Talk:Church of England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon Church of England is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Church of England at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
 

Total baptized[edit]

There may be a source for the figure 27 million baptized, but it's not either of the two currently being used. The Times gives 25 million plus, the Beeb gives "about" 26 million. Those are figures for all of the United Kingdom, although some parts of the page—such as the map of dioceses—make it seem like this page is only about the church in England, in which case there's no source at all for the number but it's significantly under even 25 million. — LlywelynII 18:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The World Council of Churches uses the number 25 million and the Church of England Yearbook 2004 gives the number of 26 million.SeminarianJohn (talk) 10:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with A Church Near You[edit]

Shall we merge A Church Near You into this article? George Ho (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the merger is a good idea. The website doesn't appear to be notable as a separate entity. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The website is under copyright by the Archbishops' Council. It is even linked to by the official website for the Church of England (https://www.churchofengland.org/) Susdit.genre (talk) 07:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
How exactly do you plan on integrating this article into the Church of England article without sounding weird? Seems like it would be more misplaced there and really deserves its own article. Has no one looked for more reliable sources to help add to this page? Again, it seems like a strange merge proposal to me. 69.73.114.64 (talk) (ex user) 19:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
This page is basically a promotional ad for a product being peddled by The Anglican Church. None of the sources are third party, and shameless name-dropping ("...with a radio campaign backed by actor Jeremy Irons") isn't even backed by sources, therefore failing to meet Wikipedia Notability guidelines. The only reason anyone has let it live this long is because it's connected to a church, and churches are considered non-profits. I think a merger into Church of England is a generous offering over complete deletion. The only user who argues to keep it is hiding behind a naked IP. Kendrickhaveadream (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
"...a vital criteria for finding a church in which people could marry." How could peacock words like "vital" followed by a very expensive product get away on any other venue's Wiki? Imagine a sentence like that connected to a web product the Plaza Hotel put out. Kendrickhaveadream (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion has been dragging on for four months, with little interest. The consensus seems to be to merge the article. I've copied some of the text to this article, but I've deleted the fluff and self-promotion. Other editors feel free to correct the section as you seen fit. --Hazhk (talk) 13:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me. Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST:re}} (Talk) 06:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
See: Dissolution of the Monasteries; I think Catholics would like to know what is going to happen with the ruins located in England. There was apparently a massive destruction of them when the Churches collided (or when the Church of England was forged) and monasteries were subject to destruction. Is there anything like that to help grow Wiki (geolocations), to give the directory a historical aspect? Twillisjr (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

20th Century[edit]

Sections in "History" : It seems odd to have the 20th Century not present between the 19th and the 21st; it was, after all, quite eventful. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Founder, founding date[edit]

There doesn't seem to have ever been a consensus here that Augustine founded the Church of England in 597, let alone any reliable sources for that claim, as opposed to the Church itself tracing its history to that papal mission which is (correctly) stated in the lead. Haldraper (talk) 10:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks that Henry VIII founded the Church of England knows very little about its history. Did you really think you would get away with that? Anglicanus (talk) 10:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I do think that as it happens, but that's beside the point. You need to provide reliable sources to back up the claim that Augustine did. There also seems to be little point in having a link to "Roman Catholic Church" in the infobox which immediately redirects the reader to the correct page title of "Catholic Church". Haldraper (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

As stated above by Anglicanus, the suggestion that Henry VIII founded the CofE simply reflects a very poor knowledge of church history - and a very poor understanding of the man Henry VIII too. If you want a source just pick up any of the thousands of books on English church history. It won't wash. As for your comments about "Roman Catholic Church", there are multiple reasons why that is the correct phrase to use here. For one, when Henry stopped recognising papal authority over the English Church it was an alteration of the relationship with the western rite Roman Catholic Church, and not any of the other constituent autonomous churches which collectively form the Catholic Church. For another, the English Church continued to be catholic in form and practice (there was no change to liturgy, structure, etc - any alterations which did occur came much later), so again the use of "Roman Catholic Church" makes the position much clearer, and removes ambiguity. For yet another reason, the Church of England remains both the Established Church in England, and the historically consistent Church with the Augustinian mission, and as such is the Catholic and Apostolic Church within England by any theological or legal definition; it does not claim to be the Roman Catholic Church, but it certainly does claim to be (and is) the Catholic Church - again, I am not pushing a personal POV here, merely stating the actual facts of the situation. All of this is why there has been a clear consensus, long-established. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 13:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
It is perfectly acceptable in Wikipedia articles to link to an article via a redirect if the redirect name is more appropriate. Not only is it acceptable but it is also encouraged by the MoS. There is nothing "correct" about the Catholic Church article name. It is simply the name chosen by consensus and was previously Roman Catholic Church also by consensus. When it was changed to its present name the consensus decision included the principle that this was not a reason to also change "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church" in any other articles without consensus. Afterwriting (talk) 14:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
All reliable sources describe the change in status of the Church of England during the 16th century as a reformation, not a foundation. You can only reform something that already exists and the Church in England can also be reliably dated back to St Augustine's mission. Dabbler (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

If that's the case, why isn't the claim that Augustine founded the Church of England in 597 backed by a reliable, independent source?

As a comparison, in the infobox on the Catholic Church page the founder is given as "Jesus Christ, according to Catholic tradition". It might be possible to do something similar here. Haldraper (talk) 08:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

There ARE references (in the corresponding lead paragraph text), currently (as of today) refs 5 & 6. There is also a link to the CofE History page for those who wish to go into more detail on the Augustian mission, and Augustine's founding of the Church. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 09:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


Those refs only support the CofE's claim to have been founded by Augustine, not an academic consensus that he did.

A Google search for "founder of the Church of England" tends towards Henry VIII being widely regarded as such, for example here: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gPYVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA181&dq=%22founder+of+the+church+of+england%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjHrv-b4JzLAhXFuBQKHWZgC7kQ6AEIKTAB#v=onepage&q=%22founder%20of%20the%20church%20of%20england%22&f=false

Haldraper (talk) 10:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of what some academics think, the Church of England itself has never considered that it was founded in the 16th century by Henry. That is the usual ignorant and polemical Roman Catholic viewpoint but it is not the Church of England's own understanding ~ which is that it is the continuation of the English Church which existed prior to the English Reformation. Roman Catholics and others can disagree with the validity of this claim but they cannot avoid the fact that this is what is claimed. On the issue of Augustine as "founder" I also have some doubts that he should be referred to as such in the info box without the inclusion of "according to Anglican tradition" or something similar. Afterwriting (talk) 12:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

As you say, there is no dispute that the CofE considers itself as having been founded by Augustine, as stated in the lead. As for the infobox, I concur with the idea of adding "according to Anglican tradition". It also reads at the moment as though the CofE separated from the Catholic Church in 597 which obviously needs fixing. Haldraper (talk) 12:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Would an alternative be to have two values in each category? Augustine of Canterbury / Henry VII; 597 / 1534. This is roughly what is done in the case of, e.g. Newcastle University (which dates its founding both to the start of Durham University activity in Newcastle, and to its separation from Durham).
I don't think the analogy to the Catholic Church article quite lines up; what that page is saying is that the origins of the church are outside of reliable historical record, but it understands itself to have been founded by Jesus. In this case, the historical events are not in doubt, the question is what part of them constitutes a founding of the church; so the same solution is not necessarily appropriate.
(I would prefer to have no value than only Henry VIII, whether or not that is the popular understanding.) TSP (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think that might work. Haldraper (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I cannot see at all how this might work. Both "founders" are disputed and at least one will not be considered factually correct by many. In my own view neither is a founder in any clear sense. There is also no requirement, surely, that any "founder(s)" be mentioned in the info box. In this case, therefore, I suggest the most sensible thing is to not maker any claim or assertion in the info box who the founder is but leave the issue to the article itself. I note that no founder is mentioned in the Eastern Orthodox Church article. Not an exact analogy of course but it indicates that information about founders is not really needed. Anglicanus (talk) 04:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Anglicanus and TSP who appear to be well educated and informed editors. The article is merely relaying the information that the CoE understands itself to be traced to St. Augustine of Canterbury and even Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would agree that the Church in England has ancient roots. To suggest that King Henry suddenly founded a 'new' institution would be inconsistent with history and the CoE's self-understanding. TSP rightly points out that there are different conjunctures in the CoE's history that have shaped its formation and evolution. The article already accurately describes how the CoE, and Anglicans in general, trace their roots to St. Augustine and how King Henry separated it from the Church in Rome SeminarianJohn (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the arguments of Haldraper (talk · contribs). However, I have added founder "according to Anglican tradition" as proposed in this discussion, since the view is also reflected in the lead section: "The church dates its establishment to the 6th-century Gregorian mission in Kent led by Augustine of Canterbury". Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

It may have been "proposed" but there was no consensus as subsequent discussion shows. The argument that Augustine "founded" Christianity or a Christian church in England is factually incorrect. He did, however, succeed in making the already existing Christian bishops and communities more organised as well as eventually bringing them under Roman authority. Afterwriting (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I do entirely agree with all of Afterwriting's comments above. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 16:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
If there is a consensus of this view in the lead section, why shouldn't it be indicated in the infobox as also proposed? Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Since none objection have been presented to that argument, I suggested the edit inside the article with a note. Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST:re}} (Talk) 06:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
We can go on arguing about this ad infinitum if you want, but the simple fact is that the history of Christianity in England and the Church of England is too complex to claim that any one person was ever a "founder" of the English Church. Neither Augustine or Henry VIII were the "founder" of the Church of England. Augustine only "established" the English Church as a more official national province of the Western Church under Roman authority and practice. Afterwriting (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

From the History of the Church of England article: "Christianity arrived in the British Isles around AD 47 during the Roman Empire according to Gildas's De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae. Archbishop Restitutus and others are known to have attended the council of Arles in 314." Afterwriting (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

However, the church in Roman Britain is not the same as the church in England, which country only came into existence after the departure of the Romans and the arrival of the pagan Anglo Saxons. The remnants of the original Roman Christians were confined to Wales and Ireland and lost most contact with Rome. They were not in direct line to the English church. The Anglo Saxons were proselytised starting with Augustine of Canterbury and since that time there has always been a church in England and of England. Some of the time it was in communion with Rome and some of the time it was not. So the case for Augustine being the originator of the Church of England (as opposed to Christianity in the British Isles) is very strong. Dabbler (talk) 00:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Although the establishment of a "Church of England", as such, was largely due to Augustine's mission that still does not necessarily make him its founder in my understanding of what the word means. As has been argued previously, we do not need to assert anyone as being the church's founder and there is no consensus among editors regarding this. Let the body of the article describe the complexity of things. Afterwriting (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I reverted some changes by User:Chicbyaccident, using [1] to give a formulation of "it traces its roots to the 6th-century Gregorian mission in Kent led by Augustine of Canterbury". I quite like the idea of this - simply report what the church itself says rather than attempt to evaluate it. However, the source cited says no such thing. It says "The roots of the Church of England go back to the time of the Roman Empire when Christianity entered the Roman province of Britain. Through the influences of St Alban, St Illtud, St Ninian, St Patrick and, later, St Augustine, St Aidan and St Cuthbert, the Church of England developed, acknowledging the authority of the Pope until the Reformation in the 16th century." Given that St Alban is said to have lived in the 3rd or 4th century, and St Illtud in the 5th, this cannot reasonably be characterised as the church tracing its roots to the 6th century. TSP (talk) 13:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Would you be willing to implement that take then in the article? Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST:re}} (Talk)
Before you fix on the Roman date as being the "roots" I think you should look at the more detailed history on this page of the CofE site [2]; This states quite clearly to me that the "roots" are not of the Church itself as an entity but of Christianity in Roman Britain. The Roman church was destroyed by the pagan invasions and Christianity only reestablished itself in England with Augustine. Since Augustine, the Church has had a continuous evolving existence. It went from Roman Catholic to Protestant and so to Anglican while retaining the same corporate existence. The pre-Augustinian church was extirpated and any influences that it had on the CofE were indirect from Rome or the Celtic churches which survived the pagan invasions in Ireland, Wales and Scotland. Dabbler (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Would you mind editing the article accordingly? Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST:re}} (Talk) 19:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I think it's fine how it is - the current statements seem to be reasonably well-sourced? TSP (talk) 11:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The infobox, including the founder varaible, can problably be updated in analogy with that of Church of Ireland, which is more precise. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage and LGBT clergy section[edit]

This section is getting rather long and in-depth - it's now about 1/3rd of the Doctrine and Practice section. While this has significant current relevance, I don't know if this level of detail is justified in an article covering the entirety of the church? (It is, for example, almost the only mention of marriage in the article.)

It's also in a very different style to the rest of the article - the average paragraph length in the article is about 42 words. The average paragraph length in that section is over 300 words. It offers a lot of minor detail (is the action of St Bartholomew's Church really that relevant?) and is quite wooly and subjective in some places (what does "the Church of England has decidedly taken a liberal position on a number of issues relating to human sexuality" mean, and what is the source for it)?

I wonder what's the best approach to this? It could be split out into a separate article where it could more reasonably have the level of detail some parts of it have at the moment. I think if not it should be cut down a bit to take out some of the more subjective bits and cut down the level of detail a little. It should also be significantly copyedited into 2-3 sentence paragraphs like the rest of the article, rather than 15-sentence paragraphs as at present! TSP (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I would be in favour of splitting of into an article like Homosexuality and the Anglican Church of Canada for example. Just leave a short summary and a link to the new article. Dabbler (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I would also favour splitting it into another article as is done with the Anglican Church of Canada. That separation seems like it could provide the in depth details while at the same time, as TSP has suggested, leaving the opportunity to more briefly and succinctly summarize the views, both provincial and localized, in a shorter section for the CofE article.SeminarianJohn (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I also support creating a separate article on this issue. As others have said, the issue is taking up too much space in the current article. There may also be some WP:RECENT problems as is. Afterwriting (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

That's a very good point, Afterwriting. I started the section and most of the information comes from the 90s-present. I do not, as of yet, know how to really move a section to a new article, but I think someone should initiate that so we can summarize on the CofE page.SeminarianJohn (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I condensed it considerably and think it is much better. However, I remain in favour of creating a new article so that the citations and information could be represented well on a separate article unique to the topic and so that the CofE section could be further condensed in summary. As of now, the section is about the same size as worship and is now smaller than the section on Women's ministry. Moreover, I removed some of the more subjective language. SeminarianJohn (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Clerical Abuse Investigations[edit]

First, apologies if I'm editing this talk page wrong: I'm doing this from my phone rather than my computer, which I'd unfamiliar.

The recent prominence in the news regarding the C of E having a number of Clerical Sexual Abuse scandals, and the efforts the Church is going to to try and root out evidence of past abuse and cover-ups to prevent them happening again, seem to be something that ought to be mentioned under the History/21st Century section; or if not there, then at least somewhere on the page. I was reading an article about it, came on to the wiki for more information, and the fact that the article isn't linked from here makes it difficult to find. By way of comparison, the article on the Catholic Church has a whole section devoted to clerical abuse. Obviously the revelations regarding the Catholic Church have been public knowledge for far longer, and the problem is (as far as we know) far less widespread in the C of E, but it still seems to me that it's worth mentioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.28.80 (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

And I've realised that I'm not properly logged in, so it hasn't signed this properly. User:thedisillusionedyouth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.28.80 (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

(Just confirming that those two edited were actually me) Thom (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


There's a rise in cases coming forward and emerging into media - especially now that the IICSA Inquiry is under way. And there's a complexity of issues arising from these cases. Features such as denial, amnesia, institutional complicity, failure to respond or adequately record, ignorance amongst many clergy and bishops of their own safeguarding guidelines, etc have all emerged into media recently. The safeguarding crisis highlighted in the Elliott review, and in the CDM Clergy Disciplinary Measure complaints brought against five bishops by a survivor, and a wide range of failures elsewhere - would all indicate that the CoE has real difficulty in this area. Not sure that's adequately represented yet on wiki. I'm a learner wiki - so please forgive any mistakes. Very new at all this. At some stage I suspect the whole section on this topic may need its own page?

Joelionheart (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


Separated from Roman Catholic Church[edit]

First the Church of England states in the creed and its foundational documents that it is still part of the Catholic Church so it does not agree that it has separated from the Catholic Church, it was separated from that part of the Catholic Church which is controlled from Rome. While the initial break came about by action in England, the final break was the excommunication by Rome. Putting in the dates is simplistic and unhelpful because so many events occurred during the process of separation before being finally accomplished.Dabbler (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

There are two dates for those two events, yes. What is the problem, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
There was a reconciliation in the middle, there were different stages to the initial and final breaks not all accomplished in a single dated event. Picking out two dates is simplistic and is anyway covered elsewhere and is unnecessary in an infobox. Dabbler (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
By the way I can accept 16th century in the infobox if that satisfies you too. Dabbler (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree - the use of those two dates, or either one of them, is wildly over simplistic and unhelpful. We have been here before, and decided not to include dates in that part of the infobox. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 17:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
The article reflects two significant times for the emergance of the Church of England, depending on which of the two available perspectives you choose. What is the problem with reflecting these two bits of information from the article content in the infobox, please? Itsn't that precisely what infoboxes are for? Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, a good infobox contains simple and straightforward shorthand information on the subject. Where the issues are complex, as in the founding dates of the Church of England, then you have to put in explanations or footnotes which defeats the purpose of the infobox. If there are complexities that cannot be adequately explained in a simple entry, then omit them from the infobox and explain in detail in the article. Dabbler (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

All other Christian denomations with well-maintained infoboxes indicated founding date(s). What about indicating "6th-16th century", if all else options would be considered too complicated? Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Because the question for the uninformed reader is then "Why such widely separated dates and so they have to read the whole article to sort out the puzzle which may be irrelevant for the rearder's original purpose. If they come specifically looking for founding dates, then they will have to read the article anyway.. Both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches claim to date from the 1st century AD, the Roman Church says it was founded by Jesus Christ in Judea and Jerusalem. As the Church of England also follows the Apostolic Succession, perhaps this article should also claim to date its founding from that time. Methodism does not have any founding date in the infobox, the Methodist Church of Great Britain does but that was a single date with the combination of several strands of Methodism which is relatively straightforward compared to the C of E.Dabbler (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, let's see what the article says, as reflected in the lead section:
1. "[D]ates its establishment as a national church to the 6th-century Gregorian mission"
2. "[R]enounced papal authority [...] in the 1530s. [...] The Act of Supremacy 1558 renewed the breach"
These are the two origins that are presented throughout the article content, as alluded to in the lead section comme-il-faut. So either the reader would conclude 1) 6th century, 2) 16th century, or 3) both. Rather than accusing me of insisting on oversimplification, are you sure you are not making it more complicated than it has to be? After all, simple presentation of bits of information is what infoboxes are for. On a further notice, the infobox already states that the church separated from Rome in the 16th century, for that matter. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
What are you arguing? that the "Founded" date should be the date of the separation from Rome? which is the heading of this discussion, or the Augustinian Mission? Or possibly even the Restoration Church after the Puritan/Presbyterian period during the Commonwealth? All three of which have some claim to be considered as a founding date. I have no issue with the mention of the separation from Rome because most people agree that that is probably the most pivotal event in the history of the Church without necessarily agreeing that is the founding date. Why not leave it at that? Dabbler (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I take it that 6th century is the foundation according to the Church of England's own understanding. I don't see no problem with indicating that in the "foundation" variable of the infobox, adding "by Anglican tradition", as has emerged as modus operandi in other equivalent infoboxes. I have a hard time understanding why you wish to obscure this from being reflected in the infobox. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
No, that's not right either - [3] traces its history back to at least the third century AD, when a British Christian church was mentioned by Tertullian and Origen. And, of course, if you interpret the question in the same way as the Catholic Church infobox does, of course it traces its origin to Jesus Christ in Jerusalem in the 1st century.
I think people are opposed to including any of these dates because any one of them seems like a vast oversimplification. TSP (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely correct TSP. Anyone who thinks they can provide a foundation date for the Church of England has seriously misunderstood its history. The Church itself cannot pinpoint a date, and neither does any serious work of reference. The strongest candidate would be 597, for obvious reasons connected with continuity of leadership, but even that date ignores many aspects of the complex history. The infobox is best without any manufactured date of foundation - as most editors have concluded every time this question has been raised or re-raised by the same person. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 11:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, excuse me, but the article content repeatedly presents what the sources says about the origin of the Church of England. None of you have argued for change or deletion of this very article content. Naturally, you could argue that the precise wording of reflecting this in the infobox would require some evaluation - but I still don't see the argument of a rejection of the presentation of article content in the infobox altogether? Ergo, either the information is to difficult to assert in the in the article content (and thus in the infobox too), or the other way around, right? Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Please indicate where the origin of the Church is repeatedly stated in the article. The wording is very careful to suggest that the Augustine's mission is the date that the Church traditionally recognises as the start of its "formal history" but, as is noted immediately above in the article, there had been Christians and Christian Churches in England for centuries before that, just not as organized as Augustine's church became. The English Reformation starting in Henry VIII's reign was not a new origin but a change of an existing and continuing organization as is demonstrated by the claim of Apostolic Succession. Dabbler (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
It's been repeated above. Anyway, what about changing the "Separated from" variable to Catholic Church in England and Wales, which would arguably be more correct? Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I can't see any logical argument for such a change being "more correct". It would be quite wrong, in fact. How could the English (& Welsh) Church separate from itself? When the "separation" (to use the infobox's term) occurred, the priests in the pulpits and the people in the pews were all the same priests and people - they wore the same vestments, they used the same plate, they followed the same practices. The change was institutional and corporate. The hierarchy had a shift of focus and changed its lines of reporting. This was clearly and unambiguously an organisational separation from the Roman Church. How could this be described as the English & Welsh Church "separating from the Catholic Church in England & Wales". It *was* the Catholic Church in England & Wales, corporately breaking from Rome. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 17:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Church of England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)