Talk:Anglicanism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Schism

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.

  The first translation of the Prayer Book into another language was the Latin translation made in (I think) 1559, for use in places

like Oxford and Cambridge college chapels, where people could be presumed to understand Latin. Common Prayer in English was alright for the illiterate out in the parishes, but where there were numbers of people who could understand Latin living together they were expected to continue to use Latin in public worhsip. In practice, I have no idea how much use was ever made of the Latin Prayer Book. It is available on the internet. The Welsh translation has been in use since 1567, and contributed immensely to the survival of the Welsh language. Nennius

---

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)

In fact, the Homilies set forth by authority of Queen Elizabeth I, as noted in the Thirty-nine Articles, make quite clear that only civil authority over the Church, primarily the authority to appoint Archbishops to their Sees, belongs to the Crown. No other authority is claimed and, in fact, spiritual authority is expressly denied.

Nrgdocadams 03:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

 I don't think it is true that the Abp. of C. took over from the

sovereign after the death of Elizabeth I. When king Charles I was executed the bishops were unable to function without him. The idea that practical authority rests with the Abp. of C. is, I suspect, a much later development. Nennius

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/_{tɔk tə mi} 21:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted a few of the edits because they went overboard against the NPOV policy in stressing Evangelicalism over and against Anglo-Catholicism and true Broad Churchmanship.

Nrgdocadams 06:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

Introduction changed

I removed the paragraph: As with the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches (but unlike other Protestant churches), Anglicans claim authority within the church through apostolic succession from the first followers of Jesus. Anglicans traditionally date their church back to its first archbishop Saint Augustine of Canterbury in the 6th century and centuries earlier to the Roman occupation.

I think that statement is factually incorrect. Apostolic succession as it is understood and taught in the Roman and Eastern churches, is not taught in the Anglican church.

I restored the paragraph. Apostolic succession as it is understood and taught in the Roman and Eastern churches is also an extremely important aspect of the teachings of the Anglican church. The absence of apostolic succession in several Protestant churches has been the major stumbling block against establishing full communion between those churches and the Anglican churches. It's why there's full communion with the Lutheran churches of Scandinavia and the Baltic states, but not Germany, because A.S. was broken in Germany. It's also why Episcopalians were unwilling to merge with other churches in the original plan of Churches Uniting in Christ. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Three-legged stool

I piped the mention of a three-legged stool to the article Tripos, which discusses a three-legged stool metaphor in the context of Cambridge. It was reverted by an anon without an edit summary. Is there a reason why it is not a useful wikilink? Jkelly 21:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I saw that it was removed and considered reverting the removal, but then I read Tripos and it doesn't seem to be a particularly useful link for someone wanting to read about three-legged stools. So there's no particular reason why the phrase "three-legged stool" should be linked to it. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 22:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. I thought that the article was relevant, given the Cambridge connection. Thanks for the response. Jkelly 22:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Divisions?

I kind of get the impression that most of this article has been written and edited by active Anglicans. One thing I can't help noticing is that the current divisions in the world communion are rather skipped over in the final paragraph of the 'Churches' section. It seems to me that such divisions exist within Anglicanism - both in the C of E and world Anglican churches - over issues such as the ordination of gays and women that this topic merits a section to itself. I'm quite happy to research and write this, unless there's anyone out there who is closer to the centre of things? Bedesboy 17:04 18 November 2005 (UTC)

If you can do that while remaining NPOV..... its an on-going event with developments occurring at intervals. It does seem to me as though the traditional Anglican virtue(if that is what it is?) of compromise has been lost by at least some senior archbishops of the communion in favour of a very un-Anglican emphasis on only one reading of one of the three legs of the stool. Dabbler 19:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm - I'll have a go over the weekend. I think the trick to remaining NPOV on this could be to look at the way things have gone over the past few years rather than actually trying to keep pace with events that are going on right now. I'm not suggesting this should be lengthy, but it seems to me that the traditional/progressive rift (and I admit that calling it that is an over-simplification) is important, if only because it highlights the relative decentralisation of the Anglican church when compared to a more apparently monolithic faith such as Roman Catholicism. Bedesboy 21:45 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if this might properly be a seperate article - as Dabbler states this is an ongoing issue that will become part of the history of the church regardless of how, when and if it is resolved. In addition seperating it might avoid dispute in the main Anglican Article Cantis 22:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting viewpoint from the vicar of Putney in the Saturday Guardian which suggests that a reason that Nigeria's archbishop is so anti-gay is because of the struggle against fundamentalist Islam in northern Nigeria. Guardian story Dabbler 03:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I was logging on to write about that myself. Dabbler, what do you think about Cantis's idea about having it as a one-liner in here, linked to a separate article? Or do you think someone will just come along and merge it? I can certainly see how it could cause controversy if it were written in here - but somebody more distant and objective about the whole thing might not agree. Bedesboy 10:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Generally I am not a fan of endless sub-divisions of topics as that can cause people to miss the article they are looking for in a maze of links. But they can also prevent a relatively unimportant (I am writing generally here), but current, issue from overwhelming an otherwise well-balanced article. More specifically in this case, we have an organization with a centuries long history and the events of a few months or years have the potential to become the main focus of the page. Now it may be that this will prove to be a pivotal time in the history of Anglicanism and in future more will need to be placed on the main page but right now I suggest that we have a separate page and that way all the contentious isses can be thrashed out there. Eventually it may be seen as better to merge it back, or it may become an important article in its own right. Dabbler 12:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The whole thing is a current bugaboo, not communion-dividing according to the St. Michael Report--and Akinola is something of a fringe figure in the church. (Don't scoff: we're talking about someone who wants to kick the C of E out of the Communion.) Carolynparrishfan 19:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the best form for the 'Divisions' page would for it to be a news / history page, not comment, just a record of the current actions, letters, statements etc. by all of the parties. This lets us do what we have been asked to do - listen to each other. Cantis 04:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Anglican Template

Hello everyone. I just started a new template for articles on Anglicanism here: template:anglicanism I'd love some comments, revisions, suggestions, etc. I added the template to the main article. This follows the precedent set by Methodism, etc. See template:methodism Thanks --circuitloss 04:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Another perspective

I just got back from Simple English Wikipedia and its a strange place. This is what they have to say about Anglicanism.

"Anglicanism is a strange type of Christianity as it is a cross between Catholisism [sic] and Protestantism. Priest can call themselves 'priests' (very Catholic) or 'ministers' (very Protestant) and the members of the Church of England can choose how Catholic or Protestant they want to be!"

Good heavens. Isn't simple: subject to NPOV? Or accuracy? --Angr (t·c) 22:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Anglican Orders Considered Valid by Orthodox

Csernica removed the statement in the article that Anglican Orders are considered valid by the Orthodox. I am restoring it. The Statement by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople to that effect can be found at this link. Nrgdocadams 08:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

That was 1922. You could find comtemporary statements (well, a decade or two earlier) from Russian hierarchs to the same effect. Show me a modern authority who says this and I'll let the statement stand.

And please place new threads at the bottom of the page, which is where I'm moving this one. That's where everyone expects new threads to be. You don't even need to do it manually. Click the "+" tab next to the "edit this page" tab and you get a form to fill in for a new thread, which is automatically placed at the bottom. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

If we're really interested in Anglican/Orthodox relations in the first decades of the 20th Century, see [1] which is an Orthodox impression formed, not from hasty consideration from a hierarch now generally discredited, but by a bishop now canonized as a saint and based on a long-term association. This essentially reflects the general modern Orthodox attitude as it happens.

See also the 1993 edition of The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware, pp 319-321. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

If the Orders were valid in 1922, they're valid now. Moreover, your position about the Ecumenical Patriarch betrays your OCA affiliation, as opposed to the majority of SCOBA Orthodox. Worse, you removed a reference that proved the point, which is an act of vandalism. Let it stand, now, or we'll be taking this to mediation.

Nrgdocadams 09:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

It seems to me that some sections of Orthodoxy consider Anglican orders valid and that some do not. Perhaps we could change the article to incorporate both of your links and with a statement to this effect? --G Rutter 13:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No, this is incorrect, and Nrgdocadams has drawn an incorrect inference. My OCA affiliation could be determined from my user page, but he has mistaken a statement I made specifically about Meletios Metaxis to apply generally to the office of the Ecumenical Patriarch. The EP currently does not recognize Anglican orders, nor does any local Orthodox Church, so there is no difference of opinion to be taken into account and any compromise that does will simply be giving wrong information. Whatever any Orthodox Patriarch (and the EP does not speak for all of them in any event) may have said, what has always been universally done is to re-ordain Anglican convert clergy. (As is not universally done for Roman Catholic clergy.) See the Ware reference above -- the author is a bishop under the EP, so Nrgdocadams attempted ad hominem where he attempts to discredit my information because of my church affiliation, cannot apply there.

Furthermore, even if the Orthodox did recognize Anglican orders in the past, now that they ordain women this would be extremely problematic. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Nrgdocadams -- your threats and spurious accusations are unwelcome and uncivil. Yes, the strictly correct response on my part would be to add the references that contradict yours, but that seems to add too much weight in the article to the debate over the inclusion of a few words. I therefore removed the misleading "External link" as a simpler solution -- this is not vandalism by any stretch. You're the one wishing to make a positive statement, I therefore must insist that you're the one who needs to provide the evidence to support it. A single statement from a highly controversial Patriarch made over 80 years ago that has had no discernable effect in the intervening decades is not such evidence, and I have provided two references to contradict it. Should this one sentence require three references to establish it whether part of it is true? Sorry, but that's ridiculous. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I have written to the Ecumenical Patriarch's office about the issue, and I shall post the Patriarch's reply when I receive it. Since there are several letters on the Ecumenical Patriarchate website to the Archbishop of Canterbury from Patriarch Bartholemew which begin with the address, "Your Grace Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of all England, most beloved and dear brother in Christ God: Grace and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ be with Your Grace," I trust that I'll be receiving notice that the Patriarch actually does recognize the Anglican Archbishop as a valid Archbishop, and Anglican Orders as valid Orders, but since you so insistently contend that this reality is not reality, I'll let the Ecumenical Patriarch speak for himself.

Nrgdocadams 07:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

The standard flowery form of address, a holdover from Byzantine etiquette, has misled many Western observers into thinking more was being conceded than really was. When the Patriarch of Alexandria counts "Judge of the Universe" among his titles, the reasonable conclusion to reach is that they're not taken very seriously. Even Cyril of Alexandria addressed Nestorius in like style, and we know what his opinion of Nestorius was.

Since you continue to claim that what I'm saying is fiction, I take it you didn't even bother to check out the references? TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It occurs to me that even if you do get a reply from the Patriarchate, and even if it does support your contention, you would not be able to cite it here. Since it would be private it would not be verifiable, and may well qualify as original research. Really, I would think a simpler way of supporting your point would be to cite some current published literature. The Ware book I mentioned above is the standard English-language popular reference book on the subject, but if your contention has any merit you should be able to find some support for it elsewhere -- reflecting the modern situation, not the historical, which is fairly useless. Go back far enough and you'll even find the Eastern church in communion with Rome, after all. Same goes for the C of E.

I should mention that Ware bends over backwards to give a balanced presentation of issues related to ecumenism, for which he has received some criticism from the conservative side. His point when it comes to recognition of orders is that for the Orthodox it cannot be separated from issues of faith as a whole; that Apostolic Succession is, for the Orthodox, more than simply the historical chain of laying on of hands. "Orders" cannot therefore be discussed or "recognized" in isolation. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The lengths you will go to to maintain your fallacy are astounding. With the response from the Patriarch's office, whcih will be verifiable by other editors, I simply hope that when we go to mediation over this, the facts will take precedence over your POV.

Nrgdocadams 00:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

Do you even bother to read anything I reference? Go look at WP:V. It's Wikipedia policy, meaning that edits that don't adhere to it can be reverted for that reason alone. Any source you reference has to be generally available. I quote from that page just in case you don't feel like clicking:

Articles in Wikipedia should refer to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have been published by a reputable or credible publisher. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. (emphasis in original)

And further down the page

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit.

And yet further down

For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable. An encyclopedia is not primary source material. Its authors do not conduct interviews or perform original research. (emphasis mine)

That's not "lengths to maintain a fallacy". That's the standard to which we must adhere when editing articles. I have provided such a reference for my position: you have not. Please refrain from further sneers until you do. (Actually, I think it's plain that you cannot, and this explains your strident tone, hoping to accomplish through intimidation what you cannot through normal means and civil discourse. I'd like to WP:AGF, but you're making it very, very difficult.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The orthodox (bearded guys who celebrate mass with a crown on their heads) would certainly never recognize anglican ordinations, since women and male homosexuals were "made" priests and even bishops in anglicanism, both of which is impossible and capitally criminal based upon the Bible and Holy Tradition, which the orthodox totally observe and uphold.

anglicanism in eastern europe

Can someone explain to me why there are anglicans in countries like Rumania???--Burgas00 14:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can say why there are Anglicans in Germany, and the same reasons probably apply to Romania. First of all, there are people from English-speaking countries who grew up Anglican who have moved there. (I grew up in the Episcopal Church and have lived in Germany for nine years.) Then there are the locals who have married an Anglican foreigner and converted, or didn't convert but just attend the Anglican church to be with their partner. Then there are the children of such people, who grow up in an Anglican church in a non-English-speaking country. Then there are the locals who decided to go to an English-speaking church to practice their English, and liked the theology enough to convert. --Angr 14:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I saw this programme on TV on immigration in the US. There were these Rumanian women who were applying for political asylum because they were persecuted for their religious beliefs (anglicanism). Apparently their spiritual leader was this guy in Gibraltar... In the documentary they said that they checked everything she said and it was all true... I still find it seriously weird since these Rumanians didnt even speak English...--Burgas00 18:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Romania is in the Church of England's Diocese of Gibraltar in Europe, so presumably "this guy in Gibraltar" was the Bishop of Gibraltar (who actually lives in London and only travels to Gibraltar for special occasions). But if there really is a "native population" of Anglicans in Romania, I don't know how that came about either! --Angr 20:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

POV in the intro

FIRST PROBLEM The intro refers to "the conduct of eucharistically-centred worship services". This is before any discussion on the churchmanship divide and therefore makes the claim that this is somehow common to all of Anglicanism. This is surely POV towards the Anglo-Catholics. Most Low Church Anglicans do not conduct "eucharistically-centred worship services". In fact many Low Church Anglicans would object to the whole theology behind the use of the term "Eucharist". "Eucharist" and "eucharistic" are NOT BCP terms and arguably therefore not Anglican. The various terms "mass", "eucharist", "Holy Communion" and "Lord's Supper" while all describing the ceremony/ sacrament of bread and wine each have different emphases. Arguably the Anglican Reformers rejected both "Mass" and "Eucharist" because of their faulty theological connotations. "Mass" signifies the re-presentation of Christ's propitiatory sacrifice which the Reformers clearly rejected as blasphemous. "Eucharist" signifies our "thanksgiving" to God. What is so objectionable about this term you ask? Well in the words of the Order for HC "it is very meet, right and our bounden duty, that we should at all times, and in all places give thanks unto" God. So the Reformed Anglican would say that the Holy Communion is NOT primarily about us giving thanks to God since we are to do that at all times and in all palces. The term "Eucharist" and its emphasis on thanksgiving puts the emphasis on us rather than on God. In other words it connotes a ceremony of man acting God-ward whereas the BCP order for HC (on the Low-Church understanding) is very much the opposite: a memorial meal whereby we celebrate a perpetual memory pf God-in-Christ acting manward. It's all about God and not about us the Calvinist decries. The only two BCP (and therefore on the Low Church view authentically Anglican) terms are "Holy Communion" and the "Lord's Supper". The use of the term "Eucharist" is therefore POV towards High Churchmanship.

A second objection is factual. It is simply not factually true that Anglicans conduct "eucharistically-centred worship". Has whoever it was who wrote this attended an Evangelical parish or chapel? In most low-church parishes etc the normal Sunday worship is the order for Morning (or Evening) Prayer and not Holy Communion. Holy Communion takes place less often -- typically once a month nowadays but as will be seen below even less often in days gone by.

A third objection is historical. The rubric to the Order for HC states that Anglicans are to communicate at least three times a year (not once a week as is typical in tractarian circles). Until the onset of tractarinism this was still pretty much the norm. If the BCP rejected the terminology "Eucharist" and enjoined celebrating the Lord's Supper only three times a year, how can we honestly call Anglican worship "eucharistically-centred"?

In sum, it is not "Anglicanism" but "High Church Anglicanism" that conducts "eucharistically-centred" worship. Simply because in certain parts of the world (typically North America) High Church Anglicanism dominates (there being almost no Low-Church tradition in North America) and High Church Anglicanism has "eucharistically-centred" worship, you cannot make this claim for "Anglicanism". You are only speaking for one part of Anglicanism and not Anglicanism as a whole.

SECOND PROBLEM Reference is made to the agreement of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Consultation but stating that the findings were rejected by the Roman hierarchy. This is misleading for it would suggest that the ARCIC agreement actually represented the "Anglican" view. ARCIC has no authority to speak for Anglicans or Anglicanism. It is simply a body whereby discussions are conducted between some Anglicans and some Roman Catholics and then the outcomes are reported to the Archbishop of Canterbury. ARCIC statements have no binding force and they do not speak for Anglicanism or Anglicans. Most of what ARCIC says contradicts (Low-Church understandings of) the authoritative Anglican Reformation Formularies and Most Low Church Anglicans would therefore distance themselves vehemently from pretty much everything ARCIC has ever said. The article as written would seem to indicate that the ARCIC speaks for "Anglicanism" when in fact it is inhabited by Anglo-Catholics and has its own agenda. This is therefore arguably (Anglo-Catholic) POV. Apodeictic 10:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I read the words "the conduct of eucharistically-centred worship services" as being one aspect of how Anglicanism shows its links to the Roman Catholic tradition, it then goes on to say that it is also "deeply connnected" to the Protestant Reformation. It doesn't say that all services are eucharistically centred, just that there are eucharistically centred services in the catholic tradition. Dabbler 12:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I now understand what the maker of the comment was trying to say. I don't want to press this whole issue too hard as the differences of opinion might be so fundamental as to make saying anything useful too hard and in the end you do have to say something about Anglicanism. But how about we say something like "The conduct of eucharistically-centred worship services is seen by some to be in keeping with the catholic liturgical tradition ..." ?

Whether eucharistically-centred worship is or is not in keeping with the "catholic" litugical tradition is a theological hot potato. For what does it mean to be "catholic"? Who says that Romanists and Anglican Ritualists are "catholic" and that Anglican Evangelicals are not "catholic"? This all depends on your definition of catholicity. Protestants claim to be "catholic" in the true sense of the word and that (so-called) Roman 'Catholics' and Anglo-'Catholics' have strayed from the Catholic Faith. But as I said, maybe my objections are too fundamental to achieve any kind of consensus. Apodeictic 16:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You wrote above, "'Eucharist' and 'eucharistic' are NOT BCP terms", but that depends on your BCP. There are at least as many BCPs as there are Anglican churches. The 1979 ECUSA BCP does call it The Holy Eucharist (although the 1928 prayer book calls it Holy Communion). Therefore, using either term is POV. Angr (talk • contribs) 17:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that the 1979 ECUSA prayer book calls it the Holy Eucharist. I didn't know that -- but I'm not surprised that the move has been made. On one level I don't object to calling it the Eucharist per se. Eucharist means "thanksgiving" and it is in a way our clebrating the Lord's Supper is an expression of Christian thanksgiving. After all, we are exhorted to feed on Christ in our hearts by faith with thanksgiving. Given a choice between the terms "mass" and "Eucharist" I know which one as a Protestant I would choose! But the Protestant objection is that "Eucharist" (thanksgiving) doesn't capture the right emphasis of the Sacrament for Eucharist puts the emphasis on us (viz. our response of thanksgiving) and not on Christ's action (viz. his death upon the cross for our redemption whereby he made by his one oblation of himself once offered a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world). "Eucharist" implies man acting God-ward, while the 1662 Order for HC emphasises God acting man-ward.

Of course my preference for the terms Lord's Supper and Holy Communion over Mass and Eucharist are POV. But stating that the BCP doesn't use Eucharist (assuming it doesn't) is not POV -- it's just reporting a fact. By BCP I meant the BCP of 1662. So once again thanks for pointing out the 1979 ECUSA book.

The fact that the 1979 ECUSA book has adopted the term Eucharist raises some interesting issues. And I'm going to be a bit of a "controversialist" -- but this is the talk page and not a Wiki article so I think I can be less than non-POV here :-)

• 1. ECUSA doesn't sit too easily into any discussion of "Anglicanism" as it doesn't officially take the BCP of 1662 and the 39 Articles of 1562 as its official doctrinal standards (as do most other Anglican churches throughout the world). So right from the beginning ECUSA makes it difficult to talk about "Anglicanism" as we aren't singing from the same hymn sheet so to speak. What is "Anglican" doctrine? The doctrine of the C of E? The doctrine of ECUSA? The most that all "Anglican" churches taken together have in common (the "lowest common denominator" approach)? What about those "Anglican" churches not in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury? And what about those non-Anglican churches in Communion with him?
• 2. Nomenclature. Pretty much everywhere in the world "BCP" refers to the 1662 Book of the Church of England. So nearly everywhere in the world subsequent liturgical revisions are seen as alternative liturgies to be used alongside 1662 but not a replacement of 1662. When I say BCP I mean 1662 which reflects the Anglican Settlement after the Reformation, English Civil War and Restoration. For me that's the definitive statement of Anglican Doctrine (although as an Evangelical I personally prefer Cranmer's book of 1552). Moreover in most countries (ECUSA and Scotland are the excpetions I can think of) the 1662 Book and the 39 Articles of 1562 are authoritative statements of Anglican doctrine. That is why I quite confidently asserted that the "Eucharist" is not an Anglican term. But I was obviously out of step with ECUSA. I'm not surprised as ECUSA certainly does like to go its own way :-)
• 3. The retreat from "Common Prayer". Prior to the liturgical revision of the 20th Century there truly was "common prayer". There was one standard form used by Low, Broad and High Church. Amazing really when you consider our differences. But now we have God knows how many alternative forms of liturgy catering to every theological and liturgical whim. It is increasingly difficult to define "Anglicanism" in such an environment. Is it the first, second, third or fourth order in the new liturgy for Holy Communion/ Eucharist that reflects "Anglican" theology? At least with 1662 I know what I'm dealing with and what text to refer to in arguing with my Anglo-Catholic and Liberal antagonists.
• 4. The retreat from Protestantism. It is not at all very partisan of me to state that the Tractarians have been seeking to rid Anglicanism of its Protestant distinctives. Before liturgical reform all they could do was act contrary to the BCP, the 39 Articles and the law. Now they have changed the liturgy and the law to their liking which also has the effect of marginalising traditional Low-Church Anglicans. I am not overemphasising in stating that one only need to read what Newman, Keble, Pusey and co wrote to see the vitriol they had for the Reformed faith. The terminology for the Lord's Supper/ Holy Communion is (in my view) one such protestant distinctive that the Tractarians and other High Churchmen have been seeking to rid us of. It looks like they hav won in the USA (which doesn't surprise me given that there are almost no Radically Low-Churchmen in ECUSA as there are in other Anglican churches). But it is telling that it took until 1979 for the American Church to call it the "Eucharist". What does this say about the term's pedigree within Anglicanism? It's quite new-fangled and revisionist really. Cranmer didn't use it and nor was it adopted in 1662. It has simply taken 430 years to effect this anti-Protestant revolution.

If the term is officially used in ECUSA then IMO ECUSA has departed from the historic Anglican faith (as is the case with regard to a certain Bishop). And it is harder for an Evangelical Anglican in ECUSA (what few of them there are left) to argue against use of the term Eucharist because it's now in a "BCP". But my argument that the "Eucharist" is not an authentically Anglican term still stands regardless of whether a 1979 ECUSA prayer book calls it that. But perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree and just get on with one another like nice Anglicans/ Episcopalians :-) Grace and Peace.Apodeictic 20:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to calling it Communion in this article, but I do think it's far-fetched to claim Eucharist isn't an Anglican term. I think it's even farther fetched to suggest the ECUSA isn't "really" Anglican anymore just because of Barbara Clementine Harris. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I suspect the bishop in question is Gene Robinson rather than a female. Other Anglican churches have ordained women bishops. Also the Anglican Church of Canada adopted the 1928 BCP (albeit modified a bit from the version that didn't get adopted in the UK).Dabbler 23:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I did say I was being a bit of a "controversialist". So don't take all this personally. Just imagine I'm writing a tract for the Evangelical party at the height of the Oxford Movement :-) It's all rather light-hearted and a chance to hear a Low-Church perspective that you might not otherwise get to hear as we no doubt walk in very different Anglican circles.

I wasn't at all trying to suggest that ECUSA is not Anglican. All I was saying is that it's really hard to talk about "Anglicanism" and give some kind of definition for Anglican belief when we all have different Prayer Books. That's what I meant. Comparing the Anglican Church of Australia and the C of E is hard enough -- but at least we have the BCP 1662 and the 39 Articles of 1562 in common, despite our cultural and modern litugical differences. With ECUSA the common link of a doctrinal standard is harder to find. I think that's a fact and not too controversial/ POV. So that means the Anglican Communion is largely defined (a) historically (can you trace your derivation to the Church of England) and (b) politically (are you in current favour with the See of Canterbury) rather than (c) doctrinally. There are obviously some doctrinal things we have to hold in common to be called Anglican (although it is often quipped that many Anglican clergy don't even believe in God!). But the question is how many and which ones.

I was referring to Mr Robinson particularly, although the whole issue of women bishops (and priests) also raises many difficulties. That's another thing that makes it hard to identify what "Anglicanism" teaches. Some dioceses consecrate women as bishops while others still won't ordain them as priests, let alone allow them to become bishops. So what is the "Anglican" position on the ordination of women as priests and the consecration of women as bishops? Well arguably there is no "Anglican" position on this topic. Only the positions of various schools of thought. Some "Anglicans" are in favour of it while others are opposed to it.

ECUSA doesn't "cease" to be Anglican because it has officially called the Holy Communion the "Holy Eucharist" (or consecrated a homosexual man as a bishop or whatever pet issue you want to identify with). Rather the argument is simply that it is acting in contradiction to the principles of Anglicanism. And this gets to the very heart of my argument. What are those "principles of Anglicanism"? Is calling the HC in accordance with or in contradiction to those "principles of Anglicanism"? Well, simply put, the view you take will depend on your churchmanship. For a (radical?) Lowchurchman it's not at all "far-fetched" to say that calling it the "Eucharist" is against the principles of Anglicanism. For a middle-of-the-road- to highchurchman it probably is a bit "far-fetched".

Ultimately it comes down to what our vision of Anglicanism is and the effects of the Reformation. Most High Church Anglicans like to emphasise the "catholic" nature of Anglicanism while also stating the fact that it avoids some of the pitfalls of Rome. So to put it crudely, the silence of the (original) BCP and 39 Articles (on the use of the term "Eucharist") amounts to tacit consent. Most Low Church Anglicans, on the other hand, see things rather differently. They like to emphasise the "Protestant Reformed" nature of Anglicanism noting that its catholic nature means that it avoids some of the pitfalls of separatist Protestantism. They view most things through the lens of the Protestant Reformation. To put it crudely, the silence of the (original) BCP and 39 Articles is a cause for grave doubt on the appropriateness of the term "Eucharist". It is not an argument from silence for Cranmer & Co weren't silent but spoke and used the words "Holy Communion" and "Lord's Supper". The argument is that they used their words very deliberately and for theological reasons. That Cranmer (ultimately) chose "Holy Communion" and "Lord's Supper" means he was making a theological point; i.e. that he disagreed with the theology behind the terms "Mass" and "Eucharist" and that it is therefore inappropriate for Anglicans today to call this sacrament the "mass" or the "eucahrist".

But I suspect you don't share my (radical?) low churchmanship and we'll have to agree to disagree :-) Apodeictic 12:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't; I'm a liberal "Middle Church" Episcopalian, but I've come down from being as High Church Anglo-Catholic as I was 10 or 15 years ago. If I still lived in the U.S. and had a greater variety of churches to choose from than here in Germany, I'd probably be going to a United Church of Christ or maybe American Baptist church instead of an Episcopal one by now. Angr (talk • contribs) 12:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia and have just been (helpfully) informed that I have strayed a bit off topic by debating the subject of the article itself and not limiting comments to the structure/contents etc. of the article and suggestions for improvement. But my original comment on "eucharistically-centred worship" as being either POV or factually inaccurate stands. I just wanted to give some reasons for that comment and that's how I ended up digressing/ transgressing. I'm learning about Wiki-etiquette as I go. My sincere apologies to everybody concerned for clogging up the talk pages. Apodeictic 14:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, better the talk pages than the articles! :p But you do bring some valid points: there isn't one monolithic Anglican theology or dogma, and the article should better reflect that. Angr (talk • contribs) 14:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Churchmanship

The use of the term "deuterocanonicals" is perplexing. This is a term used by the Roman Catholic Church (and Orthodox churches?) and means "second canon". Bound up in this term is the idea that in addition to the books of the Hebrew (and Protestant OT) canon, these books are fully canonical in the Christian church. In Anglicanism they are not canonical -- for Article 6 lists the 39 books of the Protestant OT (and Hebrew Scriptures) as canonical and refers to the Apocrypha simply as "the other Books" and then lists them. So it is wrong to refer to them as "deuterocanonicals" in an Anglican context for they are not canonical. Moreover, there is not strict identity between the Roman (or Orthodox) Deuterocanonical books and the Protestant OT Apocrypha (or "the other Books" of Article 6). If you get a Protestant Bible with Apocrypha and compare that with a RC Bible, apart from having a separate section between OT and NT for the Apocrypha (RC and Orthodox Bibles incorporate the deuterocanonicals into the OT itself), the Protestant Apocrypha contains more books than the Roman Deuterocanonicals and less than many Orthodox churches' deuterocanonicals.

Article 6 refers to the following "other Books":

• 3 Esdras (= 1 Esdras) ==> Not Canonical in RCC; canonical in Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches
• 4 Esdras (= 2 Esdras) ==> Not Canonical in RCC; canonical in Russian and Oriental Orthodox churches
• Tobias (= Tobit), Judith, Rest of Book of Esther, Wisdom, Jesus the Son of Sirach (= Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, the Song of the Three Children, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees ==> Canonical in RCC and Orthodox Churches
• Prayer of Manasses ==> NOT Canonical in the RCC; canonical in some Orthodox churches (Ethiopian; not sure about others)

Apodeictic 11:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

However, the Anglican/Episcopalians DO use them liturgically, which is why Anglican/Episcopalian churches always have to include them (a unique set: the RC Deuterocanonicals, plus 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Mannaseh). The Eastern Orthodox will tell you that "canonical" just means "Books that are used liturgically" and would regard the claim that the Apocrypha are to be used "liturgically, but not doctrinally" as an absurdity.Carlo 18:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Anglicanism/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.

This article has started to fill out quite well. It needs in-line citations to be GA. This needs to be our focus of work for the moment. -- SECisek 19:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 19:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)