This is an
archive of past discussions for the period 2011–2019. 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Okay, do we really need to put the bit about the ordinariates? I feel that should properly go in the article on the Roman Catholic Church, as it really has no bearing on Anglicanism outside of the very small group that will be taking Rome up on the offer. Shadowmane ( talk) 05:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Is this article going to use American or British English? The only two instances of a variance I could find would be "Civilisation" vs "Civilization" or "Organisation" vs "Organization."
My argument would be that for a large portion of the readership of these articles, the spelling with "S" instead of "Z" looks like a spelling mistake (And most English Spell Check programs will flag them as such). We should therefore use the standard American English Spellings with Z rather than S. ReformedArsenal ( talk) 17:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
From WP:ENGVAR: "Strong national ties to a topic: An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation."
I therefore rest my case. Afterwriting ( talk) 18:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, Afterwriting has the better grasp of WP policy on this topic and I support his position. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
i find dubious the claim in the opening paragraph that some english, irish and american "anglicans" of the 17th and 18th century emphasized the via media between protestantism and roman catholicism. if this is true, the view must have been confined to a small and not very vocal minority of churchmen of this early period. it was certainly not representative. the church of england at this stage overwhelmingly, uncompromisingly (and legally) identified as protestant full stop. with perhaps the exception of some ultra high church non-jurors in the scottish highlands, churchmen--high, low, latitudinarian, etc--would have taken exception at the suggestion that they somehow stood in the middle between geneva and rome. apologists for episcopacy and the prayer book vis-a-vis dissenters at home and continental protestants justified these on the basis that they represented a truly protestant return to primitive christianity and the gospel, not a measure of affinity with roman catholicism or continuity with pre-reformation practice...not by any stretch. anglo-catholics have to stop projecting their own claims on the church back into pre-tractarian history, when such latter-day practices as swinging incense, invoking saints, using latin or even the word "mass" in worship, and belief in transubstantiation were anathema to english protestant national self-consciousness and in fact illegal. the emphasis on the apostolic succession doesn't even really come in until the 19th century.
also, there should be a section on the genealogy of the word anglican and the history of its use. except for the latinate ecclesia anglicana, one never sees use of the term 'anglican' in the 17th and 18th century literature. this is a post-tractarian neologism as far as i can tell. over and over one sees, rather, "churchmen" or "protestant church by law established" etc to designate the church of england and its adherents. if this article is to be responsibly attentive to historical context it should emphasis that both the via media concept and the very term anglican, as referring to a distinctive branch of christianity, are products of the 19th century and later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.69.46 ( talk) 21:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I was astonished to find almost no description of the first origins of Anglicanism. The most frank account was via Henry_VIII_of_England#Reformation and hence English Reformation. This is a massive elephant in the room - perhaps it is embarrassing for English historians that the raison d'etre for their country's primary religion was so that their monarch could have his choice of bride(s). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.180.126 ( talk) 13:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
The search engine summary of this article is preceded by "I hate negros." See image below. This needs to be addressed ASAP.
Link to imgur image of search results — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.220.228 ( talk) 20:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
A Lutheran Influence by Bryce P Wandrey, 2, 3. This sounds rather interesting. Komitsuki ( talk) 14:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
2601:9:8600:263:1C43:2333:489D:D160 posted this comment on 3 January 2014 ( view all feedback).
write the beliefs of the religion
Any thoughts?
Loverthehater ( talk) 14:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Check the Anglican#Specific_Anglican_beliefs section. That section states everything, although it is hard to navigate to. I'll see if I can help with that.
I just undid a large content fork added to the “Early history” section. The information added there is a direct copy/paste from the Celtic Christianity article. This article only should present a very short history of the Celtic churches in the British Isles as it pertains to the Anglican tradition. It should not be a discussion of whether there existed a single ‘Celtic Church’ in antiquity—that belongs on the main article that discusses this subject. This article on Anglicanism makes it clear that there were several Celtic churches and only operated independently until the Synod of Whitby due to geographical location, not because of an outward rejection of Roman Catholicism. Reference number 31 states that the "independence of Rome implied neither repudiation of nor secession from the Roman Church. It was merely temporary suspension of outward communion with Latin Christianity as a result of political events which had placed Cornwall in a state of isolation." As such, the content forking is largely unnecessary. If this is unclear, please discuss it here, rather than reverting. It seems that User:Matthewrobertolson is already close to his third revert. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam Talk 03:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
User:matthewrobertolson, I appreciate you taking your time to discuss your changes here. WP:3RR does not just apply to a 24 hour time period. If you notice the policy, it states "Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation." I understand from your user page that you operate a personal website called answeringprotestants.com and have been adding this anti-Protestant apologetics source as a reference in this article ( see diff), despite being reverted several times by other editors here. Given this fact, it will be helpful for you to read the policy, WP:COI. As a friendly alert, individuals who have a situation like yours might be reported to the Administrator's Noticeboard and may be topic banned from all Christianity-related articles. I would rather not have this happen, since you seem to have made some constructive edits to Christianity-related articles and am willing to discuss the changes with you here. Just today, you added a large paragraph from another Catholic apologetics website, which states that "The question for Anglicans and Episcopalians who see the Celtic Christians as their ancestors is: If the Celts submitted to Rome the first chance they got, why don’t you follow their example?". The addition of apologetics websites to this article is not appropriate for an encyclopedia and violates WP:RS - this article should not read as an apologetics tract. We need to use sources that are published by academic publishers in this article. In addition, you have also vioalted WP:CFORK by copying/pasting the following paragraph to this article, in a place where it is out of context:
Modern scholars, however, have identified problems with Anglican claims to "Celtic Christianity", and find the term problematic.[33] These claims are roundly rejected by these scholars, due to the lack of substantiating evidence.[34] Indeed, there were distinct Irish and British church traditions, each with their own practices, and there was significant local variation even within the individual Irish and British spheres.[35] There were some traditions known to have been common to both the Irish and British churches, but these were relatively few. In these scholars' view, these commonalities did not exist due to the "Celticity" of the regions, but due to other historical and geographical factors.[36] Additionally, the Christians of Ireland and Britain were not, apparently, "anti-Roman"; the authority of Rome and the Papacy were venerated as strongly in Celtic areas as they were in any other region of Europe.[37]
This article does not assert that the Celtic churches were anti-Roman and that the pope was not acknowledged. Reference number 31 states that the "independence of Rome implied neither repudiation of nor secession from the Roman Church. It was merely temporary suspension of outward communion with Latin Christianity as a result of political events which had placed Cornwall in a state of isolation." As such, there's no need for that paragraph in this article. I hope this makes sense. Please respond with any questions and concerns you might have. I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, Anupam Talk 16:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Johnbod, I agree. What do you think of adding a summary of the following quote by historian and Celticist Heinrich Zimmer (found in reference 24), which states "Just as Britain was a part of the Roman Empire, so the British Church formed (during the fourth century) a branch of the Catholic Church of the West; and during the whole of that century, from the council of Arles (316) onward, took part in all proceedings concerning the Church. But the Irish branch of the Celtic Church was an offshoot of that British Church, and had sprung up as early as the fourth century. At the beginning of the seventh century the institutions of the Celtic Church on either side of the Irish Sea showed divergences from the Church of Rome which are well attested. These, on a closer view, admit of full explanation. Above all, we must not forget the fact that in the Roman Catholic Church the position of the Roman bishop during the fourth century and up to the time of Leo the Great (440-461) differed from that of Pope Gregory the Great (509-604) at the end of the sixth century. At the beginning of the seventh century rigid uniformity of institutions was regarded as an essential requirement of the unitas catholica ; but to the fourth century this idea was wholly foreign. Besides, many innovations took long to domesticate themselves with the distant branches of the Church. At the end of the fourth century the British branch of the Catholic Church, together with its offshoot in the barbarian isle, were severed from Rome, because political Rome had lost its hold on Britain." This way, we can make it clear that the British Isles were a part of the Catholic Church in the West and that the isolation of the British Church occurred towards the end of the fourth century? I look forward to your response. With regards, Anupam Talk 17:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Modern scholars, however, have identified problems with Anglican claims to "Celtic Christianity", and find the term problematic.[33] These claims are roundly rejected by these scholars, due to the lack of substantiating evidence.[34] And in these scholars' view, commonalities between the alleged Celtic churches did not exist due to the "Celticity" of the regions, but due to other historical and geographical factors.[36] Additionally, the Christians of Ireland and Britain at the time strongly venerated the authority of Rome and the Papacy, as strongly as they were venerated in any other region of Europe.[37]
User:matthewrobertolson, my suggestion would be to add the following statement after reference 19: 'Celticist Heinrich Zimmer writes that "Just as Britain was a part of the Roman Empire, so the British Church formed (during the fourth century) a branch of the Catholic Church of the West; and during the whole of that century, from the council of Arles (316) onward, took part in all proceedings concerning the Church.' [1] This statement is supported by reference 24 and will ensure that the Church in Britain was a part of the Catholic Church from ancient times, which is what you are concerned about. What do you think? I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, Anupam Talk 17:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
For although we differ widely from the current views with regard to the introduction and development of Irish Christianity down to the days of Columba, yet this does not affect the fundamental view, shared by most modern investigators, as to the relation of the institutions of the Celtic Church towards those of the Roman Church at the beginning of the seventh century. On the contrary, with regard to the Irish branch, this view receives fresh support from our statements. Neither from what tradition tells us about the doctrines and institutions of the Celtic Church, nor from what we know or may fairly conjecture about her history, do we receive any support for the hypothesis that the Celtic Church during her golden age greatly resembled the Church of the apostolic era in institutions and dogma. Just as Britain was a part of the Roman Empire, so the British Church formed (during the fourth century) a branch of the Catholic Church of the West; and during the whole of that century, from the council of Arles (316) onward, took part in all proceedings concerning the Church. But the Irish branch of the Celtic Church was an offshoot of that British Church, and had sprung up as early as the fourth century. At the beginning of the seventh century the institutions of the Celtic Church on either side of the Irish Sea showed divergences from the Church of Rome which are well attested. These, on a closer view, admit of full explanation. Above all, we must not forget the fact that in the Roman Catholic Church the position of the Roman bishop during the fourth century and up to the time of Leo the Great (440-461) differed from that of Pope Gregory the Great (509-604) at the end of the sixth century. At the beginning of the seventh century rigid uniformity of institutions was regarded as an essential requirement of the unitas catholica ; but to the fourth century this idea was wholly foreign. Besides, many innovations took long to domesticate themselves with the distant branches of the Church. At the end of the fourth century the British branch of the Catholic Church, together with its offshoot in the barbarian isle, were severed from Rome, because political Rome had lost its hold on Britain.
'Celtic Christianity' is a phrase used, with varying degrees of specificity, to designate a complex of features held to have been common to the Celtic speaking countries in the early Middle Ages. Doubts concerning the term's usefulness have repeatedly been expressed, however, and the majority of scholars consider it to be problematic. While there is considerable evidence for divergent Irish and (to an even greater degree) British practice in matters of liturgy, baptism, and ecclesiastical administration, the usages in question seem only to have characterized specific regions, and not necessarily to have been uniformly present there. Only the Britons were accused of practising a heterodox baptism; traces of an archaic liturgy in Wales find no counterpart in the eclectic, but largely Gallican, worship attested from Ireland; and the superiority of abbots to bishops appears to have been limited to some parts of Gaelic sphere of influence.
Hello. I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page. This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.
This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link. Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.
In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive these pages.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Anglicanism. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Understandably, there is nothing about the way Anglicanism was imposed by force from the 16th century to the 19th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.161.186 ( talk) 12:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Anglicanism. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Geocities has closed so this item probably needs a new reference
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —
cyberbot II
Talk to my owner:Online
08:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Anglicanism. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Anglicanism. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Before jumping in and removing some lines of text I am wondering if someone could help me with the following: whether a.) the lead section is too long (I think it is) and b.) whether its good form to repeat definitions in the lead section which are also covered in the terminology section? It struck me as odd, and unnecessary while reading the article. ronaz Talk! 12:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Chicbyaccident added (in bold) "Some churches that are not part of the Anglican Communion also consider themselves Anglican, including those that are part of the Continuing Anglican movement and the Anglican realignment, as well as personal ordinariates.", giving a reference of [1]. I don't think that the personal ordinariates consider themselves Anglican, and I can't see where the source could be read to say they do. The first sentence of the history section there is "There have always been converts to the Catholic Church from Anglicanism." - 'from' would seem to me to suggest 'no longer'. It talks about Anglican Use, and the "Anglican patrimony"; but, again, these are very different from being an Anglican. Our own page on the personal ordinariates is pretty explicit:
"Anglican ordinariates" is often used by newspapers, such as the Church of England Newspaper and the Canadian Catholic Register. It is also often used by communities belonging to the ordinariates. The name does not imply that the members of an ordinariate are still Anglicans. While those who have been Anglicans "bring with them, into the full communion of the Catholic Church in all its diversity and richness of liturgical rites and traditions, aspects of their own Anglican patrimony and culture which are consonant with the Catholic Faith", they are "Catholics of the Latin Rite, within the full communion of the Catholic Church ... no longer part of any other communion".
TSP ( talk) 10:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Johnsoniensis: There seems to be a debate again about the categorisation of Anglicanism along with Anglican denominations as Protestant - something that I thought was already cleared, according to established consensus in both article content and categorisation over the board since a long time? Chicbyaccident ( talk) 21:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
There is currently an RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Catholic_Church)#RfC:_should_this_page_be_made_a_naming_convention that may be of interest. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 23:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Anglicanism. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
The page Episcopal should redirect here too, as many people are mistakenly described as "Episcopal" instead of " Episcopalian".
I found this source, Church Schism & Corruption (9781409221869), everything on the page under social activism was directly plagiarized from it. Does someone have time to paraphrase this and move it back onto the main page?
Working conditions and Christian socialism "Lord Shaftesbury, a devout evangelical, campaigned to improve the conditions in factories, in mines, for chimney sweeps, and for the education of the very poor. For years he was chairman of the Ragged School Board. Frederick Denison Maurice was a leading figure advocating reform, founding so-called "producer's co-operatives" and the Working Men's College. His work was instrumental in the establishment of the Christian socialist movement, although he himself was not in any real sense a socialist but, "a Tory paternalist with the unusual desire to theories his acceptance of the traditional obligation to help the poor", influenced Anglo-Catholics such as Charles Gore, who wrote that, "the principle of the incarnation is denied unless the Christian spirit can be allowed to concern itself with everything that interests and touches human life." Anglican focus on labour issues culminated in the work of William Temple in the 1930s and 1940s."
Pacifism A question of whether or not Christianity is a pacifist religion has remained a matter of debate for Anglicans. In 1937, the Anglican Pacifist Fellowship emerged as a distinct reform organisation, seeking to make pacifism a clearly defined part of Anglican theology. The group rapidly gained popularity amongst Anglican intellectuals, including Vera Brittain, Evelyn Underhill, and the former British political leader George Lansbury. Furthermore, Dick Sheppard, who during the 1930s was one of Britain's most famous Anglican priests due to his landmark sermon broadcasts for BBC Radio, founded the Peace Pledge Union a secular pacifist organisation for the non-religious that gained considerable support throughout the 1930s.
Whilst never actively endorsed by Anglican churches, many Anglicans unofficially have adopted the Augustinian "Just War" doctrine. The Anglican Pacifist Fellowship remain highly active throughout the Anglican world. It rejects this doctrine of "just war" and seeks to reform the Church by reintroducing the pacifism inherent in the beliefs of many of the earliest Christians and present in their interpretation of Christ's Sermon on the Mount. The principles of the Anglican Pacifist Fellowship are often formulated as a statement of belief that "Jesus' teaching is incompatible with the waging of war ... that a Christian church should never support or justify war ... [and] that our Christian witness should include opposing the waging or justifying of war."
Confusing the matter was the fact that the 37th Article of Religion in the Book of Common Prayer states that "it is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars." Therefore, the Lambeth Council in the modern era has sought to provide a clearer position by repudiating modern war and developed a statement that has been affirmed at each subsequent meeting of the Council.
This statement was strongly reasserted when "the 67th General Convention of the Episcopal Church reaffirms the statement made by the Anglican Bishops assembled at Lambeth in 1978 and adopted by the 66th General Convention of the Episcopal Church in 1979, calling "Christian people everywhere ... to engage themselves in non-violent action for justice and peace and to support others so engaged, recognising that such action will be controversial and may be personally very costly... this General Convention, in obedience to this call, urges all members of this Church to support by prayer and by such other means as they deem appropriate, those who engaged in such non-violent action, and particularly those who suffer for conscience' sake as a result; and be it further Resolved, that this General Convention calls upon all members of this Church seriously to consider the implications for their own lives of this call to resist war and work for peace for their own lives." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aschuet1 ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
This is an
archive of past discussions for the period 2011–2019. 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Okay, do we really need to put the bit about the ordinariates? I feel that should properly go in the article on the Roman Catholic Church, as it really has no bearing on Anglicanism outside of the very small group that will be taking Rome up on the offer. Shadowmane ( talk) 05:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Is this article going to use American or British English? The only two instances of a variance I could find would be "Civilisation" vs "Civilization" or "Organisation" vs "Organization."
My argument would be that for a large portion of the readership of these articles, the spelling with "S" instead of "Z" looks like a spelling mistake (And most English Spell Check programs will flag them as such). We should therefore use the standard American English Spellings with Z rather than S. ReformedArsenal ( talk) 17:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
From WP:ENGVAR: "Strong national ties to a topic: An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation."
I therefore rest my case. Afterwriting ( talk) 18:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, Afterwriting has the better grasp of WP policy on this topic and I support his position. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
i find dubious the claim in the opening paragraph that some english, irish and american "anglicans" of the 17th and 18th century emphasized the via media between protestantism and roman catholicism. if this is true, the view must have been confined to a small and not very vocal minority of churchmen of this early period. it was certainly not representative. the church of england at this stage overwhelmingly, uncompromisingly (and legally) identified as protestant full stop. with perhaps the exception of some ultra high church non-jurors in the scottish highlands, churchmen--high, low, latitudinarian, etc--would have taken exception at the suggestion that they somehow stood in the middle between geneva and rome. apologists for episcopacy and the prayer book vis-a-vis dissenters at home and continental protestants justified these on the basis that they represented a truly protestant return to primitive christianity and the gospel, not a measure of affinity with roman catholicism or continuity with pre-reformation practice...not by any stretch. anglo-catholics have to stop projecting their own claims on the church back into pre-tractarian history, when such latter-day practices as swinging incense, invoking saints, using latin or even the word "mass" in worship, and belief in transubstantiation were anathema to english protestant national self-consciousness and in fact illegal. the emphasis on the apostolic succession doesn't even really come in until the 19th century.
also, there should be a section on the genealogy of the word anglican and the history of its use. except for the latinate ecclesia anglicana, one never sees use of the term 'anglican' in the 17th and 18th century literature. this is a post-tractarian neologism as far as i can tell. over and over one sees, rather, "churchmen" or "protestant church by law established" etc to designate the church of england and its adherents. if this article is to be responsibly attentive to historical context it should emphasis that both the via media concept and the very term anglican, as referring to a distinctive branch of christianity, are products of the 19th century and later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.69.46 ( talk) 21:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I was astonished to find almost no description of the first origins of Anglicanism. The most frank account was via Henry_VIII_of_England#Reformation and hence English Reformation. This is a massive elephant in the room - perhaps it is embarrassing for English historians that the raison d'etre for their country's primary religion was so that their monarch could have his choice of bride(s). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.180.126 ( talk) 13:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
The search engine summary of this article is preceded by "I hate negros." See image below. This needs to be addressed ASAP.
Link to imgur image of search results — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.220.228 ( talk) 20:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
A Lutheran Influence by Bryce P Wandrey, 2, 3. This sounds rather interesting. Komitsuki ( talk) 14:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
2601:9:8600:263:1C43:2333:489D:D160 posted this comment on 3 January 2014 ( view all feedback).
write the beliefs of the religion
Any thoughts?
Loverthehater ( talk) 14:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Check the Anglican#Specific_Anglican_beliefs section. That section states everything, although it is hard to navigate to. I'll see if I can help with that.
I just undid a large content fork added to the “Early history” section. The information added there is a direct copy/paste from the Celtic Christianity article. This article only should present a very short history of the Celtic churches in the British Isles as it pertains to the Anglican tradition. It should not be a discussion of whether there existed a single ‘Celtic Church’ in antiquity—that belongs on the main article that discusses this subject. This article on Anglicanism makes it clear that there were several Celtic churches and only operated independently until the Synod of Whitby due to geographical location, not because of an outward rejection of Roman Catholicism. Reference number 31 states that the "independence of Rome implied neither repudiation of nor secession from the Roman Church. It was merely temporary suspension of outward communion with Latin Christianity as a result of political events which had placed Cornwall in a state of isolation." As such, the content forking is largely unnecessary. If this is unclear, please discuss it here, rather than reverting. It seems that User:Matthewrobertolson is already close to his third revert. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam Talk 03:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
User:matthewrobertolson, I appreciate you taking your time to discuss your changes here. WP:3RR does not just apply to a 24 hour time period. If you notice the policy, it states "Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation." I understand from your user page that you operate a personal website called answeringprotestants.com and have been adding this anti-Protestant apologetics source as a reference in this article ( see diff), despite being reverted several times by other editors here. Given this fact, it will be helpful for you to read the policy, WP:COI. As a friendly alert, individuals who have a situation like yours might be reported to the Administrator's Noticeboard and may be topic banned from all Christianity-related articles. I would rather not have this happen, since you seem to have made some constructive edits to Christianity-related articles and am willing to discuss the changes with you here. Just today, you added a large paragraph from another Catholic apologetics website, which states that "The question for Anglicans and Episcopalians who see the Celtic Christians as their ancestors is: If the Celts submitted to Rome the first chance they got, why don’t you follow their example?". The addition of apologetics websites to this article is not appropriate for an encyclopedia and violates WP:RS - this article should not read as an apologetics tract. We need to use sources that are published by academic publishers in this article. In addition, you have also vioalted WP:CFORK by copying/pasting the following paragraph to this article, in a place where it is out of context:
Modern scholars, however, have identified problems with Anglican claims to "Celtic Christianity", and find the term problematic.[33] These claims are roundly rejected by these scholars, due to the lack of substantiating evidence.[34] Indeed, there were distinct Irish and British church traditions, each with their own practices, and there was significant local variation even within the individual Irish and British spheres.[35] There were some traditions known to have been common to both the Irish and British churches, but these were relatively few. In these scholars' view, these commonalities did not exist due to the "Celticity" of the regions, but due to other historical and geographical factors.[36] Additionally, the Christians of Ireland and Britain were not, apparently, "anti-Roman"; the authority of Rome and the Papacy were venerated as strongly in Celtic areas as they were in any other region of Europe.[37]
This article does not assert that the Celtic churches were anti-Roman and that the pope was not acknowledged. Reference number 31 states that the "independence of Rome implied neither repudiation of nor secession from the Roman Church. It was merely temporary suspension of outward communion with Latin Christianity as a result of political events which had placed Cornwall in a state of isolation." As such, there's no need for that paragraph in this article. I hope this makes sense. Please respond with any questions and concerns you might have. I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, Anupam Talk 16:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Johnbod, I agree. What do you think of adding a summary of the following quote by historian and Celticist Heinrich Zimmer (found in reference 24), which states "Just as Britain was a part of the Roman Empire, so the British Church formed (during the fourth century) a branch of the Catholic Church of the West; and during the whole of that century, from the council of Arles (316) onward, took part in all proceedings concerning the Church. But the Irish branch of the Celtic Church was an offshoot of that British Church, and had sprung up as early as the fourth century. At the beginning of the seventh century the institutions of the Celtic Church on either side of the Irish Sea showed divergences from the Church of Rome which are well attested. These, on a closer view, admit of full explanation. Above all, we must not forget the fact that in the Roman Catholic Church the position of the Roman bishop during the fourth century and up to the time of Leo the Great (440-461) differed from that of Pope Gregory the Great (509-604) at the end of the sixth century. At the beginning of the seventh century rigid uniformity of institutions was regarded as an essential requirement of the unitas catholica ; but to the fourth century this idea was wholly foreign. Besides, many innovations took long to domesticate themselves with the distant branches of the Church. At the end of the fourth century the British branch of the Catholic Church, together with its offshoot in the barbarian isle, were severed from Rome, because political Rome had lost its hold on Britain." This way, we can make it clear that the British Isles were a part of the Catholic Church in the West and that the isolation of the British Church occurred towards the end of the fourth century? I look forward to your response. With regards, Anupam Talk 17:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Modern scholars, however, have identified problems with Anglican claims to "Celtic Christianity", and find the term problematic.[33] These claims are roundly rejected by these scholars, due to the lack of substantiating evidence.[34] And in these scholars' view, commonalities between the alleged Celtic churches did not exist due to the "Celticity" of the regions, but due to other historical and geographical factors.[36] Additionally, the Christians of Ireland and Britain at the time strongly venerated the authority of Rome and the Papacy, as strongly as they were venerated in any other region of Europe.[37]
User:matthewrobertolson, my suggestion would be to add the following statement after reference 19: 'Celticist Heinrich Zimmer writes that "Just as Britain was a part of the Roman Empire, so the British Church formed (during the fourth century) a branch of the Catholic Church of the West; and during the whole of that century, from the council of Arles (316) onward, took part in all proceedings concerning the Church.' [1] This statement is supported by reference 24 and will ensure that the Church in Britain was a part of the Catholic Church from ancient times, which is what you are concerned about. What do you think? I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, Anupam Talk 17:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
For although we differ widely from the current views with regard to the introduction and development of Irish Christianity down to the days of Columba, yet this does not affect the fundamental view, shared by most modern investigators, as to the relation of the institutions of the Celtic Church towards those of the Roman Church at the beginning of the seventh century. On the contrary, with regard to the Irish branch, this view receives fresh support from our statements. Neither from what tradition tells us about the doctrines and institutions of the Celtic Church, nor from what we know or may fairly conjecture about her history, do we receive any support for the hypothesis that the Celtic Church during her golden age greatly resembled the Church of the apostolic era in institutions and dogma. Just as Britain was a part of the Roman Empire, so the British Church formed (during the fourth century) a branch of the Catholic Church of the West; and during the whole of that century, from the council of Arles (316) onward, took part in all proceedings concerning the Church. But the Irish branch of the Celtic Church was an offshoot of that British Church, and had sprung up as early as the fourth century. At the beginning of the seventh century the institutions of the Celtic Church on either side of the Irish Sea showed divergences from the Church of Rome which are well attested. These, on a closer view, admit of full explanation. Above all, we must not forget the fact that in the Roman Catholic Church the position of the Roman bishop during the fourth century and up to the time of Leo the Great (440-461) differed from that of Pope Gregory the Great (509-604) at the end of the sixth century. At the beginning of the seventh century rigid uniformity of institutions was regarded as an essential requirement of the unitas catholica ; but to the fourth century this idea was wholly foreign. Besides, many innovations took long to domesticate themselves with the distant branches of the Church. At the end of the fourth century the British branch of the Catholic Church, together with its offshoot in the barbarian isle, were severed from Rome, because political Rome had lost its hold on Britain.
'Celtic Christianity' is a phrase used, with varying degrees of specificity, to designate a complex of features held to have been common to the Celtic speaking countries in the early Middle Ages. Doubts concerning the term's usefulness have repeatedly been expressed, however, and the majority of scholars consider it to be problematic. While there is considerable evidence for divergent Irish and (to an even greater degree) British practice in matters of liturgy, baptism, and ecclesiastical administration, the usages in question seem only to have characterized specific regions, and not necessarily to have been uniformly present there. Only the Britons were accused of practising a heterodox baptism; traces of an archaic liturgy in Wales find no counterpart in the eclectic, but largely Gallican, worship attested from Ireland; and the superiority of abbots to bishops appears to have been limited to some parts of Gaelic sphere of influence.
Hello. I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page. This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.
This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link. Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.
In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive these pages.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Anglicanism. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Understandably, there is nothing about the way Anglicanism was imposed by force from the 16th century to the 19th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.161.186 ( talk) 12:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Anglicanism. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Geocities has closed so this item probably needs a new reference
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —
cyberbot II
Talk to my owner:Online
08:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Anglicanism. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Anglicanism. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Before jumping in and removing some lines of text I am wondering if someone could help me with the following: whether a.) the lead section is too long (I think it is) and b.) whether its good form to repeat definitions in the lead section which are also covered in the terminology section? It struck me as odd, and unnecessary while reading the article. ronaz Talk! 12:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Chicbyaccident added (in bold) "Some churches that are not part of the Anglican Communion also consider themselves Anglican, including those that are part of the Continuing Anglican movement and the Anglican realignment, as well as personal ordinariates.", giving a reference of [1]. I don't think that the personal ordinariates consider themselves Anglican, and I can't see where the source could be read to say they do. The first sentence of the history section there is "There have always been converts to the Catholic Church from Anglicanism." - 'from' would seem to me to suggest 'no longer'. It talks about Anglican Use, and the "Anglican patrimony"; but, again, these are very different from being an Anglican. Our own page on the personal ordinariates is pretty explicit:
"Anglican ordinariates" is often used by newspapers, such as the Church of England Newspaper and the Canadian Catholic Register. It is also often used by communities belonging to the ordinariates. The name does not imply that the members of an ordinariate are still Anglicans. While those who have been Anglicans "bring with them, into the full communion of the Catholic Church in all its diversity and richness of liturgical rites and traditions, aspects of their own Anglican patrimony and culture which are consonant with the Catholic Faith", they are "Catholics of the Latin Rite, within the full communion of the Catholic Church ... no longer part of any other communion".
TSP ( talk) 10:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Johnsoniensis: There seems to be a debate again about the categorisation of Anglicanism along with Anglican denominations as Protestant - something that I thought was already cleared, according to established consensus in both article content and categorisation over the board since a long time? Chicbyaccident ( talk) 21:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
There is currently an RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Catholic_Church)#RfC:_should_this_page_be_made_a_naming_convention that may be of interest. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 23:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Anglicanism. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
The page Episcopal should redirect here too, as many people are mistakenly described as "Episcopal" instead of " Episcopalian".
I found this source, Church Schism & Corruption (9781409221869), everything on the page under social activism was directly plagiarized from it. Does someone have time to paraphrase this and move it back onto the main page?
Working conditions and Christian socialism "Lord Shaftesbury, a devout evangelical, campaigned to improve the conditions in factories, in mines, for chimney sweeps, and for the education of the very poor. For years he was chairman of the Ragged School Board. Frederick Denison Maurice was a leading figure advocating reform, founding so-called "producer's co-operatives" and the Working Men's College. His work was instrumental in the establishment of the Christian socialist movement, although he himself was not in any real sense a socialist but, "a Tory paternalist with the unusual desire to theories his acceptance of the traditional obligation to help the poor", influenced Anglo-Catholics such as Charles Gore, who wrote that, "the principle of the incarnation is denied unless the Christian spirit can be allowed to concern itself with everything that interests and touches human life." Anglican focus on labour issues culminated in the work of William Temple in the 1930s and 1940s."
Pacifism A question of whether or not Christianity is a pacifist religion has remained a matter of debate for Anglicans. In 1937, the Anglican Pacifist Fellowship emerged as a distinct reform organisation, seeking to make pacifism a clearly defined part of Anglican theology. The group rapidly gained popularity amongst Anglican intellectuals, including Vera Brittain, Evelyn Underhill, and the former British political leader George Lansbury. Furthermore, Dick Sheppard, who during the 1930s was one of Britain's most famous Anglican priests due to his landmark sermon broadcasts for BBC Radio, founded the Peace Pledge Union a secular pacifist organisation for the non-religious that gained considerable support throughout the 1930s.
Whilst never actively endorsed by Anglican churches, many Anglicans unofficially have adopted the Augustinian "Just War" doctrine. The Anglican Pacifist Fellowship remain highly active throughout the Anglican world. It rejects this doctrine of "just war" and seeks to reform the Church by reintroducing the pacifism inherent in the beliefs of many of the earliest Christians and present in their interpretation of Christ's Sermon on the Mount. The principles of the Anglican Pacifist Fellowship are often formulated as a statement of belief that "Jesus' teaching is incompatible with the waging of war ... that a Christian church should never support or justify war ... [and] that our Christian witness should include opposing the waging or justifying of war."
Confusing the matter was the fact that the 37th Article of Religion in the Book of Common Prayer states that "it is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars." Therefore, the Lambeth Council in the modern era has sought to provide a clearer position by repudiating modern war and developed a statement that has been affirmed at each subsequent meeting of the Council.
This statement was strongly reasserted when "the 67th General Convention of the Episcopal Church reaffirms the statement made by the Anglican Bishops assembled at Lambeth in 1978 and adopted by the 66th General Convention of the Episcopal Church in 1979, calling "Christian people everywhere ... to engage themselves in non-violent action for justice and peace and to support others so engaged, recognising that such action will be controversial and may be personally very costly... this General Convention, in obedience to this call, urges all members of this Church to support by prayer and by such other means as they deem appropriate, those who engaged in such non-violent action, and particularly those who suffer for conscience' sake as a result; and be it further Resolved, that this General Convention calls upon all members of this Church seriously to consider the implications for their own lives of this call to resist war and work for peace for their own lives." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aschuet1 ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)