Talk:Anglicanism
|
|
| Contents |
episcopalianism
whoever created the redirects from episcopalian and episcopalianism to anglican should be aware that episcopalianism is NOT a form of Anglicanism. There is a complicanted history involved, and I won't get involved in it here. There is a good article, episcopal, about episcopalianism. I have changed the redirects to that article.
Bobburito 03:32, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why does this article say that schism occurred first with the Orthodox church and then with the Roman Catholic church? Does that mean the Church of England separated from the Orthodox Church in the 11th century because the Church of England was then part of the Catholic church, which separated from the Orthodox church in the 11th century? Is so, that could be stated much more clearly.
- I think that's what it's supposed to mean. Feel free to state it more clearly. ;-) Wesley
- I would say there was first a split in the Orthodox church between Eastern and Western Orthodox, the Western being generally known as Catholic. Then there was a split in the Catholic church, the C of E and other (Catholic) Protestant denominations splitting from the Roman Catholic branch. Gritchka
- Well, there's also the slightly tongue in cheek view that the Bishop of Rome and the rest of Christendom broke away from the Church of England in the 16th Century ;-) 82.36.26.229 02:14, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Anglicanism has always been characterised by a wide diversity in theology and liturgy.
Does this diversity include the use of other languages in the liturgy - something which might be relevant in parts of the (former) British Commonwealth?
S.
Across the Anglican Communion, worship is now in the normal language of the participants; exceptions are rare and exceptional. When I visited Tokyo, for example, I went to the only English-speaking Anglican church there--and there are a large number of Anglican churches in Tokyo. All but St. Alban's use Japanese. (Unsurprisingly, St. Alban's serves a primarily ex-patriot community of non-Japanese.)
However, the diversity in liturgy is probably more imaginary than true. It is far more true to say that Anglicanism has more diversity than Orthodoxy, about the same as Roman Catholicism, and vastly less than most Protestant denominations, since nearly all Anglicans worship from an official liturgy which is mandated for all congregations in the country.
--Tb 06:59 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
province
The link to "province" does not provide a link to the concept of a national church, but instead to political subdivisions of a nation (such as the provinces of Italy).
Old Catholicism
In the paragraph describing Anglicans' self-concept as being catholic but not Roman Catholic, it might be helpful to put something in about the Old Catholic Church (Utrecht Succession) and the 1931? Agreement made in Bonn? to be in full communion between Anglicanism and Old Catholicism. See, for example: http://netministries.org/see/charmin/CM00295?frame=N
The phrase Clerical celibacy is not enforced sounds like we believe in it but don't put it into practice. I'll change to there is no doctrine of Clerical celibacy --(talk to)BozMo 10:51, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
non-sensical paragraph?
This paragraph has too many 'howevers', and doesn't seem to make sense. Unfortunately, I don't know how it should read.
- However, since the Elizabethan Age, practical authority has rested with the Archbishop of Canterbury, but Anglican churches outside England do not view the British monarch as the Church of England does. However it remains the case that the Archbishop of Canterbury, leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion, is appointed (in theory) by the Crown of the United Kingdom, (in reality) by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
Would this be an improvement?
- However, since the Elizabethan Age, practical authority has rested with the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Archbishop of Canterbury, leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion, is ceremoniously appointed by the Crown of the United Kingdom. In reality, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom decides who is appointed as Archbishop. Anglican churches outside England do not view the British monarch as the Church of England does.
I don't understand the last sentence. Is 'the Church of England' different to 'Anglican Churches outside England'? How does the Church of England view the British monarch? What are the different views? Jenks 21:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, I see your problem. The main thrust of this paragraph is that British Sovereign remains Supreme Governor of the Church of England, but the Archbishop of Canterbury is the de facto leader of the church. The worldwide Anglican Communion looks to the Archbishop of Canterbury for its lead, but it does not give a special position to the British Sovereign. The Sovereign's authority is limited to the Church of England, but the Crown appoints the Archbishop who is the worldwide leader. Is that a wee bit clearer? --Gareth Hughes 22:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Churchmanship Edits
Dear all,
I found the section of Anglicanism concerning "churchmanship" to be highly biased towards the Anglo-Catholic liberal understanding. It seemed that the current fight within Anglicanism was bleeding into the Wikipedia. I deleted some of that material, and did my best to bring the point of view back to the center. You may diagree, so feel free to edit me back!
Also, this section had a couple of paragraphs about pacifism. While I agree that this topic is of some interest, it is hardly a central issue in Anglicanism, either presently or in the past. Therefore, I deleted the references. Once again, no harm intended.
The Reverend Thomas McKenzie (Anglican clergy)
- I reverted your deletion of the paragraphs on pacifism, because it's generally a good idea to discuss it here before making a major edit like deleting four paragraphs. I must say I'm baffled by your equation of Anglo-Catholic with liberal, though. --Angr/ 21:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)