Talk:Church of England

Prayer Book

"...are based on older Catholic tradition but have been moderately influenced by Reformation liturgical and doctrinal principles." I think this sentence in the intro paragraph misleadingly minimizes the influence of the Reformation on the Book of Common prayer, or at least gives the impression of only marginal impact. Perhaps something along the lines of "are both rooted in pre-Reformation liturgical tradition and incorporates protestant liturgical and doctrinal principles" is more accurate. (Mwd321 (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC))

"Worship and liturgy": perhaps this is unclear "The BCP remains the touchstone of all Anglican liturgy.^{[citation needed]}": as later service books can include forms that would not have been in use in earlier times this is doubtful and the positon must vary within the Communion as a whole.----Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 05:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"Entering the latter 20th century worship has evolved into modern songs as well as hymn singing. Notably Tim Hughes of Holy Trinity Brompton and Graham Kendrick." Can this statement be sustained? IMHO new hymns and songs of praise have been continually introduced into liturgical worship over the centuries 01:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrahamSmith (talk • contribs)

Areas and Archdeaconries

I am somewhat obsessive on the subject of verifying what seems obvious. If a diocese is divided into areas, are the areas then subdivided into archdeaconries, and those into deaneries? J S Ayer (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe so, yes. Most dioceses are simply divided into archdeaconries, which are further divided into deaneries. In some dioceses the diocese is divided into Episcopal Areas which are then subdivided into archdeaconries, which are in turn subdivided into deaneries. (To complicate things further, rural deans in some dioceses are known as area deans, so 'area' could also refer to a deanery rather than an Episcopal Area.) There's probably no technical reason why an archdeaconry shouldn't span multiple Episcopal Areas, but I would think that this would normally be avoided.

There's no reason that each of these subdivisions has to necessarily be multiple - the Diocese of Sodor and Man, for example, is so small that it only consists of one archdeaconry. TSP (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Biased article?

Perhaps not. Why no discussion of how biased the media coverage of the Succession Rites was? It had nought to do with Roman Catholicism. One might be reminded of the similar oath to St. George in the Rites in the House of Commons which resulted in Benjamin Disraeli becoming Prime Minister. Perhaps the discussion of Jewish or dear goodness, Islamic individuals was deflected toward the good old Catholics? Did someone mention a divorce? Perhaps the Gilman lad or suchilke? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.122.39.254 (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of divorce. This is a church that was founded solely so that a king could get a divorce. Why is there no mention of it? Rmisiak (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think King Henry's divorce is part of the doctrine of the C of E, but I agree that a mention could be made in the historical origins section. Of course, that C of E was just a branch of the Roman Catholic Church that had split with Rome. It became a Protestant church later, didn't it? Dbfirs 17:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Which would be a POV problem. :) There is a great difficulty in writing an NPOV history of the Church of England about how to describe its continuity or lack of continuity with the medieval Church of England, and I'm not sure how best to solve it. Tb (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(later, having read the article properly ...) Henry's marriage breakup is mentioned, but it is called annulment, not divorce. The article also makes clear that the C of E was not founded solely for the King's divorce, in fact, it would be a biased view to say this wouldn't it? I think the article should be left as it is, without bias as far as is possible with such strong feelings on both sides. Dbfirs 17:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was being opaque. I agree with you that the description of Henry VIII is fine as is, and I also am happy with the article as it stands. Tb (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest, with some timidity, that after the word "Lollardy" in Paragraph 5 a phrase regarding the continuing tensions between church and state regarding the wealth of the church should be included. Even Shakespeare couldn't avoid a mention of the issue in "Henry V", although I do not offer his works as a source. Something like "and long running tensions resulting from the considerable comparative wealth of the Church in England enabling the Church in some circumstances to dictate secular policy." Drg40 (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

pre-597?

Quoting the current version of the history section, I learn that:

The earliest unquestioned historical evidence of an organized Christian church in England is found in the writings of such early Christian fathers as Tertullian and Origen in the first years of the 3rd century, although the first Christian communities probably were established some decades earlier. Three English bishops, including Restitutus, are known to have been present at the Council of Arles in 314. The Church of England traces its formal corporate history from the 597 Augustinian mission, stresses its continuity and identity with the primitive universal Western church, and notes the consolidation of its particular independent and national character in the post-Reformation events of Tudor England.

There is no source for the statement that the formal corporate history is traced from the 597 mission. Were the English bishops at the Council of Arles not part of the formal corporate history? If the historical evidence from the third century is unquestioned and shows an organized Christian church in England, then either this is a contradiction, or that organized Christian church was a different one from the one that converted to Catholicism (recently changed to that term from "Western Christianity", which in turn was a substitute for "Roman Catholicism").--Bhuck (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've always understood that there was no way to trace formal continuity between the late Roman Chrisitan community in Britannia in 312, and the new mission by Augustine in 597. The incoming Angls, Saxons etc put paid to that. From Augustine we can trace with some certainty through to the present day a line of Archbishops of Canterbury (which are numbered from Augustine, and indeed enthroned on the chair named for hinm). David Underdown (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of Infoboxes

I have added {{Infobox Christian denomination}} back in. Aside from the fact that the Church of England is a recognised Christian denomination, this infobox allows extra detail to be shown over and above {{Infobox Anglican Church‎}}. GrahamSmith (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it really makes sense to use it on the CofE article, which is only one part of the Anglican Communion. As has been discussed before, some of the sectoins in that infobox are rather simplistic anyway. Certainly the idea of "Mainline" Protestantism isn't one taht's commonly used in England (and would be disputed by Anglo-Catholic members of the church anyway). David Underdown (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"Church of England" is not a denomination, "Anglicanism" is a denomination. This is the Church of England page, which needs the Anglican church box (which is what it is), and not the Christian denomination box (which it isn't). Tb (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It is necessary to repudiate Tb's statement that "Church of England" is not a denomination. The Church of England is a denomination by:

 • historic schism: Following his break with Rome Henry VIII created the Church of England. In due course, Elizabeth I was lawfully made Supreme Governor of the Church of England and this succession has continued to the present day.

 • public recognition: "[people ask me] ...'What Church do you belong to?', meaning perhaps a local parish Church or perhaps a denomination, 'The Church of England' or 'The Methodist Church'."

 • common usage: The BBC's definitive article on the Church of England states: "On any one Sunday more than a million people attend Church of England services making it the largest Christian denomination in the country."

 • statute: The Church of England is a recognised denomination for legislative purposes. There are numerous instances of Statutory Instruments making orders for the designation of schools having a religious character where the Religious Denomination is stated to be "Church of England" (cf. Roman Catholic, Muslim), for example SI 2008 No. 3147 "The Designation of Schools having a Religious Character (England) (No. 2) Order 2008"

 • its own perception: "The Church of England has the largest following of any denomination or faith in Britain today." (my emphasis)

Likewise, as the introductory sentence to Wikipedia's article on the subject makes clear, Anglicanism is a tradition of Christian faith. It comprises many denominations that share much in common: that is surely why we refer to the the Anglican Communion? And now that we've finished counting the angels on that particular pinhead... <grin> GrahamSmith (talk) 06:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

References

The piont is that the Church of England is the English representation of the Anglican Communion, it makes more sense in the context of a global encyclopaedia to see the denomination as the Anglican Communion, rather than as one province within that Communion. We talk about the Anglican Communion rather than Anglicanism so as to be clear that we are excluding certain churches that claim to be in the Anglican tradition, but which are not part of the Communion. David Underdown (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

quoting David Underdown:
>"...rather than as one province within that Communion
Er, but the Church of England is not ONE province <grin> GrahamSmith (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Province is used in more than once sense, it contains two ecclesiastical provinces, York and Canterbury, but is a single province of the Anglican Communion. As is The Episcopal Church despite the fact it is made up of many more ecclesiastical provinces, the Anglican Church of Southern Africa etc etc.. David Underdown (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

In the standardized Anglican Communion infobox, the label "primate" is for the person who attends the Primates' Meeting and represents that church to the rest of the communion. It is not a reference to whatever individuals have that title internally. It is used, in that infobox, specifically in the sense of the generic Communion-wide model, without respect to the terminological differences within a given Province, and in the same way that it is used for both the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Episcopal Church in the US, neither of which have historically used the title internally. I'd ask the editor who has repeatedly added the Archbishop of York to the infobox, over the objections of now two editors to please desist. Tb (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"Church" or "church"

When - and why and by whom - was it apparently decided that this article should use "Church" instead of "church" when referring to the Church of England as a whole? It is not Wikipedia style to do this and most articles on other churches follow the Wikipedia style - the notable exception being some Roman Catholic articles which are edited by those who want to fanatically insist that "Church" specifically means Roman Catholicism. Please provide some explanation and rationale for this style in this article. Afterwriting (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a useful compromise when the word church can be used in some many different senses in one article, rather than write out Church of England in full everytime, Church is used as shorthand for the specific subject of the article. We do the same with Communion in the Anglican Communion article. David Underdown (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You haven't answered about who decided this style policy - who is the "we" you refer to? I assume you are not using it as a "royal we". Why should this particular article have its own style policy? As many words "can be used in some many different senses in one article" this argument seems rather weak. Afterwriting (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It was argued over long and hard for the same reasons at Roman Catholic Church, and so far as I remember became consensus there for braodly the reasons I've outlined here. At different times we can be talking about church buildings, other Anglican churches etc etc. Using the capital is just the most straight forward way of disambiguating. The usage on Anglican Communion was ceratinly discussed, maybe it hasn't been specifically here, but it seems a useful convention when church is effectively being used as a term of art. David Underdown (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It is fairly normal practice that Church with a big C refers to a denomination e.g. United Reformed Church, Church of England, Roman Catholic Church etc. But it is fairly normal practice that church with a small c refers to a congregation e.g. a church meeting, a church youth group etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.187.79 (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

~ That seems to make sense. A Church is an institution, and a church is a building. I suppose you would also therefore have Christian Churches and Christian churches. 90.193.97.18 (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Denomination Info Box II

This was discussed here and elsewhere 2 years ago and it was concluded that the "one size fits all" denomination info box was a bad fit for churches in the Anglican Communion - which already has their own boxs, anyway. See above. -- Secisek (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Not only in England

Unless I've missed it, the article doesn't make any reference to the fact that the Church of England has not been ( and still isn't ) confined to England itself. Here in Australia, for instance, the Anglican Church was for a long time an actual extension of the Church of England itself. There is also still today the C. of E. Diocese in Europe. Therefore the opening comments are not entirely correct. Afterwriting (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It's true so far as it goes, it is the established church in England, the Dicoese of Gibraltar in Europe forms a part of the Church of England, but not the established church (its Diocesan is not entitled to a seat in the Lords for example). Similarly Sodor and Man is not entitled to a seat in the Lrods, but does sit in some capacity in the House of Keys, the Channel Islands are also interesting, not part of the UK, in church terms they are an integral par of the Anglican Diocese of Portsmouth, and I'm really not sure of the consitutional position of the church there. There's the added complication that the boundary between the Church of England and Church in Wales doesn't follow the civil boundaries, so some Welsh parishes are still in the Church of England, and some English in CinW. Try and sumamrise that succinctly enough for the lead!

But in generla terms we problem ought to deal a little more with the historical aspects, thoguh clearly much would belong in History of the Church of England, and also in discussing the formation of the Anglican Communion. 15:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:National churches vs. Category:Church of England

Category:Church of England is itself a category within Category:National churches. — Robert Greer (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Moved section here

Somehow I don't think a prayer for the current economic crisis is such a major part of the CofE that it derserves an entire section dedicated to it. That said, I've moved the complete section here:

"The Prayer for the Current Financial Situation was launched in September 2008 to offer the opportunity for prayer and reflection during the credit crisis. The prayer notes that 'we live in disturbing days', with rising prices, increasing debts, job losses and collapsing banks, and calls God to be a 'a tower of strength amidst the shifting sands' of the economic turmoil. When the prayer was published by the Church of England on its official website, traffic to that section of the website increased by more than 25 percent.[23]" Ltwin (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Scottish Epicopal Church

I have removed the comments about the Scottish Episcopal Church in the introduction for the reason that the original and essentially correct information is that the Church of England is the "Mother Church" of the Anglican Communion. This does not therefore mean that that the Church of England is directly the Mother Church of every church or province which is now part of the communion. Various parts of the Anglican Communion ( such as the Scottish church ) were more directly founded by the American church ( or some other member church ) - but that does not negate the fact the origins of these churches are still historically traced back to the Church of England even if less directly. It should also so mentioned that not all parts of the current Anglican Communion are historically "Anglican" churches as such and therefore their historical connection to the Church of England is even more indirect. Afterwriting (talk) 06:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Structure

"Province... under the jurisdiction of an archbishop, i.e. the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. Decision making within the province is the responsibility of the General Synod (see also above). A province is subdivided into dioceses."

Shouldn't it read like "under the jurisdiction of a metropolitan, the only two being the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. Decision making within the province is the responsibility of the General Synod (see also above). A province comprises dioceses." ? 118.90.15.97 (talk) 05:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely the term metropolitan in relation to those charged with episcopal oversight is in common usage only within the Eastern Orthodox Church, not churches that follow a catholic theology (such as the Church of England)? 09:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrahamSmith (talk • contribs)

It's certianly used fairly commonly in Roman Catholicism, the RC catehdral in Liverpool being often referred to as Liverpool Met (when the names Mersey Funnel and Paddy's Wigwam aren't used). It's less commonly used in CofE, but the full formal titles of Canterbury Cathedral and York Minster do include it I think. David Underdown (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Canterbury Cathedral is a "Metropolitical Church" :D I guess it is only a minor issue, however very strictly apeaking a province is not an area "under the jurisdiction of an archbishop" (that would be an archdiocese).

[I just saw the articles Archbishop of Canterbury and Archbishop of York, and those pages make clear the distinction.] 118.90.15.97 (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Disestablishment dates?

Any list somewhere?

According to the "A~Z of Barbadian Heritage" it says that Barbados was the last place in the British West Indies to "disestablish" the Church of England as the official state religion (in 1969)? Is there a list anywhere that actually lists those dates of disestablishment?

• Source: The A~Z of Barbados Heritage by (Sean) Carrington, (Henry) Fraser, (John) Gilmore, and (Addington) Forde on Pg. 8 "Anglicanism": (quote) Anglicanism was the state religion in England at the time of settlement of Barbados, and it was brought to the new colony as a matter of course. A Rev. Mr. Kentlane, who was in the island in 1628, is the first Anglican clergyman known to have been in Barbados. The island was divided into six parishes by 1630, and by 1637 there were six parish churches; by 1653 (if not a year or two earlier) all eleven parishes were in existence.

[ . . . ]

The church remained strongly identified with the oligarchy, when the church was disestablished and dis-endowed elsewhere in the British West Indies at the end of the 1860s, there was much debate as to whether Barbados should take the same course, but the (Barbados) House of Assembly refused to do so. Disestablishment did not finally take place until 1969, so that for about a century Barbados was the only place outside of Britain where Anglicanism enjoyed the privileges of a state church! in some ways it was even more of a state church than in England, for the bishop and clergy were paid directly out of general taxation, and the provision of much smaller government grants to some other denominations ('concurrent endowment') did not disguise the special position given to Anglicanism. [ . . . ] (/end quote)

CaribDigita (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC) thank you for listing to the real facts by maisie xx

Anglican Creeds

The external link to the C of E church law site doesn't mention which creeds are used for doctrine. My understanding was that the C of E regards the Nicene Creed (with Filioque?) as useful/binding and the Apostolic Creed as a useful summary at baptism 194.176.105.41 (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

"officially established"

The article begins by saying that the church is the "officially established" Christian church in England. Is the word "officially" actually necessary and isn't it somewhat redundant? One would assume that any established church would have to be "officially" given that status. Ltwin (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Mind the Gap

Interesting history section, but did nothing happen between 664 and 1534? A quiet 700 years by the look of it. If anyone can contribute material about the Norman church it would be interesting.Wikidwitch (talk) 12:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Spelling of "south-west" and "well-being"

I changed the spelling of "southwest" and "wellbeing" to "south-west" and "well-being" and was very surprised to discover that the change was reverted - twice.

The first time I was told that "southwest" and "wellbeing" are both acceptable and common; however, I don't agree that either is acceptable. To support this view, I note that both the SOED and the COD contain entries for "south-west" and "well-being", but don't record "southwest" and "wellbeing" even as alternative spellings. As the "Church of England" article is written in British English, surely these dictionaries are appropriate authorities.

The second time I was asked who says they are not acceptable and whether I own this article. As I mentioned earlier, the SOED and the COD say so. Furthermore, while I don't own this article, I do have the same editing rights as everyone else - including those who reverted my changes.

I know that this is a trifling matter, but I don't see why we shouldn't get it right, so I will make the changes again. If you decide to revert them please explain your reasoning here. 219.90.172.71 (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You are, of course, entitled to your opinions and preferences on these matters - but the fact remains that both "wellbeing" and "southwest" are in common use in British English - including British academic publications. In my experience "wellbeing" appears to actually now be the much more preferred British spelling style - especially since the trend in British English is to omit hyphens in most cases. Regardless of your personal preferences - and what the OED might say - both spellings are acceptable alternative spellings so I don't understand why you think that only one spelling is somehow more "correct" or more "British". I am pleased that you realise that other editors have rights to make changes as your edit comments came across as very arrogant and highminded (or should that be "high-minded"?). Anglicanus (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

When it comes to matters relating to the English language I'd rather accept the authority of the OED than your experience. I don't think that makes me high-minded. Were you being high-minded when you removed the hyphen from the article about Ruth Gledhill?

219.90.172.71 (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been able as yet to check the latest editions of the OED. However, it is the principal role of dictionaries to reflect the meanings of words and their spelling - not to dictate them.

The following recent articles are all published in The Independent, an established and quality British newspaper. They should know a few things about what is currently acceptable British English spellings with regards to your insistence of what is considered "incorrect" and "unacceptable" spelling. All these articles use the spellings in the article and also in the article's and/or webpage's headline:

1. "Wellbeing": http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-defends-wellbeing-measure-2143595.html

2. "Southwest": http://www.independent.co.uk/extras/indybest/outdoor-activity/the-50-best-festivals-1972523.html?action=Gallery&ino=48

3. "Longstanding": http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/the-iiosi-green-list-britains-top-100-environmentalists-958711.html?action=Gallery&ino=55

Anglicanus (talk) 09:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)