|WikiProject Christianity / Anglicanism||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
Novel teachings and practices
I have added a neutrality tag to the "Novel teachings and practices" section. I do not believe this is a neutral portayal of the position of those who advocate the ordination of gay, lesbian and bisexual people within the Episcopal Church. Not being Anglican myself, however, I'm not totally comfortable making these changes. aliceinlampyland 19:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC).
- This is important to discuss, but not with unverifiable statements in the style of an essay. I deleted it so someone knowledgeable can start again. In theory it could say something like x, a Roman Catholic bishop, said in 2005 that the Church cannot progress towards unity with Anglicanism until innovative ECUSA doctrines y and z are reversed. Commentator a says this is a widely held view in the Vatican. Meanwhile, Anglo-Catholic theologians b and c and bishops d and e said that they no longer hold to branch theory
Neutrality and factual accuracy
A problem exists with this section of the article in that there is no evidence that amongst those churches in full communion with the Episcopal Church USA, that they do not claim apostolic succession (ELCA) and also the fact that as a member of the Anglican Communion through the Porvoo Communion (which was signed by the CofE) the ECUSA is in communion with Lutheran bodies in Europe that hold to apostolic succession and they are in communion with Lutheran bodies that hold to apostolic succession in the Lutheran World Federation (in the US: the ELCA). simonmatt1100 18:25 1 Apr 2007
Since when is the ROCOR indicative of Eastern Orthodox consensus?
As far as I know, it wasn't even in communion with the Russian Orthodox Patriarchate until 2007. Their opinions (and 'anathemas') hardly qualify as common Christian Orthodox ground. How about adding something more substantial to the Orthodox stance towards branch theory? 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Yet another street-preachers sermon!!
D-class or E-class! I don't believe it! I think it is 90% bogus, a frank and sneaky hoax. The article is mostly lacking references supporting the central discourse, which is that there is a "Branch theory" with adherents in various churches. The "article" uses seemingly relevant references to prove its point, not to support the central discourse. The current article seems like a grave WP:SYNTH. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 22:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- The section Protestant claims that the general nonadherence to the doctrine of "apostolic succession" should disqualify it as a branch of "the church". That is either flawed logics - a non-sequitur - or due to that the article over this alleged theory lacks a proper definition. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 22:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)