 | Anglicanism was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 4, 2007). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
 | Religion B‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Christianity B‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Anglicanism B‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Software: Computing Unassessed | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 Archives |
|---|
Roman Catholic bias in Liturgy_of_the_hours and renaming proposal
Please see Talk:Liturgy_of_the_hours#Requested_move for details. --Espoo 10:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Comments needed
I am involved in a discussion with another editor at the article on Talk:George Washington and religion and need someone who is familiar with Anglican theology and dogma (and especially that of the late 1700s) to comment. Here is the discussion in brief... the article talks about the fact (well documented) that George Washington was not a communicant (ie was never seen to take communion) and would often leave devine services before communion. Given the context of the article, it is implied that this indicates he was a Deist. I question this implication ... I think that it might indicate that he was a "Low Church" Anglican. I do understand that I can not add such information to the article - as my personal conclusions would constitute Original Research. But I would like confirmation of whether my thinking is on the right track or not. Unfortunately, I do not know enough about the Church of England at the time, especially the different attitudes of High and Low Church, to know one way or the other. I tried an RFC, but that is being removed as there is not an actual dispute going on (I guess I am trying to find out if there IS something to dispute). I hope someone here can help set me straight. Blueboar 19:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Pacifism
It seems that the information I wrote relating to pacifism was deleted again, so it has been restored once more. With respect to Revd McKenzie, for something that is "hardly a major issue", the fact that many of the most prominent Anglican intellectuals of the 1930s and onwards have been involved in the movement, not to mention the likes of Revd Dick Sheppard, the most famous churchman of his day, launching the secular Peace Pledge Union, shows that it is an issue of concern to may Anglicans. Anyway, as the "Social Issues" subsection now contain discussions of other issues of importance, so it is a legitimate inclusion to balance this article. David Le Sage, 6 February, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.138.16.150 (talk) 06:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
- I don't know what other editors think, but to me three paragraphs on one aspect of Anglican social theology seems overboard - especially since there are only three other paragraphs which together cover all the rest of Anglican social concerns. "Balance" is precisely the reason why the bulk of the material that was there was excised. I would like to hear the contributions of other editors, however, before going in with pruning shears once again. Fishhead64 06:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer authors expand the other sections relating to social theology so that a broad coverage of all of these is supplied. Thanks, D. Le Sage.
Prominent Anglicans?
This section is going to be never-ending, most of the most notable British figures in the last 300 years could be described as prominent Anglicans. If their Anglicanism had some direct relevance to their prominence I could understand listing them but some are red-linked which imply no prominence of any sort and others are not really notable for their Anglicanism, e.g. Kate Winslet. If we have to have a list like this, can't it be a separate List of prominent Anglicans? Dabbler 14:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- These things tend to grow like topsy, unfortunately. I'm for excising it entirely - there's already a Category:Anglicans, after all. Instead of "Notable Anglicans," "Notable Anglican Theologians" might be more appropriate. Fishhead64 17:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm the person who expanded this list. Initially, there were only four people on there, so I thought it worthy of expansion. I was working from some other information I had. I tend to agree with the cuts made, as, for instance, there is nothing explicitly Anglican about the film work of Winslet or Myles. I have added Yonge, Rossetti and a couple of others once more, however. Yonge and Rosetti were both explicitly Anglican in their works of literature, so I think they are worthy of inclusion. The change to "Important Anglican Thinkers" was probably a suitable alteration of heading. Thanks to whoever did that. D. Le Sage
- Please add four tildes (~~~~) to the end of your comments so we know who is posting them. Thanks! Fishhead64 23:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes, that's why I added back Watts: his fame rests on his religious contribution. I certainly think a list is legitimate, although a separate article might make sense. I excised George Carey and Rowan Williams. They're both ABCs who have done nothing remarkable. Unless the list includes every ABC since Cranmer, I don't see why they should be there. Carlo 23:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well Williams, at least, is an important Anglican thinker. I think he should be restored. If Ramsey, Temple, and Wright are there, he should be there, too. Fishhead64 23:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I take the point about "Prominent Anglicans". Politicians, for example, are liable to develop a "deep religious faith". However, I've added (or tried to add) two novelists whose Anglican faith comes across in their work: PD James and Barbara Pym, even though they're not theologians as such. I also tried, without success, to delete John Bunyan on the grounds that he was a Baptist. Incidentally, what do people think about adding Sir John Betjeman to the list? His Anglicanism was less deep than that of TS Eliot, but it comes across in his verse.Millbanks 22:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Protestants?
Greetings. I am not too familiar with Anglicanism, so I am hoping for some feedback from some editors with a better understanding of how to classify the Anglican Communion. Specifically, there is a section in the article on Pope Benedict XVI discussing his interaction with other religions. One section is his relationship with various protestant faiths. There was comment on his meeting with Rowan Williams. However, at least one editor believes that it needs to be under a separate "anglican" section, apart from "protestant". I tried to look into this, and got conflicting information... different sources classify Anglicans as anything from protestants to reformed catholics with protestant influences. Do Anglicans consider themselves protestants? Is there an "official" position on this? Any feedback would be welcomed! --Anietor 17:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- They consider themselves a distinct branch of Christianity, a via media between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, a movement that is both Catholic and Reformed (Protestant). So, yes, it should be in a different section, and this article can be cited as a reference, since that is what it says. Fishhead64 00:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I continue to be confused why, although editors allow the article to say that Anglicanism is seen by some as "Protestant", they qualify this as "without a prominent leader, like ... Calvin ...". Calvin was not a founder (like Luther or Wesley), he was not the singular national spokesman for the Protestant church (like Knox). In this way, Calvin is not more "prominent" than Cranmer, only Cranmer was the archbishop of Canterbury, and the author of the seminal Book of Common Prayer. Even so, the introduction continues enshrine the assertion by omission, that Cranmer did not practically embody the Anglican turmoil that comes of not wanting to put away either, Catholicism or the Protestant Reform. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Low Church Anglicans certainly consider themselves to be Protestant, and nobody would have doubted Anglicanism's status as a Protestant domination from the time of Elizabeth I to that of Victoria. john k 06:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Unlike Calvin or Luther, both of whom have Protestant denominations or theologies named after them and can be considered to be prominent leaders or originators of a strand of Protestantism, Anglicanism evolved over a period of years under the influence of a number of different leaders and theologians, none of whom were considered to be as important as Calvin or Luther were. Although it started nominally under Cranmer, the eventual codification of the Thirty Nine Articles was only completed years after his burning at the stake. Cranmer although very influential in the development of the Anglican liturgy is not seen as a seminal figure in the way that Calvin and Luther are. So calling Anglicanism "Cranmerism" for exanmple was never an option. At various periods in their history Anglicans have trended towards a more Protestant outlook and at other times Catholic outlooks have come to the fore, but usually both tendencies have been accommodated within the broader church. The current situation is that many Anglican churches are probably closer to Catholic practice and consider themselves as Reformed Catholics, though there are some churches which still tend to consider themselves as Protestants and retain more Protestant practices. Not much help I am afraid! Dabbler 20:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't want to say that Anglicanism is Cranmerism; but for those who would point to its Protestant character and history, the mark of the Oxford martyrs, and Cranmer above all, is indelible. Am I wrong to think so? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- It is indelible for all Anglicans, I would hope. I just don't think it's indistinguishable. Anglican theology and, perhaps just as importantly, the Anglican ethos, was several centuries in the making before Cranmer came on the scene. Cranmer is a very big fish, yet still exists in the context of the life-giving water that forms the current which is Anglicanism. Fishhead64 23:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but when Cranmer came on the scene, something "Reformed" came in with him and remained there when he was gone, and developed from there. Isn't that so? Anyway, I shouldn't pursue this further. I'm sure I've been well-understood. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes and yes :) Fishhead64 01:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- I would argue that Anglicanism is nothing more than "English Catholicism." While we protested the abuses of Rome, we really didn't protest the doctrines or the practices with very few exceptions (papacy being the one chiefly on my mind). We kept the others: tri-order clergyhood, Apostolic Succession, Sacraments, True Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, Complete Canon, etc. It should be noted that the 39 Articles of Religion were never meant to be read literally nor were they the first Articles and furthermore, nor were they around for most of Anglican history. Therefore, if by Protestant you mean we protest certain doctrines that the Pope declared ex cathedrally or those that their church declared, yes, we are Protestants. Yet we are most certainly not Protestants in the "classic" sense of Lutherans, Moravians, Calvinists, or Anabaptists. Valer 01:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- I know that this is the Anglo-Catholic party line, but I don't think it's historically defensible. The doctrine of the Real Presence found in the 39 Articles is indistinguishable from that held by Calvin, Bucer, and other folks on the more sacramental end of the Reformed tradition. Lutherans find it to be insufficiently Catholic! I know that it can be interpreted in a more Catholic direction, but that is not generally how it was interpreted at the time. Richard Hooker's "virtualism" expands on the Articles and further demonstrates the basically Reformed nature of Elizabethan Anglicanism. No one in the Elizabethan era doubted that Anglicanism was Protestant. Indeed, it was somewhere in between Lutheranism and Calvinism. The "Canon" was not complete at all--it explicitly and systematically excluded language of sacrifice and placed anything remotely referring to sacrifice in the post-communion thanksgiving. As for the Articles not being "around for much of Anglican history"--this begs the question. The question is whether Anglicanism became Protestant in the 16th century. Obviously the Articles were not around before that, and the Ecclesia Anglicana was not Protestant before that--no church was! But the Articles were adopted as a statement of the faith of the Church of England, they were printed in the BCP, and ordinands were required to subscribe to them (and still are in England, I believe). Your position is held only by Anglo-Catholics--other Anglicans disagree with it and non-Anglicans who study the subject almost never find it persuasive. It should therefore not be made the basis for a wikipedia article. The Church of England described itself as Protestant and was universally regarded as Protestant in the sixteenth century. This was not seriously challenged until the 19th century, although some of the extreme high-church folks in the 17th century spoke of Anglicanism as an expression of the faith of the undivided Church. Contarini 21:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the Church of England was once happy to describe itself as 'protestant' because at that time it was still understood that the opposite of 'protestant' was 'papist' rather thean 'Catholic'. The American Church was able to call itself 'protestant' in the eighteenth century for that reason, but the word had to be dropped in the 20th century because by that time most people were understanding it to be the opposite of 'catholic'. I understand that in some parishes it has been found desirable to use the word 'universal' instead of 'catholick' in the creeds because of that change of meaning. Nennius, 9/4/07
Contarini points out that "It should therefore not be made the basis for a wikipedia article." This is true, but it CANNOT be completely removed from the article or you will be losing a POV held by a great many, granted - not all, Anglicans. The Protestant forces behind the English Reformation peaked for a time in the minority of Edward VI and then were impotent for decades. To be a "real" Contiental protestant in England between the Death of Edward VI and the onset of the Civil Wars was to be unhappy with your church. SECisek 22:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Nonsense. The Church of Elizabeth and James I was clearly protestant, and was probably doctrinally closer to Calvinism than to Lutheranism (although it was organizationally still quite conservative). Laudianism was a brief bump along the road and, at any rate, is not considered by any serious scholars to have very much in common with the views of the Oxford Movement in the 19th century. The idea of Anglicanism as a middle way between Catholicism and Protestantism pretty much appears for the first time with Newman, et al, in the mid 19th-century, and never actually becomes a unanimous opinion within the Church. This idea should, of course, be represented in the article, but it shouldn't be backdated to an earlier period. The idea of the Church of England as not protestant appears at Oxford in the 1830s. Prior to that, the CoE was always seen as a protestant church. The only possible exception would be in the period of Charles I and Laud, and I think even there the temptation to equate Laudianism with Tractarianism needs to be strongly resisted. The CoE of James I may not have met the standards of the most vigorously protestant elements, but it's worth noting that most of these were still actually inside the Church until the Civil War. I don't see how one can imagine the CoE steering a middle course between, one the one hand, Catholics who refused to participate in it and were clearly seen as belonging to an alien religion; and, on the other hand, the more strongly protestant elements within the Church itself, who were actually holding ecclesiastical offices within the Church, and so forth. Again, this idea of the CoE as a middle way between Protestantism and Catholicism dates from the 19th century. (Note also Swift's A Tale of a Tub; in that one, the Church of England is represented by "Martin" (i.e. Luther), and thus the presentation is that the Church is not a middle way between Protestantism and Catholicism, but, along with Lutheranism, between Calvinism and Catholicism - and Swift, of course, wrote after most of the more vigorous protestants had already left the established church. The situation in the pre-Civil War period actually leaves the Church more protestant, even, I think, during Laud's time. john k 06:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Although the idea of Anglicanism as a "via media" goes all the way back to Richard Hooker David Underdown 09:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sure - the idea of the CoE (I wouldn't like to use the term "Anglicanism" for the 17th century) as a middle way between Catholicism and more extreme forms of protestantism goes back a long way. But the idea of what exactly it was that was to the left of the established Church shifted over time. It was certainly not envisioned to be "protestantism" as a whole until Anglo-Catholicism appeared in the 19th century.
Gay bishop embarassing?
I am wondering why this is such a concerted effort to ensure that the ordination of a gay bishop not be mentioned in a headline? This is the crucial issue which has led to the current crisis in the AC. The recent Communique only discussed three points with regard to the crisis:
1. Ordination of gay bishops 2. Same sex unions 3. provincial boundaries
So, one cannot avoid mention of gay bishops in the headline.129.74.165.42
- Anglicans like a bit of decorum. Tabloid headlines are best left to a certain class of argument. Lets all take a deep breath and speak nicely to each other. And - quite parenthetically 129.74.165.42 - you spelled embarrassing incorrectly. It is spelled with a double r and a double s: not (sic)"embarassing". Now, how embarrassing is that! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 14:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- And it's not even an issue of decorum. The sensationalistic headline proposed by you, 129.74.165.42, seems to carry more of an agenda than any you accuse others of having. It's a great head-turner, but belongs in the National Enquirer, not Wikipedia. It's also overly simplisitic and misleading. I would think that if you really are sincere about wanting to include an issue that, while embarrassing, is still relevant and worthy of inclusion, you would want to do it in a professional and accurate manner. --Anietor 15:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Your comments are great for leveling charges, but you have not made a case for the exlusion of gay ordinaton from the headlines. Saying that this is an issue of decorum or that it is biased is really not an argument. Please tell me how the present crisis is NOT about the ordination of a gay bishop.129.74.165.42 15:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, here's a response: It has very little if nothing to do with Anglicanism, which is a movement within Christianity. It merits discussion in the article Anglican Communion, and indeed it is discussed there. Focusing on it as a matter of such great import is an example of recentism: We do not live in exceptional times as Anglicans. There have been schisms and extra-provincial meddlings since the seventeenth century, when the Puritans left the Church of England and Archbishop of Canterbury William Laud was meddling in the Scottish Episcopal Church. Fishhead64 17:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Anglo-American Methodism?
Surely calling methodism an "Anglo-American" movement is inaccurate. It was established in Britain long before it crossed that Atlantic and the article implies that Wesley personally took it there.Further the American revolution may have prompted a break away for American methodists, but hardly for the whole movement. Epeeist smudge 11:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Anglicanism COTM
The Anglicanism Collaboration of the Month for April was late in being designated, due to my Lenten and Paschal wikibreak. It is Anglican views of homosexuality, always a favourite topic. Please consider reviewing the article, and helping in its assessment and improvement. Thanks! Fishhead64 02:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Intercommunion with Roman Catholic Church
The article lays down the official "letter of the law". But I have known various Roman Catholics take communion in Anglican churches, and to the best of my knowledge they have not been censured as a result. On three occasions, as an Anglican, I have asked an RC priest if I could receive communion at the service where he was the celebrant, and on each occasion the answer was yes. Millbanks 22:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Most, if not all, Anglican churches are happy to let any baptised Christian (sorry Salvation Army) take communion and so your Roman Catholic friends would not have been censured if the priest knew. As for your experiences in a Roman Catholic church, that was against their doctrine unless you were in extremis or there was no Anglican alternative available. Sometimes for pastoral reasons a priest may go against the letter of the law however. I have never asked for nor received communion in a RC church when I have attended as I had no wish to put the priest in a position of deciding to turn me away or break his rules. Dabbler 00:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Some Catholic priests operate a policy of official ignorance: they won't refuse you communion even if they happen to know that you are an Anglican, but if you formally ask, they might feel that formally they have to say no. There are also circumstances in which a priest may have discretion, e.g. when hosting an ecumenical event within a restricted context such as a University chaplaincy. My policy as a non-Catholic is to go for communion unless (a) the exclusivity of communion has been specifically announced by the priest (which happened at the last Catholic funeral I went to), or (b) there are Catholic laypeople present who know I am not a Catholic and would be offended by my action. I'd be surprised if there aren't some strict Catholic priests who would censure members of their flock for taking Anglican communion, but lay Catholics who are prepared to take Anglican communion probably either go to a church with a more relaxed attitude, or just keep it quiet. Myopic Bookworm 10:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
This discussion is moot as this needs to be cited to be legit:
"In practice, however, there is a certain amount of illicit inter-communion in both directions, although this is forbidden by the Pope and the Second Vatican Council, which regarded Anglicans with favour but not as a church, merely as an 'ecclesial body'."
As pointed out above it, is impossible to be in "both directions" since no anglican church would turn away a spiritual prepared, Baptised Christian. Intercommunion can only be illicit in one direction in this case.
"It happened to a friend of mine" is not a proper cite. SECisek 22:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Calvin and Edward VI
Why do people keep saying that Calvin influenced the Edwardian Church? What is the evidence please? MacCulloch denies that he had any influence at that time, but his hour had come in 1558. See MacCulloch TRHistS 2005, p. 92.
Bibliography
Could not the bibliography be expanded to include the works mentioned in the footnotes? As it stands the bibliography is fairly bland . Frederick Jones
- They probably ought to be integrated one way or the other. We probably don't actually need the Bibliography section at all if full information is given for each reference, and all references should use the various "cite" templates or none at all. If the books in the Bibliography are not actually being used to support specific points, why are they listed at all (as oppsoed to any others that could be chosen)? David Underdown 07:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I would agree with you that all which are not used to support specific points should be eliminated. As it is they all seem to support a specific interpretation of Anglicanism, ignoring Evangelicals and the Protestant inheritance of Cranmer and the Reformers, and also any critical scrutiny ie Cross rather than Nichols. I would love to be proved wrong. Frederick Jones Why not eliminate them?
Perhaps the process of dealing with the bibliography could start by deleting all those which lack dates and publication details? Frederick Jones
Dear Mr Underdown, Thank you for your latest note, but I fear that I am not very efficient and find your style of refernce rather odd. I will try. Incidentally Fr Nichols talks of Uniate Churches of which some people have heard, not particular churches.I think if you asked the TAC they would say they aspired to uniate status. Frederick Jones ps The reference you require for the footnote is www.anglicanuse.org/Anglican_Uniatism.pdf