Jump to content

Talk:Anglican Church of Australia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 110.33.120.196 (talk) at 03:25, 28 October 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Stub

Article is a stub, compare with Uniting Church in Australia, Baptist Union of Australia, Churches of Christ in Australia

See also the article on the Anglican Diocese of Sydney: Sydney Anglicans

Suggested organisation of article

  • Background
    • History
  • Theology
  • Ministry
  • Liturgy
  • Authority and Decision making
  • Culture
    • Controversy
  • Dioceses
    • Adelaide
    • Sydney
    • Murray
    • ...

Paul foord 29 June 2005 11:40 (UTC)

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! Fishhead64 06:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uniform format proposal

A proposal is being floated at the project page that there be a standard format for organising each article about national provinces of the Anglican Communion, including this one. Please consider participating in the straw vote and discussion. Cheers! Fishhead64 21:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Personal Ordinariate

Apart from the Traditional Anglican Communion, the article should really consider verifying whether groups within the Anglican Church of Australia have ever sought a similar canonical structure to the proposed personal ordinariates. ADM (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could be expanded

This seems to be a rather dry outline of formal institutional history and current institutional structure. It would be nice to expand it with something on the social role of the church in Australian history, the apparent current declining membership trend, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 12:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason the church was started...

There should be some inclusion of the historical ROOTS of the church. Although the Anglicans have really tried a lot of public relations - including so far as CHANGING their name away from the "Church of England" to "Anglican" - the REASON why the whole church was started was not based on theological reasons - e.g. charismatic gifts (as for Pentecostals), to be able to dunk in water (as for Baptists), because of grace (for Lutherans) - but because King Henry the 8th wanted to SHAG his brother's wife, and the pope wouldn't let him. This is disgraceful! But no matter how much Anglicans want to distinguish their future, that is the reality and the truth, and MUST be included as a FACT of HISTORY. 110.33.120.196 (talk) 09:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have not even the most basic grasp of English church history. The process which led to the English Church breaking its ties with Rome began many years before Henry VIII was born; and the first date at which the Church of England may be counted a denomination, rather than a separated branch, is certainly long after Henry's death. Henry VIII's marital affairs were certainly a significant influence on the climactic moment when the legal break occurred with Rome, but they were not the starting point nor the ending point of the whole process, neither were they the only significant influence during Henry's reign - far from it. You have a lot of reading to do. You also have a lot to learn about polite communication. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 19:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm Timothy Titus... so anybody who does not share your point of view is not "polite"? Saying the truth is not polite?? I'm sorry, but I don't know how to be any more polite, when it is a known fact that a whole denomination of Church was started because the King wanted to shag his brother's wife. The "church" (and I put this in quotation marks intentionally) went so far as to crucify Thomas More for this simply because he had a differing point of view! (much akin to how you are trying to assassinate my character on one of the other talk pages by describing me as "ignorant". By the way, I think you are far better off by trying not to cover up the scandalous history of the church, by saying "Henry VIII's marital affairs"... His "marital affairs"?? You mean his horny sexual appetite?
Also, this is not to mention that this dude became the self-proclaimed "pope" of the Church of England. Currently, the "head" of the Church of England is the Queen... and Lord, is she far from a good theologian! And she is a woman - I thought you guys believe women can't Lord over men ;) ? This is not to mention your original pope, King Henry the 8th, who can I say seemed to have reckless disregard for what it says in the bible about divorce!
Your argument, an attempt to rewrite history, is sort of analogous to the Muslim (or even Mormon) attempt to rewrite history. For example, they say that not only was Muhammed a Muslim - but so was Abraham, Adam, heck, even Jesus! This is clearly contains YOUR bias, and is not a fact of history. Yes, I understand, EVERYTHING is a process - even the process of "accepting Jesus" (it is hard to pinpoint a particular date). Nonetheless, as a matter of "sine qua non causation" (but-for causation) as a matter of biblical hermeneutics, but-for King Henry's horny sexcapade, the Church of England would've never been.
And once again, I'll make myself clear - I am NOT talking about the church in England. That was as a major part the Catholic Church. But it nonetheless wasn't the only church in England anyway. Do not go rewriting history and claim that the Catholic Church in England was in any legal way the Church of England/Anglican Church - akin to how the Muslims have claimed that Jesus was Muslim. Well... I'll be damned if Jesus was Muslim anyway! 110.33.120.196 (talk) 10:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are too emotionally attached and biased towards the Church of England, which is probably the "church" that you attend. Thus it is useful to use an analogy. For example, compare a legitimate corporate spin-off with one that is not legitimate. For instance, the spin off "21st Century Fox" can be legitimately traced back to the history of News Corp. However, say if several employees from the company ABC decided to illegitimately spin off into company XYZ, the latter company (XYZ) cannot legitimately include in their historical and marketing documentation, advertise that they were somehow "dating back" to ABC, because at the point of ABC, there was NEVER even consideration of the existence of XYZ. It is a clear rewrite of history. Yes, you can say "a whole bunch of churches who were apart of the Catholic Church in England were hijacked by King Henry the 8th who made himself the head of the church", but do not dare to say "the Church of England dates back to when Augustine brought the Christian faith to England" because that does not relate to the Church of England - it relates to the Church in England! I know for someone who goes to a church who has difficulty separating church and state you don't understand it - but it's different ;) Unlike other churches, we don't use politics to coerce people to believe in Christ ;) ! 110.33.120.196 (talk) 11:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Henry VIII never claimed to be a Pope. He did title himself "Head of the Church" for a while, though he relented on that one. No English monarch since him has ever used that phrase, which would be considered a blasphemy in most Chirstian denominations, as the Bible identifies only Christ as "Head of the Church". As Supreme Governor (the actual title of the monarch) the Queen is essentially "chief lay member" and a figurehead, having no actual authority other than moral and ceremonial roles. Despite your comments, she is actually quite accomplished theologically. There is no Pope in Anglicanism, which is actually one of the chief points of its existence, and even the chief ministerial role (Archbishop of Canterbury) is fundamentally different from Papacy. Your understanding of the Church of England's view of women is also very odd. A full third of the CofE's ordained deacons and priests are female; it currently has no female bishops, but the legislation is in place for women to be ordained as bishops. Again, your ignorance of the facts is stunning. Your ignorance of Wikipedia is equally stunning if you think we're going to introduce the phrase "shag" into this article; it belongs in articles about carpets, not churches. The Church established by Augustine was wholly continuous with the Church of England as a (later) legal entity. There was never any break. The buildings, clergy, worshippers, scriptures (and for a long time even the liturgies), were the same throughout Henry's reign, both before and after his break from Papal authority. Liturgical changes were a long time coming, and came by way of gradual process. Also, go and read about the influences on the English Reformation, which begin about 200 years before Henry VIII was born. The monarchy was powerful in his day, but the English Reformation would have been impossible at the King's whim; it occurred because of the influences of the previous two centuries, and the King's marital affairs were nothing more than a trigger. Get yourself a copy of "The English Reformation" by A G Dickens (Fontana Press) which is an excellent one-volume survey of the topic, and was required reading before commencing Theology at Oxford in my day - which wasn't that long ago, so it probably still is. Finally, my references to you being impolite are quite unrelated to my or your views on this or any other matter - they are a reference to your vulgar and intemperate language. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 12:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No offense pal, but for someone who studied Theology at Oxford, your history sure is poor!
First, regarding your statement "The Church established by Augustine was wholly continuous with the Church of England as a (later) legal entity" - this is false, and baseless Anglican propaganda. Let me quote this passage from the current WIki page for Supreme Head of the Church of England: "By 1536, Henry had broken with Rome, seized the church's assets in England and declared the Church of England as the established church with himself as its head". So as you can see, the Catholic Church in England once again, as I stated before, didn't "continue on" as the Church of England. King Henry the 8th using his POLITICAL power essentially STOLE the Catholic Church's assets in England, and established himself as its self-declared head. The only reason why your statement "The buildings, clergy, worshippers, scriptures (and for a long time even the liturgies), were the same throughout Henry's reign" is true is because this narcissistic King Henry the 8th character STOLE the Catholic assets
Now yes, he didn't call himself the "pope", but he essentially took the title of the "Head" of the Church, which is what the function of the pope was!
Your statement "No English monarch since him [Henry 8th] has ever used that phrase" is also blatantly false because Edward 6th, born 1537, aged only 10 years old when Henry 8th died, was also given the name "Supreme Head of the Church of England", in what can only make Kim Jong Un look good! 110.33.120.196 (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, just a warning to other users about User:Timothy_Titus, if you look on his Wiki talk page, it states that he is a Freemason. How he can dare call himself an Anglican is beyond me! Read this for a biblical perspective on Freemasonary cult: http://www.gotquestions.org/free-masonry.html 110.33.120.196 (talk) 03:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Public admission by the "Primate of Australia" of SYSTEMATIC child sex "cover-up"

Although in the past this was lurking in the shadows (sort of thing where everybody knows but no one dared raise) - it has now become PUBLIC - as in this The Australian article (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/anglican-church-acknowledges-access-to-choir-for-pederast-cleric/story-e6frg6nf-1227100348402?nk=b7f4d47d772592139c4542eeea1de640), that the "Primate of Australia" - Archbishop Philip Freier who ACKNOWLEDGED paedophile clergymen were allowed to access choirboys after complaints were made to church officials - and that this was followed by a huge cover up. The 164-page report by British judge Sally Cahill (yes, a woman...) in Britain found "systemic failure" of churches - not only in Britain, but also Australia 110.33.120.196 (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of you must surely feel ashamed when you open a newspaper and see the "Anglican Church" name essentially synonymous with "child sex abuse". Here are a few quotes someone maybe wants to use though:
Not sure about you, but all I can gather out of that is that (1) the Anglican Church is all about $$$$ and considers that more top priority than children; (2) they lie and pretend like they can't remember conversations (just like unethical politicians) to get whatever means they want; (3) rather protect their own fellow "church men" than children... so much for "love your neighbor" if not "love your enemy" that Jesus promulgated; (4) when investigations are made they are compromised, biased; (5) action is never taken quickly on child abuse; (6) Anglicans try not to document anything about child abuse, so that there is no evidence of their wrong doing around the place; (7) This is what truly disgusts me - "pastors raped little children", but also flogged them, beat them - at least some other pedophiles have the decency to treat their victims with some dignity (give candy, cigarettes, toys, etc to their abused victims)! 110.33.120.196 (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anglican_Church_of_Australia&oldid=631416526"