-Catholic, i.e. seeing Anglicanism as an organisational form that accommodates different traditions. --Snowded TALK 16:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'c like to add my voice to those who think we should not describe Anglicanism as a distinct branch of Christianity. john k (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Ordinariates[edit]

Okay, do we really need to put the bit about the ordinariates? I feel that should properly go in the article on the Roman Catholic Church, as it really has no bearing on Anglicanism outside of the very small group that will be taking Rome up on the offer. Shadowmane (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that we absolutely need to mention the Ordinariates. They are clearly making some news and surfers are quite likely to come to Wikipedia to find out more about them. It is the type of question that I turn to Wikipedia for. They are clearly within Anglicanism, broadly defined. Narrowly defined, they are not, but that is the debate isn't it? What is "Anglicanism"? They call themselves Anglicans. Others call them Anglican. "Anglican" is in the title of the Papal documents setting them up. Not to include them would be to shirk our responsibility to be an encyclopedia. Not to mention them would be to leave readers in the dark about the debate over the definition of "Anglicanism". They should also be mentioned in the article about he Roman Catholic Church as well. It is not an either-or thing.--Bruce Hall (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I simply disagree. It was such a small group that left for Rome, that its hardly worth mentioning. Everyone thinks it was some big thing that Benedict did, when all it was, was extending John Paul's Pastoral Provision for Priests in the United States to the rest of the world. It was really a "move along... nothing to see here" type move. Shadowmane (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

American vs British English?[edit]

Is this article going to use American or British English? The only two instances of a variance I could find would be "Civilisation" vs "Civilization" or "Organisation" vs "Organization."

My argument would be that for a large portion of the readership of these articles, the spelling with "S" instead of "Z" looks like a spelling mistake (And most English Spell Check programs will flag them as such). We should therefore use the standard American English Spellings with Z rather than S.ReformedArsenal (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, as these aren't spelling mistakes your "argument" is simply erroneous and nonsense. And Wikipedia articles are not written in "Standard American Spellings" for the benefit of spell check programs so this is also a totally irrelevant argument. Articles are generally written in the form of English which is most appropriate for their subject - and last time I checked Anglicanism is predominantly found in Commonwealth nations where British English is more common. So, to answer your question, this article will continue to use British English as there is no valid reason to change it to American English. And, for your information, the Catholic Church article is also written in British English. Afterwriting (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Articles should be written in the language that is most appropriate for those reading it... otherwise every article written about a French topic should be in French. I'll get right on changing that. My argument was that most of the readers of this article speak and read American English, and therefore it should be written in American English. According to your argument we should write this in Nigerian, since the highest population of Anglicans in any country is Nigeria. This is a community encyclopedia, you don't get to lord over an article just because you feel like it. Also, I'll get right on changing the article for the Catholic Church to Latin, since English isn't the official language of Vatican City.ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
You don't seem to have read WP:ENGVAR, and by the way there is no Nigerian language! Assuming the article already uses one of the 2 varieties of British English, it should continue to do so until there is a clear consensus here to change (and I wouldn't bother trying to get that). Your assumption that "most of the readers of this article speak and read American English" is unlikely to be correct, but is anyway beside the point. Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I feel like adding {{cn}} the claim that the majority of readers of this article are American English readers and speakers. Even if it were true, that is not a good argument in favour of your opinion. This is the English Wikipedia not the American English Wikipedia, so all variants of English are to be treated equally, but not mixed in its articles. That also means no Latin or Ibo articles in the English Wikipedia please. Dabbler (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

From WP:ENGVAR: "Strong national ties to a topic: An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation."

I therefore rest my case. Afterwriting (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, Afterwriting has the better grasp of WP policy on this topic and I support his position. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

myth of the via media and use of the word 'anglican'[edit]

i find dubious the claim in the opening paragraph that some english, irish and american "anglicans" of the 17th and 18th century emphasized the via media between protestantism and roman catholicism. if this is true, the view must have been confined to a small and not very vocal minority of churchmen of this early period. it was certainly not representative. the church of england at this stage overwhelmingly, uncompromisingly (and legally) identified as protestant full stop. with perhaps the exception of some ultra high church non-jurors in the scottish highlands, churchmen--high, low, latitudinarian, etc--would have taken exception at the suggestion that they somehow stood in the middle between geneva and rome. apologists for episcopacy and the prayer book vis-a-vis dissenters at home and continental protestants justified these on the basis that they represented a truly protestant return to primitive christianity and the gospel, not a measure of affinity with roman catholicism or continuity with pre-reformation practice...not by any stretch. anglo-catholics have to stop projecting their own claims on the church back into pre-tractarian history, when such latter-day practices as swinging incense, invoking saints, using latin or even the word "mass" in worship, and belief in transubstantiation were anathema to english protestant national self-consciousness and in fact illegal. the emphasis on the apostolic succession doesn't even really come in until the 19th century.

also, there should be a section on the genealogy of the word anglican and the history of its use. except for the latinate ecclesia anglicana, one never sees use of the term 'anglican' in the 17th and 18th century literature. this is a post-tractarian neologism as far as i can tell. over and over one sees, rather, "churchmen" or "protestant church by law established" etc to designate the church of england and its adherents. if this article is to be responsibly attentive to historical context it should emphasis that both the via media concept and the very term anglican, as referring to a distinctive branch of christianity, are products of the 19th century and later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.69.46 (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Origins of Anglicanism[edit]

I was astonished to find almost no description of the first origins of Anglicanism. The most frank account was via Henry_VIII_of_England#Reformation and hence English Reformation. This is a massive elephant in the room - perhaps it is embarrassing for English historians that the raison d'etre for their country's primary religion was so that their monarch could have his choice of bride(s). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.180.126 (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Your understanding of the history of the Church of England is very deficient. Afterwriting (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

URGENT: search engine metadata REQUIRES edits.[edit]

The search engine summary of this article is preceded by "I hate negros." See image below. This needs to be addressed ASAP.

Link to imgur image of search results — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.220.228 (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the search engine is outside our control and well behind the times, that edit was corrected by Cluebot, a bot which roams Wikipedia article changes looking for vandal edits, in the same second that it was originally saved. Dabbler (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
It will be gone in a few days when Google updates its cache. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Lutheran influence in Anglicanism?[edit]

A Lutheran Influence by Bryce P Wandrey, 2, 3. This sounds rather interesting. Komitsuki (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: write the beliefs of the religion[edit]

2601:9:8600:263:1C43:2333:489D:D160 posted this comment on 3 January 2014 (view all feedback).

write the beliefs of the religion

Any thoughts?

Loverthehater (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Check the Anglican#Specific_Anglican_beliefs section. That section states everything, although it is hard to navigate to. I'll see if I can help with that.

Content forking[edit]

I just undid a large content fork added to the “Early history” section. The information added there is a direct copy/paste from the Celtic Christianity article. This article only should present a very short history of the Celtic churches in the British Isles as it pertains to the Anglican tradition. It should not be a discussion of whether there existed a single ‘Celtic Church’ in antiquity—that belongs on the main article that discusses this subject. This article on Anglicanism makes it clear that there were several Celtic churches and only operated independently until the Synod of Whitby due to geographical location, not because of an outward rejection of Roman Catholicism. Reference number 31 states that the "independence of Rome implied neither repudiation of nor secession from the Roman Church. It was merely temporary suspension of outward communion with Latin Christianity as a result of political events which had placed Cornwall in a state of isolation." As such, the content forking is largely unnecessary. If this is unclear, please discuss it here, rather than reverting. It seems that User:Matthewrobertolson is already close to his third revert. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 03:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

To make things clear, I have also added an explanatory note after the first mention of Celtic Christianity in the article, in order to clarify any misunderstanding regarding the term. Once again, this article is not asserting that there was a single 'Celtic Church'-that is why this article uses the term 'Celtic churches' instead, with this latter term being used in academic discourse. In addition, I've added John T. Koch's original statement on the geographical factor in the explanatory note. This should be sufficient; a whole paragraph in the article discussing a tangential topic is unnecessary and violates WP:CFORK. Furthermore, statements such as the "Irish and British were no more pro-women, pro-environment, or even more spiritual than the rest of the Church" do not belong in this article. These claims were not even made in the Anglicanism article and its addition seems to be trying to prove a point. While it is appropriate for the parent article, it is not appropriate for the Anglicanism article. I plan to add more information to the "Early history" section about the Church in England post-Augustine, since that is in the scope of this article. Cheers, AnupamTalk 06:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
You have done a lot of work on this section Anupam; but may I suggest that it still sits oddly within the article - and in particular within this section of the article? The issue of precursurs to the Church traditions established following the Elizabethan settlement is tricky (and highly contested); it isn't enough (in my view) simply to include a single quote to the effect that the influence of its Celtic heritage is significant within later Anglicanism. My own impression is that the 'standard' scholarly view is that the primary sources for post 16th century Anglican identity (as it developed a distinct nature) were 'Reformed Protestantism' and 'Episcopal Continuity'; these sources (and the tensions between them) finding concrete expression in the English/British churches delegation to the Synod of Dort. An alternative and contemporary narrative sees precursors to emerging Anglicanism in the Lollard tradition - a narrative substantially supported in Foxe's Book of Martyrs. So far as I aware, finding Celtic precursors to Anglican Protestantism only became widespread in the second half of the 19th cntury; primarily as an Evangelical response to the revived high medievalism of the Oxford Movement - but it is difficult to call this specifically Anglican, as the same narrative is also found strongly in Scots (and English) 19th century Presbyterianism. Again, in my view, the more recent revival of Celtic interest derives from a separate narrative looking for non-Roman sources for 20th century Anglican spirituality. Ironically, these two Anglican narratives run parallel to an equally ahistorical set of Irish Catholic narratives; in which the Celtic churches stand for ant-Protestant continuities - the Anglican Church of Ireland having maintained physical possession of the bulk of high Medieval Irish ecclesiastical objects and buildings. Perhaps a seperate 'precursors' section needs to made? TomHennell (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
User:TomHennell, thanks for your thoughtful comment here. I would like to offer the fact that the appeal to the Celtic churches is not one of the 20th century but one that dates back to the separation of the English Church from Rome. From the beginning, Anglican divines have commented on this. Archbishop of Canterbury Matthew Parker, in 1572, "published his important work De Antiquitate britannicae Ecclesiae, in which he argued that the early British Church differed from Roman Catholicism in key points and thus offered an alternative model for patrisitic Christianity, in which the newly established Anglican tradition could see its own ancient roots. James Ussher, the Anglican Archbishop of Armagh, was promted by a similar motivation in his A Discourse of the Religion Anciently Professed by the Irish and the British of 1631" (Reference). I agree that it is only odd to focus on the Celtic churches in the "Early history" section. For this reason, I stated that I would be adding more about Anglo-Saxon Christianity there. To take your suggestion, I also would agree to shortening some of the details about the Celtic churches that are presently in the article. I am not opposed to renaming the section "Precursors" if you still think that is a good idea. I look forward to hearing your thoughts! Thanks again for your insight. With regards, AnupamTalk 11:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The Parker and Ussher references are most interesting; and relevant to the article in my view - as the current text of the para alas is not. There is, however, a world of difference between making polemical use of Old English and Irish materials, and promoting the continuation of ancient traditions. Ussher, I understand, did little or nothing to promote Irish-speaking clergy, or the continued use of Irish in liturgy. I think we do need a section on precursors; but in my view, it will have to look very dfferent from the current text - which carries to my mind, a strong flavour of the 'Not Angels, but Anglicans' narrative of English church history. TomHennell (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
It should be noted that the esteemed Encyclopædia Britannica also briefly discusses the Celtic churches in its article on Anglicanism, as well as the Gregorian Mission and Synod of Whitby. This article does well to reflect a similar structure as that reputable encyclopedia. Cheers, AnupamTalk 17:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

What is wrong with this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anglicanism&oldid=601051766#Early_history ? Also, I am most certainly not in violation of the 3RR rule. "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." I followed the rule. matthewrobertolson (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:matthewrobertolson, I appreciate you taking your time to discuss your changes here. WP:3RR does not just apply to a 24 hour time period. If you notice the policy, it states "Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation." I understand from your user page that you operate a personal website called answeringprotestants.com and have been adding this anti-Protestant apologetics source as a reference in this article (see diff), despite being reverted several times by other editors here. Given this fact, it will be helpful for you to read the policy, WP:COI. As a friendly alert, individuals who have a situation like yours might be reported to the Administrator's Noticeboard and may be topic banned from all Christianity-related articles. I would rather not have this happen, since you seem to have made some constructive edits to Christianity-related articles and am willing to discuss the changes with you here. Just today, you added a large paragraph from another Catholic apologetics website, which states that "The question for Anglicans and Episcopalians who see the Celtic Christians as their ancestors is: If the Celts submitted to Rome the first chance they got, why don’t you follow their example?". The addition of apologetics websites to this article is not appropriate for an encyclopedia and violates WP:RS - this article should not read as an apologetics tract. We need to use sources that are published by academic publishers in this article. In addition, you have also vioalted WP:CFORK by copying/pasting the following paragraph to this article, in a place where it is out of context:

Modern scholars, however, have identified problems with Anglican claims to "Celtic Christianity", and find the term problematic.[33] These claims are roundly rejected by these scholars, due to the lack of substantiating evidence.[34] Indeed, there were distinct Irish and British church traditions, each with their own practices, and there was significant local variation even within the individual Irish and British spheres.[35] There were some traditions known to have been common to both the Irish and British churches, but these were relatively few. In these scholars' view, these commonalities did not exist due to the "Celticity" of the regions, but due to other historical and geographical factors.[36] Additionally, the Christians of Ireland and Britain were not, apparently, "anti-Roman"; the authority of Rome and the Papacy were venerated as strongly in Celtic areas as they were in any other region of Europe.[37]

This article does not assert that the Celtic churches were anti-Roman and that the pope was not acknowledged. Reference number 31 states that the "independence of Rome implied neither repudiation of nor secession from the Roman Church. It was merely temporary suspension of outward communion with Latin Christianity as a result of political events which had placed Cornwall in a state of isolation." As such, there's no need for that paragraph in this article. I hope this makes sense. Please respond with any questions and concerns you might have. I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, AnupamTalk 16:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

  • The current version is terrible (I realize it may have been worse before). A (let us say) Japanese reader would never even get from it that all the British Isles were part of the part of the western/Catholic church until the Reformation. The presentation of the difficult subject of actual differences between "Celtic Christianity" and the rest of the church in the 1st millenium seems to cherry-pick sources, many of whom are not really specialists. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Johnbod, I agree. What do you think of adding a summary of the following quote by historian and Celticist Heinrich Zimmer (found in reference 24), which states "Just as Britain was a part of the Roman Empire, so the British Church formed (during the fourth century) a branch of the Catholic Church of the West; and during the whole of that century, from the council of Arles (316) onward, took part in all proceedings concerning the Church. But the Irish branch of the Celtic Church was an offshoot of that British Church, and had sprung up as early as the fourth century. At the beginning of the seventh century the institutions of the Celtic Church on either side of the Irish Sea showed divergences from the Church of Rome which are well attested. These, on a closer view, admit of full explanation. Above all, we must not forget the fact that in the Roman Catholic Church the position of the Roman bishop during the fourth century and up to the time of Leo the Great (440-461) differed from that of Pope Gregory the Great (509-604) at the end of the sixth century. At the beginning of the seventh century rigid uniformity of institutions was regarded as an essential requirement of the unitas catholica ; but to the fourth century this idea was wholly foreign. Besides, many innovations took long to domesticate themselves with the distant branches of the Church. At the end of the fourth century the British branch of the Catholic Church, together with its offshoot in the barbarian isle, were severed from Rome, because political Rome had lost its hold on Britain." This way, we can make it clear that the British Isles were a part of the Catholic Church in the West and that the isolation of the British Church occurred towards the end of the fourth century? I look forward to your response. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Okay, that's helpful, Anupam. Would you accept the first 5 sentences (leaving out the "anti-Roman" one) of the selected paragraph, then? They are valuable for clarification. Also, I would prefer it if there could be sub-headings under the "Early history" section, like the ones that I added. matthewrobertolson (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
User:matthewrobertolson, thank you for your comment! I appreciate your efforts to work with me! Did you see my explanatory note? The note quotes the author and says: "it is important to remember that there was never any such thing as 'The Celtic Church'. It was never an organized system in the way that we understand churches today. Rather, each Celtic church was highly independent and if there was a relationship between any of them the relationship tended to be one of spiritual support through missionary endeavour, rather than through any particular church structure. It is also important to remember that the Celtic church life as it emerged in fifth-century Ireland would be quite different to that which emerged in ninteenth century Hebridean communities. Even on the mainland the patterns of church life would vary considerably from one place to another, and from one age to another." This is basically saying the same thing as what your paragraphs said - what do you think? With regards, AnupamTalk 17:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I share Johnbod's concern. I'm not sure that the section is very clear still, even with the note (though the note is helpful).
Perhaps we could have this, instead:

Modern scholars, however, have identified problems with Anglican claims to "Celtic Christianity", and find the term problematic.[33] These claims are roundly rejected by these scholars, due to the lack of substantiating evidence.[34] And in these scholars' view, commonalities between the alleged Celtic churches did not exist due to the "Celticity" of the regions, but due to other historical and geographical factors.[36] Additionally, the Christians of Ireland and Britain at the time strongly venerated the authority of Rome and the Papacy, as strongly as they were venerated in any other region of Europe.[37]

That they were loyal to the Pope (at least, in these scholars' opinion) is important. This paragraph would provide a different view.
matthewrobertolson (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
User:matthewrobertolson, I understand what you're saying - I suggested adding in a sentence from the following historian: read here. I would be willing to add in something similar to the paragraph you suggested if you don't like the aforementioned source from Celticist Heinrich Zimmer - however, do you have the original quote by the author rather than your own summation of the author's claims? Also, you should note that your Catholic apologetics website states: "For about 150 years the Catholic Church in England, like the Church in China today, existed under persecution and in isolation from the seat of authority. But as soon as they had the opportunity to submit once again to Peter, the Celtic church did so." I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:matthewrobertolson, my suggestion would be to add the following statement after reference 19: 'Celticist Heinrich Zimmer writes that "Just as Britain was a part of the Roman Empire, so the British Church formed (during the fourth century) a branch of the Catholic Church of the West; and during the whole of that century, from the council of Arles (316) onward, took part in all proceedings concerning the Church.'[1] This statement is supported by reference 24 and will ensure that the Church in Britain was a part of the Catholic Church from ancient times, which is what you are concerned about. What do you think? I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I can accept that, Anupam. Could you make that change now? Also, again, I would prefer it if there could be sub-headings under the "Early history" section, like the ones that I added. In addition, Koch's book is available online, so I think that it should be sourced: http://books.google.com/books?id=f899xH_quaMC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false . matthewrobertolson (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear User:matthewrobertolson, I'm glad that we've come to agreement and have compromised through this discussion! Of course, I can make that change now. Also, I personally do not like the subheadings since the topics are directly related to one another. I can agree with dividing the "Early history" section into paragraphs, however, as you originally set it up. Let me know your thoughts. I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, AnupamTalk 20:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
As far as Koch's quote, I propose adding his statement as a explanatory note right after the first occurrence of the word; the statement is as follows: In Celtic culture: a historical encyclopedia (ABC-CLIO, 2006), author John T. Koch states that "'Celtic Christianity' is a phrase used, with varying degrees of specificity, to designate a complex of features held to have been common to the Celtic speaking countries in the early Middle Ages. Doubts concerning the term's usefulness have repeatedly been expressed, however, and the majority of scholars consider it to be problematic." Koch further states that "While there is considerable evidence for divergent Irish and (to an even greater degree) British practice in matters of liturgy, baptism, and ecclesiastical administration, the usages in question seem only to have characterized specific regions, and not necessarily to have been uniformly present there. Only the Britons were accused of practising a heterodox baptism; traces of an archaic liturgy in Wales find no counterpart in the eclectic, but largely Gallican, worship attested from Ireland; and the superiority of abbots to bishops appears to have been limited to some parts of Gaelic sphere of influence."[2] I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Thanks, AnupamTalk 20:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
We seem to be on the right track, but I personally doubt that most ordinary Anglicans (let alone most specialist historians) really give much or any weight to supposed specific continuity with the Celtic church, as opposed to early Christianity in Britain generally. So we should be careful not to over-weight it. Johnbod (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Johnbod, I agree that we need to give due weight to these concepts in the article. This article isn't going to present it as a fantastic continuation but will mention that after the Gregorian Mission and Synod of Whitby, differences were reconciled and that the Church in Britain was united to Rome until Henry VIII broke away. Encyclopædia Britannica mentions this history in its article on Anglicanism (a esteemed secular source) and the World Council of Churches mentions Anglicanism's Celtic heritage in its article on the subject (a respected religious source). We seem to have reached consensus here. I'll go ahead and add Koch's quote as an explanatory note in accordance with User:matthewrobertolson's wishes. With regards, AnupamTalk 21:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I think that we have reached consensus, as some clarifications are now there. I see an extra comma, though, so I'll fix that. :) matthewrobertolson (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Well done everyone, much better. I am not wanting to disturb the consensus; but I would take issue with the use of the introduction of the term 'Anglican'to describe the English Chruch of Henry VIII. This would not have been acceptable to Henry or his divines; and I don't think is supported in the references. Here is the para;
The Church in England remained united with Rome until the English Parliament, through the Act of Supremacy, declared King Henry VIII to be the Supreme Head of the Church of England in order to fulfill the "English desire to be independent from continental Europe religiously and politically." Although now separate from Rome, the Anglican Church, at this point in history, continued to maintain the Roman Catholic theology on many things, such as the sacraments.[43] Under King Edward VI, however, the Anglican Church underwent what is known as the English Reformation.[44]
I would propose adjusting this para as follows:
The Church in England remained united with Rome until the English Parliament, through the Act of Supremacy, declared King Henry VIII to be the Supreme Head of the Church of England in order to fulfill the "English desire to be independent from continental Europe religiously and politically." Although now separate from Rome, the English Church, at this point in history, continued to maintain the Roman Catholic theology on many things, such as the sacraments.[43] Under King Edward VI, however, the Church in England underwent what is known as the English Reformation; in the course of which it acquired a number of characteristics that would subsequently become recognised as constituting a distinct, Anglican, identity.[44]
Do others agree? TomHennell (talk) 11:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
User:TomHennell, I see no problem with your changes. Feel free to make them! Best wishes, AnupamTalk 20:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, better, but the wording of "continued to maintain the Roman Catholic theology on many things" could be improved. Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
agreed; so please improve it. TomHennell (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
"Although now separate from Rome, the English Church for the moment remained Roman Catholic in theology on most matters, such as the sacraments.[43]". Actually I don't really like the last bit above - placing the start of the "English Reformation" under Edward is surely unusual among historians, and Edward was taking the Church in a pretty conventionally Protestant direction. The "distinct, Anglican, identity" is normally ascribed to Elizabeth's reign, I think rightly. Johnbod (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
This isn't really a section on the history of the church in England; but specifically of Anglicanism. I think the current consensus would be that many key features that would subsequently become characteristic of Anglicanism are first apparent in the Reformed Church of Edward VI - that certainly is the perspective of Diarmaid Macculloch. Maybe I should add that reference. This is not to say that Edward's Reformed Church was - or indeed aspired to be - 'Anglican'. Edward's reformed church (which in this context largely means Cranmer) aspired to be one of the leading centres of Reformed Learning across Western Christendom (hence the key functions accorded in it by such European reformers as Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr); but a distinct practice, liturgy and theology was created within it that diverged increasingly from concurrent trends in reformed churches in Europe, and specifically Geneva. Subsequently, the Elizabethen Settlement explicitly looked back to this Edwardian reformed church as a model (as for example in the Ornaments Rubric) in conscious rejection of those who argued that ongoing developments in Geneva should be normative for reformed churches throughout Europe. So, it is indeed true that the distinct 'Anglican identity' arose bit-by-bit within the Elizabethan church, but definining components of that identity were taken from the reformed Edwardian Church; even though mainstream European (and Scots) Reformed practice had now moved on to reject these same components as no longer acceptable.
Conventionally, of course, the English Reformation is presented as starting under Henry VIII; a narrative that subsequently accorded with the both Protestant and Catholic historical perspectives; but which is now much contested. But whatever Henry's church was, it was in no sense 'Anglican' either in intention or as a subsequent model. TomHennell (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Well if we are going to depart from convention, we should explain so, and justify it better. At the moment the text does pretty much say "that Edward's Reformed Church was - or indeed aspired to be - 'Anglican'". Oh well, anything to keep the dreaded P-word out of the article. Johnbod (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
We do find the words Protestant and Catholic later in this section (in the bit about Maurice), so perhaps they do need introducing to this bit; if we are taking it as a historical context. The difficulty being that, while most Anglicans over the years have happily tended to understand themselves as both Protestant and Catholic, Catholics do not accept them as Catholic, and Protestants only accept them as Protestant with severe reservations. That especially applies to those elements of the Anglican tradition and identity that go back to the Edwardian Chuch - such as the Book of Common Prayer, with its radically innovative structures of congregational participation in the liturgy. But all this needs referencing. TomHennell (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I find it's more that both Catholics and Protestants accept, with a certain sniffiness, some Anglicans as being of their tradition, but not those who self-identify with the other of the terms - which is understandable really. Johnbod (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

References[edit]

  1. ^ Heinrich Zimmer, Professor of Celtic Philology in the University of Berlin. The Celtic Church in Britain and Ireland (in English). Ballantyne, Hanson & Co. pp. 107–109. "For although we differ widely from the current views with regard to the introduction and development of Irish Christianity down to the days of Columba, yet this does not affect the fundamental view, shared by most modern investigators, as to the relation of the institutions of the Celtic Church towards those of the Roman Church at the beginning of the seventh century. On the contrary, with regard to the Irish branch, this view receives fresh support from our statements. Neither from what tradition tells us about the doctrines and institutions of the Celtic Church, nor from what we know or may fairly conjecture about her history, do we receive any support for the hypothesis that the Celtic Church during her golden age greatly resembled the Church of the apostolic era in institutions and dogma. Just as Britain was a part of the Roman Empire, so the British Church formed (during the fourth century) a branch of the Catholic Church of the West; and during the whole of that century, from the council of Arles (316) onward, took part in all proceedings concerning the Church. But the Irish branch of the Celtic Church was an offshoot of that British Church, and had sprung up as early as the fourth century. At the beginning of the seventh century the institutions of the Celtic Church on either side of the Irish Sea showed divergences from the Church of Rome which are well attested. These, on a closer view, admit of full explanation. Above all, we must not forget the fact that in the Roman Catholic Church the position of the Roman bishop during the fourth century and up to the time of Leo the Great (440-461) differed from that of Pope Gregory the Great (509-604) at the end of the sixth century. At the beginning of the seventh century rigid uniformity of institutions was regarded as an essential requirement of the unitas catholica ; but to the fourth century this idea was wholly foreign. Besides, many innovations took long to domesticate themselves with the distant branches of the Church. At the end of the fourth century the British branch of the Catholic Church, together with its offshoot in the barbarian isle, were severed from Rome, because political Rome had lost its hold on Britain." 
  2. ^ Koch, John T. (2006). Celtic culture: a historical encyclopedia (in English). ABC-CLIO. p. 431. ISBN 1851094407. "'Celtic Christianity' is a phrase used, with varying degrees of specificity, to designate a complex of features held to have been common to the Celtic speaking countries in the early Middle Ages. Doubts concerning the term's usefulness have repeatedly been expressed, however, and the majority of scholars consider it to be problematic. While there is considerable evidence for divergent Irish and (to an even greater degree) British practice in matters of liturgy, baptism, and ecclesiastical administration, the usages in question seem only to have characterized specific regions, and not necessarily to have been uniformly present there. Only the Britons were accused of practising a heterodox baptism; traces of an archaic liturgy in Wales find no counterpart in the eclectic, but largely Gallican, worship attested from Ireland; and the superiority of abbots to bishops appears to have been limited to some parts of Gaelic sphere of influence."