![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Is the Anglican Church still established in the Maritime Provinces? If not, when did it become disestablished there? -- Angr/ comhrá 21:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Anglican Church is not the established church anywhere in Canada at present but you've raise an interesting question, I believe it was established in some of the maritime provinces prior to Confederation. AndyL 21:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
According to this biography the Anglican Church was disestablished in Nova Scotia in 1850 with the death of John Inglis. AndyL 21:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you can research the issue and put the answer into the article? 70.49.88.25 19:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it was ever officially the established church of Manitoba but it came out west with the Hudson's Bay Company - for example there is still a seat dedicated to the chief factor of the HBC in St. John's Cathedral here in Winnipeg. -- Cantis 20:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't find this info on the ACC website and I'm not as familiar with the structure of the church as I am with the Catholic structure...I was wondering about the archbishops mentioned on this page. Is there a separate archbishop and bishop of Ontario, for example? Is the Archbishop of Canada different from the Primate? I see that the ACC website refers to him as "Archbishop", but of what? The reason I ask is that I was adding Canadians to the List of Bishops and Archbishops and I wasn't sure what to do about Anglican archbishops. Thanks! Adam Bishop 23:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
This gets complicated but...The Primate is never referred to as the Archbishop of Canada, just as Archbishop so and so (presently Archbishop Andrew Hutchison). Note that an ecclesiastical province is not the same as a political province; there are only four church provinces in Canada. the presiding archbishop of a province is (I think) referred to as a Metropolitan. Then there are dioceses, deaneries and finally individual parishes. Confused? I am, and I've been an Anglican since age one. Here are some links:
It would go something like this (I think) Parish with (I've heard all of these) Parish Priest, Rector or Incumbent, Deanery made up of a few churches (this layer not always present) co-ordinated by a Sr. priest an Arch Deacon, the Diocese with it's Bishop, Church Province with an Archbishop (The Metropolitan) and the Archbishop of Canada, The Primate Andrew Hutchinson then the Archbishop of Canterbury. Note that a lot of this structure is collegial and not really discipline based unless it's a matter of doctrine, which is controled by the national synod. Cantis 23:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
The Primate of Canada, is titled Archbishop, and so addressed formally as The Most Reverend Andrew Hutchinson, and referred to as Archbishop Hutchinson or The Primate. As Primate s/he has no diocese. Properly, s/he could never be called the Archbishop of Canada. A Metropolitan Bishop, is also titled Archbishop, and is addressed formally as The Most Reverend N.N., and referred to as Archbishop or the Metropolitan. As Metopolitan s/he is responsible for one of four ecclesiastical provinces. And continues as the Diocesan bishop of whatever dioces s/he was in when elected as metropolitan (for example at a provincial synod). e.g. The Most Reverend John R. Clarke, is the Metropolitan Archbishop of Rupert's Land, and Archbishop of Athabasca. Before his election as Metropolitan he was The Right Reverend John R. Clarke, Bishop of Athabasca. Note that the Diocese of Athabasca is not the Archdiocese of Athabasca. That is in the Anglican Church of Canada unlike The Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church, becoming the Bishop of a particular Diocese doesn't mean that one then becomes the Archbishop. So the Metropolitan of Rupert's Land have come from various dioceses, in my memory, Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon, . . .
Note that the four Ecclesiastical Provinces in the Anglican Church of Canada are 1. British Columbia and the Yukon, 2. Rupert's Land, 3. Ontario, and 4. Canada.
The Metropolitan of Canada would be the Metropolitan Archbishop of the Ecclesiastical Province of Canada (which includes dioceses over most of the civil province of Quebec and all of Newfoundland and the maritime provinces.) For clarity's sake, I don't believe he would be normally addressed as Archbishop of Canada. The present Metropolitan of Canada is the Most Rev. Bruce Stavert, Archbishop of Quebec.
Also note that within the Province of Rupert's Land is the Diocese of Rupert's Land. The Diocesan Bishop of Rupert's Land (The Right Reverend Don Phillips) is currently NOT the Metropolitan Archbishop of Rupert's Land. (Though he could be one day, if duly elected).
And note, that neither the Primate nor the Anglican Church of Canada are "under the authority" of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
And in our diocese the responsiblities and positions are as follows
Parish -> Incumbent (normally a Priest, sometimes a Deacon, or even a Bishop sometimes we call ourselves Rectors, but that's a whole other can of worms - look up Rector and Vicar in the Oxford English Dictionary)
Deanery-> Regional or Rural Dean (an Incumbent chosen from among the clergy of the constituent Parishes)
Archdeaconry-> Archdeacon (an incumbent normally a priest (I believe is appointed by the bishop, maybe elected among the clergy,) An Archdeaconry is, in this diocese (Calgary) composed of two deaneries.
Diocese-> Diocesan Bishop (elected by clergy and lay Delegates to an Electoral Synod. One who is not already a bishop, must subsequent to election, be ordained or consecrated a Bishop.) MrSeanBrook 21:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
How can "The first Anglican clergy arrived in Canada as chaplains on John Cabot's expedition in 1497" really be true? Maybe I'm getting my dates mixed up, but surely 1497 is prior to Henry VIII split from Rome, which would be the earlist the Anglican Church could really be said to exist? David Underdown 15:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
We Anglicans tend to think of the English Church as having a continuous history, aside from a small change in middle management when we stopped acknowledging the Bishop of Rome. - Dhodges 21:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Could we 'please' not get into an edit war over this. I saw Dr. Robert Buckman speak last night, I'm starting to think he might be right about the whole "religion causing problems" thing. - Dhodges 15:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
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 06:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Much as I appreciate the extra publicity for the parish of which I 'm a member, I question the appropriateness of this section. Writing about individual parishes on the article page for the national church is necessarily going to give undue prominence to a few parishes. - Dhodges 01:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Anyone up for a housecleaning? Fishhead64 02:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I have substantially revised this article, with the exception of this section. I question its appropriateness, since it is bound to be - if you'll excuse the expression - parochial in its outlook. As it reads, one would think that there were no notable parishes outside southern Ontario, which is plainly not the case. Unfortunately, I don't have the breadth of knowledge to determine, much less enumerate what constitutes "notable" parishes - but I have to think the pioneer church in Barkerville, St. Saviour's; the Cathedral in Victoria, and St. James' in Vancouver must count for historical and architectural reasons - not to mention some the earliest churches in Atlantic Canada. What do others think? Fishhead64 00:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
("Nevertheless, in the latter half of the 20th century liturgies steadily drifted into greater homogeneity across the ACC and former disjunctions among high-, low- and broad-church sensibilities became blurred.") Well, it was an orphan sentence in that it began with the now superfluous "nevertheless," which referred to the formerly preceding discussion of "high," "low" and "broad." And the discussion of those issues is now certainly complete but it is also a mite vague, whereas there are other articles that discuss these very party issues in the wider Anglican church which were once very important indeed, and the sentence usefully alludes to them in terms of their decreasing significance in Canada. (And, cosmetically, at least, internationally as well — Peter Akinola's and Michael Nazir-Ali's copes and mitres would have been extremely unlikely a few decades back; it would surely nowadays be the contrast between formal liturgy of any kind and virtually no liturgy at all, as one perhaps finds more often in England than in Canada, that is of significance rather than the old high church/low church disjunction that matters in terms of liturgy. And literalness or liberalness in scriptural interpretation and adherence to or willingness to depart from tradition with respect to the contentious issues of women and gays, which comprehensively cross the old party lines, with parties as disparate as the Sydney Anglicans and the old Rome-oriented high churchmen finding unlikely common cause.) Masalai 04:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
So it is, but only via the greater Anglican Communion, and the Old Catholics are of less than marginal significance in Canada. One might with equal validity mention the Church of Sweden, the Mar Thomites of the Malabar Coast (who have a far greater awareness of Anglicans than any Old Catholic; indeed so do the Malankara Oriental Orthodox of India, who are not in communion with the Anglicans at all) and the Philippine Independants. Given that the article concerns the ACC specifically, perhaps the reference to the Old Catholics could be removed, eh? Masalai 16:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
"ACC" does indeed often refer to the Anglican Consultative Council, but an article on the Anglican Consultative Council would also need to define the abbreviated term: "The Anglican Consultative Council (the 'ACC')." That is the contemporary, shorter, version of what used to be rendered as "hereinafter referred to as...." And in this article "ACC" has been defined to mean Anglican Church of Canada. This is the protocol in all legal drafting nowadays: in a contract one might say "Carolyn Parrish Fan ('Fan')" and thereafter consistently refer to Carolyn Parrish Fan as "Fan." In a statement of claim one might say "The First Plaintiff ('Fan')..." and thereafter be excused from continually reiterating "the First Plaintiff," which becomes extremely confusing when there are multiple plaintiffs, defendants, counter claimants, counter defendants, third party claimants, third party defendants, and so on. So no, it's certainly not incorrect to refer to the Anglican Church of Canada as the ACC provided that it is clear in the context that that is what one means and particularly if one expressly defines the abbreviation at the first mention of it. Masalai 19:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
It can also be helpful in a longer article to spell out the acronym or abbreviation for the reader again or to rewikify it if it has not been used for a while, especially at its first use in a major section.
"Prior to this, General Synod had adopted "l'Église Episcopale du Canada" in 1977 and amended the canons to reflect this in 1983[1] when it became clear that francophone Canadians were baffled by the term "Episcopale" but well understood the term "Anglicane." This sentence doesn't actually make sense — I presume it is intended to indicate that the ACC became "Episcopale" in 1977 and "Anglicane" in 1983 but I can't check it in the footnotes because the references to the Handbook are incorrect. I believe it was Carolyn Parrish Fan who dealt with this in the first instance: could she perhaps re-check it now? Masalai 20:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
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 21:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
What is the general feeling about the Info Box? Do the labels make sense? At the TEC site, there was some discussion: see Denomination Info Box. One editor (SECisek) summarized his concerns for the Episcopal Church in the US (TEC) thus:
There are going to be huge issues with this box throughout the anglican communion pages. Let's see what's here, shall we?
Classification: Protestant There is an on going dicussion about just how Protestant this Church is. The church no longer refers to itself as Protestant in general. What is more the Protestant Episcopal Church has started using that name and the ECUSA seems quite happy to let them have it.
Orientation: Mainline, Anglican Orientation? What is that? Neologisim from what I can tell. All in the communion would agree that we are Anglican (sorry Scots). Orientation of one sort or another, on the other hand, is splitting the communion in two.
Polity: Episcopal I suppose I can buy that but of course they are "Episcopal" - it is in their name.
Founder: Samuel Seabury Christ was the founder, end of argument. There were Episcopalians here waiting for Seabury when he came from Scotland. He was not a founder of anything other than a line of Apostolic Succession.
Origin: 1789 If the Church is Protestant, why was it founded 100+ years after the Reformation ended in England?
Separated from: Church of England Not seperated, misleading, full communion with Canterbury.
This box just is not a good fit for the ECUSA or probably any other of the daughter Churches of the C of E. Thoughts? -- SECisek 05:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
So, problem or not? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 19:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I reverted this deletion as I was rather confused by the reason given in the edit summary. I don't see why cabot is any less relevant to the history of the ACC than the following para, and if this para is to go, then the image of the Matthew should be deleted as well, or it makes no sense. David Underdown 11:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
To all you church historians out there, a question: was the name "Church of England in Canada" ever made official? Is there a document, say at the first pan-Canadian synod in 1893 that called the church by that name? I know very well the church was called that. My mom still uses the name. When I registered at university, my mom checked off the box "Church of England in Canada" rather than the "Anglican Church of Canada" above it. Was it an actual official name or a name of convenience? There are certainly references to its use in the 19th Century ...maybe earlier ...but it is hard to parse the sense of an official name from a simple geographic modifier. That is. "We are Church of England in Canada" and "In Canada, we are Church of England" might have the same meaning, if you get my point. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Anglican Church of Canada/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
= Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglicanism/Assessment= Needs serious work on referencing. (Cheers!) Wassupwestcoast 03:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 03:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Is the Anglican Church still established in the Maritime Provinces? If not, when did it become disestablished there? -- Angr/ comhrá 21:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Anglican Church is not the established church anywhere in Canada at present but you've raise an interesting question, I believe it was established in some of the maritime provinces prior to Confederation. AndyL 21:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
According to this biography the Anglican Church was disestablished in Nova Scotia in 1850 with the death of John Inglis. AndyL 21:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you can research the issue and put the answer into the article? 70.49.88.25 19:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it was ever officially the established church of Manitoba but it came out west with the Hudson's Bay Company - for example there is still a seat dedicated to the chief factor of the HBC in St. John's Cathedral here in Winnipeg. -- Cantis 20:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't find this info on the ACC website and I'm not as familiar with the structure of the church as I am with the Catholic structure...I was wondering about the archbishops mentioned on this page. Is there a separate archbishop and bishop of Ontario, for example? Is the Archbishop of Canada different from the Primate? I see that the ACC website refers to him as "Archbishop", but of what? The reason I ask is that I was adding Canadians to the List of Bishops and Archbishops and I wasn't sure what to do about Anglican archbishops. Thanks! Adam Bishop 23:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
This gets complicated but...The Primate is never referred to as the Archbishop of Canada, just as Archbishop so and so (presently Archbishop Andrew Hutchison). Note that an ecclesiastical province is not the same as a political province; there are only four church provinces in Canada. the presiding archbishop of a province is (I think) referred to as a Metropolitan. Then there are dioceses, deaneries and finally individual parishes. Confused? I am, and I've been an Anglican since age one. Here are some links:
It would go something like this (I think) Parish with (I've heard all of these) Parish Priest, Rector or Incumbent, Deanery made up of a few churches (this layer not always present) co-ordinated by a Sr. priest an Arch Deacon, the Diocese with it's Bishop, Church Province with an Archbishop (The Metropolitan) and the Archbishop of Canada, The Primate Andrew Hutchinson then the Archbishop of Canterbury. Note that a lot of this structure is collegial and not really discipline based unless it's a matter of doctrine, which is controled by the national synod. Cantis 23:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
The Primate of Canada, is titled Archbishop, and so addressed formally as The Most Reverend Andrew Hutchinson, and referred to as Archbishop Hutchinson or The Primate. As Primate s/he has no diocese. Properly, s/he could never be called the Archbishop of Canada. A Metropolitan Bishop, is also titled Archbishop, and is addressed formally as The Most Reverend N.N., and referred to as Archbishop or the Metropolitan. As Metopolitan s/he is responsible for one of four ecclesiastical provinces. And continues as the Diocesan bishop of whatever dioces s/he was in when elected as metropolitan (for example at a provincial synod). e.g. The Most Reverend John R. Clarke, is the Metropolitan Archbishop of Rupert's Land, and Archbishop of Athabasca. Before his election as Metropolitan he was The Right Reverend John R. Clarke, Bishop of Athabasca. Note that the Diocese of Athabasca is not the Archdiocese of Athabasca. That is in the Anglican Church of Canada unlike The Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church, becoming the Bishop of a particular Diocese doesn't mean that one then becomes the Archbishop. So the Metropolitan of Rupert's Land have come from various dioceses, in my memory, Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon, . . .
Note that the four Ecclesiastical Provinces in the Anglican Church of Canada are 1. British Columbia and the Yukon, 2. Rupert's Land, 3. Ontario, and 4. Canada.
The Metropolitan of Canada would be the Metropolitan Archbishop of the Ecclesiastical Province of Canada (which includes dioceses over most of the civil province of Quebec and all of Newfoundland and the maritime provinces.) For clarity's sake, I don't believe he would be normally addressed as Archbishop of Canada. The present Metropolitan of Canada is the Most Rev. Bruce Stavert, Archbishop of Quebec.
Also note that within the Province of Rupert's Land is the Diocese of Rupert's Land. The Diocesan Bishop of Rupert's Land (The Right Reverend Don Phillips) is currently NOT the Metropolitan Archbishop of Rupert's Land. (Though he could be one day, if duly elected).
And note, that neither the Primate nor the Anglican Church of Canada are "under the authority" of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
And in our diocese the responsiblities and positions are as follows
Parish -> Incumbent (normally a Priest, sometimes a Deacon, or even a Bishop sometimes we call ourselves Rectors, but that's a whole other can of worms - look up Rector and Vicar in the Oxford English Dictionary)
Deanery-> Regional or Rural Dean (an Incumbent chosen from among the clergy of the constituent Parishes)
Archdeaconry-> Archdeacon (an incumbent normally a priest (I believe is appointed by the bishop, maybe elected among the clergy,) An Archdeaconry is, in this diocese (Calgary) composed of two deaneries.
Diocese-> Diocesan Bishop (elected by clergy and lay Delegates to an Electoral Synod. One who is not already a bishop, must subsequent to election, be ordained or consecrated a Bishop.) MrSeanBrook 21:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
How can "The first Anglican clergy arrived in Canada as chaplains on John Cabot's expedition in 1497" really be true? Maybe I'm getting my dates mixed up, but surely 1497 is prior to Henry VIII split from Rome, which would be the earlist the Anglican Church could really be said to exist? David Underdown 15:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
We Anglicans tend to think of the English Church as having a continuous history, aside from a small change in middle management when we stopped acknowledging the Bishop of Rome. - Dhodges 21:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Could we 'please' not get into an edit war over this. I saw Dr. Robert Buckman speak last night, I'm starting to think he might be right about the whole "religion causing problems" thing. - Dhodges 15:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
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 06:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Much as I appreciate the extra publicity for the parish of which I 'm a member, I question the appropriateness of this section. Writing about individual parishes on the article page for the national church is necessarily going to give undue prominence to a few parishes. - Dhodges 01:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Anyone up for a housecleaning? Fishhead64 02:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I have substantially revised this article, with the exception of this section. I question its appropriateness, since it is bound to be - if you'll excuse the expression - parochial in its outlook. As it reads, one would think that there were no notable parishes outside southern Ontario, which is plainly not the case. Unfortunately, I don't have the breadth of knowledge to determine, much less enumerate what constitutes "notable" parishes - but I have to think the pioneer church in Barkerville, St. Saviour's; the Cathedral in Victoria, and St. James' in Vancouver must count for historical and architectural reasons - not to mention some the earliest churches in Atlantic Canada. What do others think? Fishhead64 00:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
("Nevertheless, in the latter half of the 20th century liturgies steadily drifted into greater homogeneity across the ACC and former disjunctions among high-, low- and broad-church sensibilities became blurred.") Well, it was an orphan sentence in that it began with the now superfluous "nevertheless," which referred to the formerly preceding discussion of "high," "low" and "broad." And the discussion of those issues is now certainly complete but it is also a mite vague, whereas there are other articles that discuss these very party issues in the wider Anglican church which were once very important indeed, and the sentence usefully alludes to them in terms of their decreasing significance in Canada. (And, cosmetically, at least, internationally as well — Peter Akinola's and Michael Nazir-Ali's copes and mitres would have been extremely unlikely a few decades back; it would surely nowadays be the contrast between formal liturgy of any kind and virtually no liturgy at all, as one perhaps finds more often in England than in Canada, that is of significance rather than the old high church/low church disjunction that matters in terms of liturgy. And literalness or liberalness in scriptural interpretation and adherence to or willingness to depart from tradition with respect to the contentious issues of women and gays, which comprehensively cross the old party lines, with parties as disparate as the Sydney Anglicans and the old Rome-oriented high churchmen finding unlikely common cause.) Masalai 04:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
So it is, but only via the greater Anglican Communion, and the Old Catholics are of less than marginal significance in Canada. One might with equal validity mention the Church of Sweden, the Mar Thomites of the Malabar Coast (who have a far greater awareness of Anglicans than any Old Catholic; indeed so do the Malankara Oriental Orthodox of India, who are not in communion with the Anglicans at all) and the Philippine Independants. Given that the article concerns the ACC specifically, perhaps the reference to the Old Catholics could be removed, eh? Masalai 16:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
"ACC" does indeed often refer to the Anglican Consultative Council, but an article on the Anglican Consultative Council would also need to define the abbreviated term: "The Anglican Consultative Council (the 'ACC')." That is the contemporary, shorter, version of what used to be rendered as "hereinafter referred to as...." And in this article "ACC" has been defined to mean Anglican Church of Canada. This is the protocol in all legal drafting nowadays: in a contract one might say "Carolyn Parrish Fan ('Fan')" and thereafter consistently refer to Carolyn Parrish Fan as "Fan." In a statement of claim one might say "The First Plaintiff ('Fan')..." and thereafter be excused from continually reiterating "the First Plaintiff," which becomes extremely confusing when there are multiple plaintiffs, defendants, counter claimants, counter defendants, third party claimants, third party defendants, and so on. So no, it's certainly not incorrect to refer to the Anglican Church of Canada as the ACC provided that it is clear in the context that that is what one means and particularly if one expressly defines the abbreviation at the first mention of it. Masalai 19:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
It can also be helpful in a longer article to spell out the acronym or abbreviation for the reader again or to rewikify it if it has not been used for a while, especially at its first use in a major section.
"Prior to this, General Synod had adopted "l'Église Episcopale du Canada" in 1977 and amended the canons to reflect this in 1983[1] when it became clear that francophone Canadians were baffled by the term "Episcopale" but well understood the term "Anglicane." This sentence doesn't actually make sense — I presume it is intended to indicate that the ACC became "Episcopale" in 1977 and "Anglicane" in 1983 but I can't check it in the footnotes because the references to the Handbook are incorrect. I believe it was Carolyn Parrish Fan who dealt with this in the first instance: could she perhaps re-check it now? Masalai 20:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
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 21:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
What is the general feeling about the Info Box? Do the labels make sense? At the TEC site, there was some discussion: see Denomination Info Box. One editor (SECisek) summarized his concerns for the Episcopal Church in the US (TEC) thus:
There are going to be huge issues with this box throughout the anglican communion pages. Let's see what's here, shall we?
Classification: Protestant There is an on going dicussion about just how Protestant this Church is. The church no longer refers to itself as Protestant in general. What is more the Protestant Episcopal Church has started using that name and the ECUSA seems quite happy to let them have it.
Orientation: Mainline, Anglican Orientation? What is that? Neologisim from what I can tell. All in the communion would agree that we are Anglican (sorry Scots). Orientation of one sort or another, on the other hand, is splitting the communion in two.
Polity: Episcopal I suppose I can buy that but of course they are "Episcopal" - it is in their name.
Founder: Samuel Seabury Christ was the founder, end of argument. There were Episcopalians here waiting for Seabury when he came from Scotland. He was not a founder of anything other than a line of Apostolic Succession.
Origin: 1789 If the Church is Protestant, why was it founded 100+ years after the Reformation ended in England?
Separated from: Church of England Not seperated, misleading, full communion with Canterbury.
This box just is not a good fit for the ECUSA or probably any other of the daughter Churches of the C of E. Thoughts? -- SECisek 05:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
So, problem or not? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 19:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I reverted this deletion as I was rather confused by the reason given in the edit summary. I don't see why cabot is any less relevant to the history of the ACC than the following para, and if this para is to go, then the image of the Matthew should be deleted as well, or it makes no sense. David Underdown 11:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
To all you church historians out there, a question: was the name "Church of England in Canada" ever made official? Is there a document, say at the first pan-Canadian synod in 1893 that called the church by that name? I know very well the church was called that. My mom still uses the name. When I registered at university, my mom checked off the box "Church of England in Canada" rather than the "Anglican Church of Canada" above it. Was it an actual official name or a name of convenience? There are certainly references to its use in the 19th Century ...maybe earlier ...but it is hard to parse the sense of an official name from a simple geographic modifier. That is. "We are Church of England in Canada" and "In Canada, we are Church of England" might have the same meaning, if you get my point. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Anglican Church of Canada/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
= Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglicanism/Assessment= Needs serious work on referencing. (Cheers!) Wassupwestcoast 03:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 03:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)