Talk:Church in Wales

WikiProject Anglicanism

A new WikiProject focussing on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion has just been initiated: WikiProject Anglicanism. Our goal is to improve and expand Anglican-reltaed articles. If anyone (Anglican or non-Anglican) is interested, read over the project page and consider signing up. Cheers! Fishhead64 06:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

History

When did the Church in Wales start ordaining women to the priesthood? Are there other aspects of contemporary Welsh church history that could be mentioned?--Bhuck 13:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It was a little while after the CofE, if I recall correctly --Anthropax 16:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

first welsh bishop at canterbury

Currently Rowan Williams is described as the first Welsh Bishop to be appointed to Canterbury since 1805. However, John Moore (died 1805), though translated to Canterbury from Bangor, was an Englishman from Gloucestershire. So he was a bishop in Wales, but not a "Welsh Bishop". Myopic Bookworm 10:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what 'Welsh Bishop' means. So I changed it to 'the first Bishop to be translated from Wales'. If someone knows birthplaces we could list Williams as the first Welsh-born Archbishop of Canterbury since .... --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from the Oxford Dict. Nat. Biogr., Rowan Williams is the first Welsh Archbishop of Canterbury. Myopic Bookworm 15:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a more interesting fact than being the first bishop translated from Wales since 17xx, and it has a source. I won't at the library until tomorrow to look at ODNB so put your fact in now, and take mine out. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You wrote "(translated from Wales" reads slightly oddly)". Don't you believe the ODNB? Yes it did read slightly oddly - I was being pedantic so as not to exclude the possibility of a non-diocesan bishop from Wales <grin> --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Uniform format proposal

A proposal is being floated at the project page that there be a standard format for organising each article about national provinces of the Anglican Communion, including this one. Please consider participating in the straw vote and discussion. Cheers! Fishhead64 21:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Denomination Info Box

There are going to be huge issues with this box throughout the anglican communion pages. This is going to create a POV nightmare here and I am removing it before it starts. Let's see what's here, shall we?

Orientation: Anglican Orientation? What is that? Neologisim from what I can tell. All in the communion would agree that we are Anglican. Orientation of one sort or another, on the other hand, is splitting the communion in two.

Origin: 1920 St David wasn't alive then, was he? The article states: "Christianity in Wales can be traced back to the Romano-British period. However, a combination of Celtic Christianity's reconciliation with Rome and English conquest of Wales meant that from the Middle Ages until 1920, the Welsh dioceses were part of the Province of Canterbury -- in communion with the See of Rome until the Reformation, and continuing afterwards as part of the Church of England.

In "communion with...Rome and...as part of the Church of England", nowhere does it stay that the Church had its origin in 1920. This is POV.

This box just is not a good fit for the Church in Wales or probably any of the Anglican Churches. Thoughts? -- SECisek 05:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Establishment - Scotland

Not sure that the final line of the introduction is the best way of expressing the situation in Scotland. The Church of Scotland is established in some senses but not in others (e.g. no House of Lords representation, Queen is merely a member, not head of church), leading to the more usual 'established but free' or 'national church' language. I realise this is not the page for an extended discussion on this, so how about "thus unlike in England and (to an extent) Scotland, Wales no longer has an established church"? Maybe it could be snappier - any thoughts, anyone? --Nodrog75 (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I would add "Scotland", as though there are differences between England and Scotland, it is an established church in Scotland. On a related question, I would seriously doubt the claim later in the article that the Church in Wales is in a financially superior position to the Church of England.Ncox (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Personal Ordinariate

Apart from the Traditional Anglican Communion, the article should really consider verifying whether groups within the Church in Wales have ever sought a similar canonical structure to the proposed personal ordinariates. ADM (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham operates on a UK-wide basis, so no separate ordinariate for Wales would be appropriate. The Ordinariate website would suggest that possibly the only presence it has in Wales are groups based in Cardiff and Presteigne: https://www.ordinariate.org.uk/organisation/areas.phpNtmr (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Standing Liturgical Commission

>> The Standing Liturgical Commission are preparing resources for Morning, Evening and Daily Prayer which will be published in Autumn 2009. <<

As more than two years have now gone by since the planned date of publication, can anyone find a source stating whether (and if so, when) it went ahead? -- Picapica (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Timothy_Titus

"Whereas by an Act passed in the session of Parliament held in the fourteenth and fifteenth years of the reign of Her Majesty, chapter sixty, intituled, “An Act to prevent the assumption of certain Ecclesiastical Titles in respect of places in the United Kingdom,” certain enactments were made prohibiting under penalties the assumption of the title of archbishop or bishop of a pretended province or diocese, or archbishop or bishop of a city, place, or territory, or dean of any pretended deanery in England or Ireland, not being the see, province, or diocese of an archbishop or bishop or deanery of any dean recognised by law:

"And whereas no ecclesiastical title of honour or dignity derived from any see, province, diocese, or deanery recognised by law, or from any city, town, place, or territory within this realm, can be validly created, nor can any such see, province, diocese, or deanery be validly created, nor can any pre-eminence or coercive power be conferred otherwise than under the authority and by the favour of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, and according to the laws of this realm; but it is not expedient to impose penalties upon those ministers of religion who may, as among the members of the several religious bodies to which they respectively belong, be designated by distinctions regarded as titles of office, although such designation may be connected with the name of some town or place within the realm"

— The Ecclesiastical Titles Act 1871 (The Act Iintituled an Act to repeal [the Ecclesiastical Titles Act 1851] an Act for preventing the assumption of certain Ecclesiastical Titles in respect of places in the United Kingdom. [14 and 15 Vict. c. 60]), 34 and 35 Vict. 1871 c. 53, as amended (current and extant) [1].

My learned friend, notwithstanding of any colourful language that might had been employed, I shall be most thankful and obliged indeed if I could possibly crave your indulgence to accept the grant of this most humble, faithful and sincere request, of furnishing counter-evidence of some sort,

• 1. That either or both the Crown, by Royal Charter, Letters patent or Order-in-Council, and Parliament, by Act of Parliament, created (caused such titles to be created),

• 2. Or that the Representative Body of the Church in Wales, from evidence from the same Representative Body of the same Church, herself, straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak, an unfortunate choice of words that it may be, NOT from the Archbishop of Canterbury, NOT from the Archbishop of York, NOT from the Church of England and NOT from the Secretariat of the Anglican Communion, that the Archbishop of Wales accepts, assumes, claims, possesses and styles himself, &c.,

Such titles as "the Primate of All Wales" (as with the titles of "the Primate of All England" and "the Primate of All Ireland", being vested with Archbishops of Canterbury and Archbishops of Armagh, respectively) or "the Primate of Wales" (as with the titles of "the Primate of England" and "the Primate of Ireland", being vested with Archbishops of York and Archbishops of Dublin, respectively).

One had tried without success in seeking out or otherwise locating evidence to that effect, with the results of my search upon the Internet being this, at [2], encrypted.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&site=&source=hp&q=+%22churchinwales.org.uk%22+primate+&oq=+%22churchinwales.org.uk%22+primate+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=hp.3...1732.20795.0.21195.33.17.0.0.0.0.804.3474.4j9j1j0j1j1j1.17.0...0.0.fSbTYbtA-34 and encrypted.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=+%22church+in+wales%22+primate+&oq=+%22church+in+wales%22+primate+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=serp.3...153119.159944.0.161678.17.11.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.0.7vxbkhU-Vnc . There is, according to this, at encrypted.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22primate+of+all+wales%22&oq=%22primate+of+all+wales%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=serp.3...25158.26532.0.26557.4.2.0.0.0.0.133.133.0j1.1.0...0.0.trWgbSdofx8 , however, a particular site upon the same platform, at encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=%22primate+of+all+wales%22&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgowermaster.blogspot.com%2F&ei=VkijT_7ML6Ox0QWO2Iwa&usg=AFQjCNGiwA5-zyGbg1yJAmE5wJq3DdyfGQ&sig2=Ix8U6CAFotdEDIFG5o2OEA and at encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=%22primate+of+all+wales%22&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgowermaster.blogspot.com%2F2012%2F03%2Farchbishop-of-wales-says-time-to-get.html&ei=VkijT_7ML6Ox0QWO2Iwa&usg=AFQjCNGMxFaubzGmYWXeLz1pRzXdjiCkuw&sig2=eGQWkjSWEfdjuGTlQDCJ_A , of a most informal as well as of a particular nature, shall we say, a thing that I shall refrain and desist from making or passing any further comment and personal judgement thereon.

I MUST also point out to you, amongst other things, the VERY possibility of conflict of interest in this, being, by your own solemn proclamation, albeit by means of the "user page", at User:Timothy_Titus, both "a Christian" (i.e., a person professing the Christian religion), and quote "I now work as a religious professional in a major international faith organisation" unquote, of whatever rank and class. Would you be, for example, willing to disclose the name, or at least the religious affiliation, of that particular organisation? Does the same organisation even, for example, fully accept, without any qualification and reservation whatsoever, the doctrine of the Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus? In short, do you in fact have a team to bat for? — KC9TV 08:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The lengthy and relatively incoherent comment above appears to have resulted from my reversion of an edit by 99801155KC9TV. It is not entirely clear what you are driving at; however, please note the following. If you are confused about the nature of the episcopate of the Church in Wales, I suggest reading this page on the official website of that Church. If you are confused about the status of the 38 Primates of the Anglican Communion, then you may like to read this page on the official website of the Anglican Communion which explains the nature of the Instruments of Communion, and also this page which outlines precisely what is meant by the title 'Primate' within Anglicanism. The Primate of the Welsh Church (the Archbishop of Wales) is listed in the Provincial Directory of the international Anglican Communion here. Finally, if your confusion is to do with the current Primate of the Welsh Church, then you may like to read the article on the Anglican Communion website entitled: "The Primates of the Anglican Communion - The Most Revd Dr. Barry Cennydd Morgan, Archbishop of Wales & Bishop of Llandaff" which you will find here.

Regarding your more personal comments directed at me, I would advise you (as you appear to be a relatively new editor) that some of these are not appropriate. You question me about my personal religious beliefs, but you should be aware that a person's personal beliefs are irrelevant to this project. Whether or not I believe in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, or the divinity of Jesus, has no bearing on which articles I may or may not edit. You are correct, of course, that all editors must conform to Wikipedia policy and convention, and we do indeed have a policy on WP:COI. I have been around on this project for a good number of years, and am a reasonably experienced editor; I have never knowingly violated the COI policy, and if you have (or believe you have) evidence to the contrary, please feel free to raise that issue with an Administrator. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 08:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Now look, please be civil! Have you not already called me enough names under the Sun already? The Archbishop of Wales is not called the Primate, or even a Primate, by HIS own church, which is the Church in Wales and NOT the Church of England.

According to the Ecclesiastical Titles Act 1871 (which is not yet repealed), only the Queen or Parliament has the Power to create in England, Wales and Northern Ireland a new title of "Primate" (even for a disestablished church). "Primate" is also (at least in the United Kingdom) an actual (substantive) title, similar to (like) knighthoods, and NOT just a generic term for the clerical head of an Anglican church.

The Church in Wales IS an actual Church and a Church in its (her) own right, the Anglican Communion is NOT, any more than the Commonwealth a proper country, or the Commonwealth Secretariat a government. Back-tracking a bit? Anyway, this is not exactly Simple English of course, but getting close. I can't get it any more simpler, I am afraid.

This [3] was the page that I used. Can't see and can't seem to find the word "Primate" used anywhere for addressing the Archbishop of Wales.

Please also see the Essjay controversy. I thank you. - KC9TV 09:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Strikes me, KC9TV, that you need to look harder:

• This Church in Wales document by The Church in Wales Archiepiscopal See Working Group (October 2008) says in paragraph 3.2 "The Archbishop of Wales is primate of the Province of Wales" and in paragraph 3.6 "As a primate of an Anglican province, the Archbishop of Wales has formal responsibilities within the Anglican Communion’s structures"
• This address by Rowan Williams from April 2000 when he was Archbishop of Wales, which begins "Life as a primate began with something of a drum-roll for me; barely two weeks after my installation, I was off to take part in the Primates' Meeting of the Anglican Communion in Portugal"

And stop the ad hominem attacks on Timothy Titus, please. Bencherlite^Talk 09:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

To Bencherlite - thank you! And to KC9TV / 99801155KC9TV, with the greatest of respect, I am well aware of WP:CIV and have practised it. Despite your comments, I have launched no personal attack on you, indeed, the reverse appears to be the case. I have reverted some of your edits, but you must understand that reverting edits is not a personal attack. If you wish to make controversial edits, you may find it more useful to start a discussion first on the relevant talk page. Wikipedia works by convention and consensus. With the greatest of respect (I say again) to you, you have arrived here very recently, and started overturning some long-established conventions, without discussion or consensus. You clearly have an interest in the various historic ecclesiastical jurisdiction measures, and that is great, and will doubtless be useful to the project, but we do work as a team here, and we work to established reliable sources, not our own researches. You have been presented by me, and now also by Bencherlite with reliable sources for the established (small 'e') status of 'Primate' for the Archbishop of Wales. If this is (as you suggest) in contravention of historic legislation, then that is a matter for the ecclesiastical lawyers. The only facts that matter here, are that the Archbishop of Wales is considered to be the Primate of his church, by that Church, and also by the wider Anglican Communion. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 10:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not, any more than I am quote "bizarre" unquote, and no offence intended anyway, and I APOLOGISE if I did cause any. An ecclesiastic is supposed to be able to withstand a heated debate, theological or otherwise. Not my intention to make it one, of course, but there we have it. Anyway, firstly, that was a "DRAFT Report", and it was called and clearly written on the front as such (and it was also "as primate" with a small "p", not "as the Primate" with a big "P"), and secondly, does anyone in fact care to explain this to my uninformed mind [4] ? (I am in no way connected to that particular blog, of course.) The point is, the title "Primate" is probably NOT part of the Archbishop of Wales' OFFICIAL titles, is it? If the Archbishop is not "the Primate of All Wales", then why not, and what is he in fact the Primate of, if I may ask? - KC9TV 10:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, KC9TV / 99801155KC9TV, for your apology. I am increasingly anxious about continuing this dialogue; I had originally thought you were simply mistaken, but your style of editing, and your choice of words (e.g. "An ecclesiastic is supposed to be able to withstand a heated debate, theological or otherwise.") are now leading me to believe that you are acting, intentionally or unintentionally, as a troll. I will, as all editors should, observe WP:DNFTT, so this will be my final comment. Whatever title the Archbishop of Wales may or may not be entitled to, under historic ecclesiastical jurisdiction measures, it is plain and simple fact that he is the Primate of the Welsh Church, and this has been clearly demonstrated from the official websites of both the Church in Wales and the Anglican Communion - including the current Archbishop's full biography and photograph in the official Anglican Communion "Biographies of Primates" webpages. You have quoted a blog site: firstly, blogs are not accepted as primary sources on Wikipedia; secondly, that blog site itself acknowledges that the Archbishop calls himself Primate - the blogger merely shares your view that he should not be allowed to use that title. (Incidentally, having been employed professionally within the Anglican Communion for a quarter of a century, you and this blogger are the only two people I have ever encountered with this view). Finally, nobody but you has suggested the inclusion of the word "All" (i.e. Primate of All Wales), although that is a complete red herring anyway. You have demonstrated that you understand the historical reasons why the word 'All' is used in relation to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of Armagh. The only other Anglican Primates currently using the word "All" in this context are the Archbishop of Nigeria and the Archbishop of Kenya, who are currently styling themselves "Primate of All Nigeria" and "Primate of All Kenya" respectively, in selected communications.

I regret that for the reasons stated, I will not engage in further debate on this clearly established issue. If there are further erroneous edits or personal attacks, I will simply refer the matter upward for adjudication. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 11:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Church in Wales. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607055512/http://www.churchinwales.org.uk/structure/bishops/bios.html to http://www.churchinwales.org.uk/structure/bishops/bios.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Church in Wales. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114175622/http://www.churchinwales.org.uk/structure/govbody/membfinance.html to http://www.churchinwales.org.uk/structure/govbody/membfinance.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705192528/http://www.anglicanlistening.org/anglican_listening_61766_ENG_HTM.htm to http://www.anglicanlistening.org/anglican_listening_61766_ENG_HTM.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Book of Common Prayer

You can't say that material is only available on line; it could have been printed off and made available otherwise.

The article currently states that the 1984 prayer book was in traditional English. This implies that it was not available in Welsh: is that correct?

In general, this section needs to say a lot more about what material was made available in Welsh as well as (or maybe instead of) English, and also what register of Welsh was used (e.g. traditional versus Cymraeg byw), as that information has been given for the English language texts.----Ehrenkater (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Original Research?

In the introduction, there is a a considerable quantity of statements resulting from original research. In two cases, a percentage of the population that is Anglican (Church in Wales) is given, but that percentage is not found in the sources cited. The percentage given appears to come from an editor who synthesized different statistics by taking a number from one source and dividing that by the number in another source that does not mention a number for Anglican membership (e.g. a number from Wales Online was taken and divided by the total Welsh population from a different source that did not include denominations). That is original research under the (original research?) definition. I think editors should watch this give whoever made the edit an opportunity to provide a reliable source with the information (i.e. not synthesized from original research) or remove the material if it is not updated/verified in a reasonable amount of time.SeminarianJohn (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

An unverified account, possibly the source of original research, is using the term "signed-up" members not listed in the Church in Wales "Membership and Finances 2018" that they cited. The number they gave was actually the Electoral Roll which is one of several metrics listed. While I have no objection to that remaining on the Intro as that reflects the number of eligible voters, who have to meet certain criteria to be an eligible voter, an account user is being, perhaps sincerely and unintentionally, inaccurate. Please watch. I quoted the text to make clear what the primary source the person cited says.SeminarianJohn (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Membership figures

I am sure I am not alone in finding that the way the figures are set out is confusing. Would not a Table - properly referenced - be clearer and more concise? It could include columns for figures such as members on the Electoral Roll, Easter Commmunicants, average weekly attendance, those reached by "major acts of worship" etc. Further years could then simply be added.

The article also lacks by way of comparison any reference to the considerably higher figures for members on the Electoral Roll and Easter Communicants there would have been after disestablishment in the 1920s, and in other sample decades of the 20th Century. The decline in membership has become quite pronounced.Ntmr (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I have added some figures for 1945 and 1960, which show the remarkable extent of the current decline. The citation is to a book by Norman Doe, an acknowledged expert on the Church in Wales. I would imagine that the figures given would be for Easter communicants, as that was always the traditional measure of membership in the Anglican churches, but Doe does not specifically say so. "Members on the Electoral Roll" is a more recent measure of membership, as Electoral Rolls did not exist in Wales until it was necessary to set them up following disestablishment. Electoral rolls did not exist in the Church of England until parochial church councils were set up in 1921.Ntmr (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Adoption of official name of the Church

The assertion that the name "Church in Wales" was adopted at a Convention held in 1920 has remained unreferenced since 2012. I have checked three sources that I have, and all I can find is the account cited (The Later Life of Bishop Owen, Eluned E Owen (1961) p 349), which refers to the Cardiff Convention of the Church, held in October 1917. I suspect that the advice that Judge Sankey gave there is probably the source for the (correct) assertion that there were thought to be good legal reasons to stick with the term "Church in Wales" used in the 1914 Act. The account in Owen's biography suggests that the matter was to be reconsidered once disestablishment had taken place. It is just possible that there was a "Convention" held in 1920, but in nine years no one seems to have been able to find a reference to it. I personally think it is unlikely that there was such a Convention, because by 1920 the Governing Body of the Church in Wales was up and running, and it would then be for the GB of the C in W to take any decision on the official name of the new church. I have yet to track down any reference to the name being reconsidered once disestablishment had become effective. It is conceivable that it was simply never reconsidered.Ntmr (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Intercommunion with Old Catholics

I have managed to track down a citation for this - parts of this Article are poorly referenced. The Canon specifically refers to "Intercommunion", not "Full Communion". I think I may have seen somewhere that the C in W entered into Intercommunion with the Old Catholics in 1932, and Full Communion in 1958, but the first is clearly wrong, and there seems to be no canon relating to Full Communion in the 1950s. Looking at the list of Canons on relationships with other churches it may just be that the term "Full Communion" superseded "Intercommunion" around 1973. There is nothing to suggest that a previous relationship of "Intercommunion" has ever been "upgraded" by canon to "Full Communion" with the church in question.Ntmr (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)