Talk:Anglicanism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

History

The history section is not really about the history of "doctrine and practice" - which is what this article is about, but a mere history of the Communion. Anglican Communion#History and History of the Anglican Communion rehash the history already in TWO other articles. I propose a massive edit/merge of these three history sections. Anyone object if I act boldly? -- SECisek 11:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Be bold! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 00:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Myopic Bookworm 09:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Anglican worship: an overview

What exactly does Anglicanus regard as "twee", other than my careful use of the old British (and Prayer Book) spelling of "baptize" which he so carefully effaced? Myopic Bookworm 16:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering what 'twee' meant too. How is the "Anglican worship: an overview" section "dainty or pretty in an overdone and affected way"? On another note, a number of contributing editors seem to dislike this section. Yes, it is not well written: Be bold and revise. As for its necessity, a number of Wikipedia guidelines would say it is. For example, State the obvious and Provide context for the reader which says "Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible the reader knows nothing about the subject: the article needs to fully explain the subject." So, a section in an Anglicanism article must give a sense of what Anglican worship looks like, in terms free of eccliastical jargon, much like an anthropologist/sociologist would describe any ritual (without the academic jargon). This is hard to do and, probably, the cause of the poor writing style. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 16:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You are certainly correct about the poor writing style of this section. 'Twee' might not be the most precise word to describe it, at least according to a dictionary definition - perhaps 'trite' would be more appropriate as the section is both bland and boring. Whilst I try to avoid being contentious (most of the time) this section at present is really unworthy of inclusion in the article. I do, however, appreciate the difficulties in trying to describe worship. Anglicanus 15:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

In an attempt to clear some ground, I have moved a whole load of doctrinal stuff out of this section altogether. Myopic Bookworm 23:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Your edits and removal are sensible. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 00:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The Real Presence

In the sentence "Depending on the individual, the range of Anglican personal belief is from 'objective reality' to 'pious silence'.", what do 'objective reality' and 'pious silence' mean? I don't understand. I was going to delete it as it is unsourced. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 16:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I know what they are intended to mean but they won't mean much, if anything, to most people without any explanation. Anglicanus 16:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"Objective reality" means, I think, what it says: Christ is "really"/"objectively" present in a way which does not depend on any perception or interpretation by the subject (i.e. the believer). "Pious silence" also seems fairly transparent: some people who prefer not to express an opinion on the doctrine, but simply accept that in some way or another Christ is present. The sentence perhaps fails to ackowledge that some Anglicans hold a sort of Zwinglian view: Christ is present in the eucharistic participation itself, not in the physical elements. Myopic Bookworm 22:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

PS I think the section should go, though. There is a much better treatment at Anglican Eucharistic theology. The specific notion of "Real Presence" seems to me not really Anglican, but Lutheran. Neither this nor the following section on Sacrifice of the Mass have a place in the section on the BCP: they are essentially concenred with very detailed points of Anglican/Catholic (or Anglican/Protestant) polemic. Myopic Bookworm 22:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Somehow the section is getting more complicated and seems to be muddled by Anglo-catholicism. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 00:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I am mischievously tempted to suggest that all references to Anglo-Catholic practice could be replaced by a general note saying "Anglo-Catholics also use a variety of Roman Catholic liturgical and ceremonial forms, both current and historical, and may assent to any or all Roman Catholic doctrines with the sole exception of accepting papal jurisdiction". Myopic Bookworm 09:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Or even more mischievious "a variety of Roman Catholic liturgical and ceremonial forms, both current and historical (real and imagined)"... David Underdown 11:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Myopic Bookworm's suggestion isn't so bad, David Underdown's however, might be better left out. -- SECisek 19:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Anglicanism defined

Is it okay to edit the language used in this section? The word "whilst" seems a bit strange, especially in the sentence, "Whilst it has since undergone many revisions..." I think this sentence reads better if it begins simply as "It has since undergone many revisions..." Also, the style guide says to avoid the word "whilst". Quadelirus 14:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You're always free to change wording, as long as it doesn't (significantly) change meaning. Especially when you're doing it to conform to something such as the style guide. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment moved from Main article

I think you need to check on the interpretation of the phrase "Ecclesia anglicana". You will find that this term is the general term used by the Popes and Leaders of the Catholic Church both within England, and outside of it, to refer to that part of the Church which is situated in England....nothing more that this. Kind regards, Fr John Bonato Moved by Dabbler (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct but the term Anglican is derived from that phrase which surely can be translated as "English church" which is what the article says. The phrase doesn't claim that the Church in England was necessarily a separate entity from the Roman church at its beginning. Dabbler (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Sykes and the Integrity of Anglicanism

The article as it stands appears (to me at least) to be over-reliant on the self-designation of Anglicanism as a "via media" - with its consequent implicit denial that Anglicanism maintains a distinctive body of doctrine of its own - beyond those of the "universal church". An alternative perspective has been developed in the past two decades in response to the academic ecclesiology of Stephen Sykes; which (as I understand it) proposes that the 20th century Anglican experience of freely engaging in debate and controversy while maintaining fellowship, in the absence of the formal structures of doctrinal authority found in Catholic and Orthodox traditions, represents a distinct and positive model for future Christian Ecclesiology. Current Anglican division (on homosexuality, and on the ministry of women) may be understood as undermining the credibility of this proposition; or otherwise as a necessary prophetic journey in search of a common Christian future. TomHennell (talk) 10:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The works of Hooker and others seems to be the basis for the self-designation. The article seems to reflect the general view. Other views would be welcome if cited, but I don't think the emphesis should be shifted off of via media. -- SECisek (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

very hepful comment Secisek - and it has helped crystalize in my mind that the section on the definition of Anglicanism ought to be expanded - firstly to demonstrate the range of ecclesiology current within Anglicanism (as elsewhere the article discusses the range of sacramental theologies); and secondly to outline the historical development of Anglican identity. Those 16th century divines that we now regard as founders of Anglicanism, would have seen the then Church of England as firmly within the overall family of Reformed Protestantism (and as such were invited to and attended the Synod of Dort. The Tractarians (who are chiefly responsible for finding the "via media" doctrine within Hookers works) were engaged in controversy against those who defined Anglicanism in narrow categories of the enforcement of Parliamentary authority over the church through the Privy council. I would suggest that it was only after the consequences of this controversy had become evident (e.g. in the Colenso case), that we can begin to discern Anglicanism in its modern range of varieties. TomHennell (talk) 10:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

SECisek: I have inserted the MacCulloch citation into the opening section; and, since this requires the section on the development of Anglican identity to provide the main context, I have restored that too. it may well be that the current development section is rather longer than is needed to record the range of points that I agreed I would make in the para above, but some such sort of section is certainly required in the main article. It is important to be clear that the "via media" only really applies to Anglicanism after 1867, before that date this was a minority view as against a consensus that located Anglicanism within mainstream Protestantism (as British law always stated unequivocably); and that furthermore, in the 16th and 17th century Anglicanism was seen as firmly Reformed (as distinct from Lutheran) in its Protestant identity. TomHennell (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, I did not see this comment until now. The suggestion that the Church of James I (that all but persecuted Calvinists) or the Church of Laud, (who was executed by men who held the Reformed faith) were both some how "within the overall family of Reformed Protestantism" seems off base. The Anglican flirtation with Calvinism under the regency of Edward VI was largely purged and burned out of England by Mary I and, largely due to Knox's poor relationship with Elizabeth, it failed to find a foothold again. As you know, the Geneva bible was never accepted, it was too "Reformed". From the time of Elizabeth, to be Reformed in England was to be a dissenter, except during the Republic when Anglicanism was essentialy disestablished. To suggest that the Church of England's role as a middle way between Roman Catholic and Continental Protestant theologies began in 1867 is to deny broad academic consensus on the matter. MacCulloch is a good source, I use him often - see Cranmer, but I don't live and die with his work which I find to be coloured by his personal opinions. Were he an editor here and not a published scholar his work would often be rejected as synthesis and OR. He is a voice, but just one. A fairly recent one that at times can contradict long held understandings of his subjects.

If I'm not mistaken, the distancing from Calvinism did not occur decisively until late in James' reign, and really not until Laud's showdown with the Puritans under Charles I. James bullied the Scots Presbyterians to be sure, but we should not equate Presbyterianism and Calvinism. He also took great interest in the controversies at the Synod of Dort, in Holland, in 1618, which he helped organize (this was an inter-Calvinism affair) and to which he sent a delegation. The theological position arrived at by the English delegation there was within the boundaries of Reformed "orthodoxy." James, of course, was raised a Calvinist in Scotland. Even the Restoration church after the Act of Conformity included Calvinists factions--e.g. the significant numbers of Puritan clergy who conformed to episcopacy. And Calvinist Evangelicals in the Church were there to greet George Whitefield's and Lady Huntington's revivalism in the 18th century. Calvinism was certainly not burned out of Anglicanism by Mary--it became one of the many subcultures in the Church (not unlike today). Newman notwithstanding, the 39 articles bear the heavy imprint of Geneva, as much as it may pain latter-day Anglo-Catholics. I think that is right that much of the talk of via media, the stressing of apostolic succession and much else is largely a 19th century, post-tractarian emphasis. In the early 18th century it was to the Church of England that the Calvinist Prussian King looked for a compromise model to unite Lutherans and Calvinists in his realm--suggesting that if there was any notion of via media at this stage, it was between Lutheranism and Calvinism. Around the same time proposals were floated to bring the Churches of the Reformed Swiss cantons under the administration of the C of E. Mwd77 (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

along these lines, I wonder if "Protestant Reformation" could be added to the litany of historical influences on Anglicanism in the first sentence of par 2, i.e. in addition to 'church fathers, historic episcopate' etc. It's omission in this important introductory sentence seems a little misleading; a visitor to the page who knows nothing about Anglicanism has to get a ways into the article before the words protestant or reformation are first mentioned. I had added it and then erased the edit, now understanding, as a newcomer to wiki-interventions, these things don't normally proceed without collective consultation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwd77 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The opening paragraphs have been much tinkered with, so by all means improve them if you feel you can. I think you are right in suggesting that the current wording tends to obfuscate the degree to which Angicanism (certainly from the perspective of other Christian Traditions) derives inescapably from the Protestant Reformation. That said, I am not sure the proposed wording you introduced, and then removed, would be correctly placed in that specific sentence, which I take to be summarising the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral as the basis for Anglican belief. The article should concentrate on what Anglicanism is now - not what it has been and is no longer - and there are many who call themselves Anglican who would now balk at describing their faith in terms of Reformed teachings. But elsewhere in this para, I think your point could be well made. TomHennell (talk) 00:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Rather than debate content at this time, however, it is worth noting that Roman Catholic Church has gone GA and perhaps on that model Anglicanism and Anglican Communion should be merged. This would centralize the history in one location. Thoughts? -- Secisek (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that Roman Catholic Church did not get to FA - in part - because of the huge size of the article caused by the history sections. In other words, don't model on the RCC article. Not a good model. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

In the past, it was decided to eliminate a history section from this article and I think that was a sound idea. I reopened the question in light of the above post, however I agree with Wassupwestcoast that this isn't the place for "a history of" article. -- Secisek (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

point taken. I nevertheless am still inclined to feel that there needs to be a section on Anglican identity; in respect of the emergence of transnational "Anglicanism", in distinction from the Church of England established by the UK Parliament and the British Crown. Without such information, the sections on the Lambeth Conference etc are descriptive but lack any real context. I will draft a para from the perspective of 1867 - cross referencing all the Reformation and Tractarian history to the History of the Anglican Communion page. Please feel free to remove it. TomHennell (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe we should consider merging the communion and the -ism...any thoughts on that subject, Tom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secisek (talk • contribs) 11:47, 26 March 2008

The problem with that is the groups that self-identify as Anglican, but are definitely not in the Communion (whatever one might think of them). David Underdown (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both Secisek and TomHennell! We do need a bit of history to provide necessary background to work up 'Anglican identity'. But that necessary history can be encapsulated in a brief discussion of the formation of The Episcopal Church vis-à-vis the Church of England 'cause that is the starting point of Anglican identity separate from the Crown. I agree with David Underdown in that the Anglican communion article has to be kept separate from the Anglicanism article because of the extra-mural Anglican groups. Cheers!Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Silly pun, but if we merge "the communion and the -ism" we will have "communionism". Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point Wassupwestcoast, though I have tended to think (follwing David L. Edwards) that the formation of the "Church of England in Canada" was in practice the more significant development; specifically in the development of local synodical government within Canada formed the model for both the Lambeth Conference, and for the subsequent proliferation of synods in all their glory at all levels in Anglican churches. Moreover, is is a point worth making that the Lambeth Conference is the paradigm for all the various international confessional conferences of Protestant Churches - Lutheran, Reformed, Methodist etc. To a considerable degree, the Anglicans of Canada and Southern Africa were the prime movers in developing Anglican identity after 1867; not the least because the Church of England itself has always been a bit sniffy about seeming to learn too directly from the Episcopal Church of the United States of America. TomHennell (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree with you TomHennell. I always laugh when I see 'Church of England in Canada' 'cause that name was in use by many Canadian Anglicans - including my parents - years and years after the official name change. Still, the Church of England in Canada modeled its synodical government after that of the Americans. A number of the priests and even bishops were Episcopalians at some point in their lives/careers. Essentially, American ideas went back to the Church of England through Canada. You are quite right in saying that 'the Anglicans of Canada and Southern Africa were the prime movers in developing Anglican identity after 1867'. However, direct diocesan connections to the Church of England (Canterbury) were not broken - at least in Canada until the 1920 / 30s (and 1940s for Newfoundland) - and direct financing until the late '40s. I think 'Anglican identity' independent of the Church of England but in direct communion with Canterbury is best formulated with The Episcopal Church. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have inserted a section as suggested. It is probably too long. Please anyone feel free to edit and correct it in accordance with your particular degrees of expertise, and confidence in Wiki procedures TomHennell (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is fantastic. One suggestion would be to add a note about that crucial sentence (or two) in the American BCP and canons that insisted that the American church would parallel the Church of England in doctrine. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This is GREAT work. There was one "Catholic Church" near the end that seemd to be RCC, if it wasn't I don't understand what was meant. If the "Roman" I added is incorrect, than that sentence needs to be clarified.

Absolutely Secisek, and thanks for the work of correction. There is a problem of terminology in describing Maurice, as he rejects talk of "Anglicanism", referring instead to the "Church of England" which he sees as a forerunner of the "Catholicism" of the emerging universal church; but inconsistently still uses "Catholic" to refer to one party within the then CoE. This Maurice contrasts with "Romanism" (i.e. the Roman Papacy), which he sees as an esentially parasitic corruption of Catholicism (as of course Newman had done too in his earlier days). TomHennell (talk) 10:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh! - did you get all that?...and yet there are still people who insist that the term Catholic Church can always suffice for the term Roman Catholic Church without confusion. Glad to know I am not crazy. I love it! -- Secisek (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, can it all be cited? If it can't the whole lot of it will have to be excised when we push for GA and that would be a crime! Well done. -- Secisek (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll do what I can from Sykes. I could do with better sources on the Canadian/American development, as I am here relying substantially on David Edwards. TomHennell (talk) 10:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Quires and places where they sing/Chichester Psalms

I thougt that Chichester Psalms was commissioned for a concert, rather than for liturgical use (though it has since been used as an anthem), neither our article here, nor Grove on Bernstein are entirely clear on the point, I'll try and remember to look through my Proms programmes to see if the notes their provide any more clarity. David Underdown (talk) 10:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Commissioned for Chichester choir to sing the Southern Cathedrals Festival I think. But it certainly works as an anthem (with a Male treble or countertenor voice singing David), and I believe that was always the intention. TomHennell (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That festival (like the Three Choirs Festival) may well include services as well as concerts, which is why I said the nature of the commission wasn't entirely clear, even if there was the idea that it could be used as an anthem long-term, I'm not sure it's the best example to use that's all. David Underdown (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

By all means substitute a better example. In my view the variations on a theme of Three Choirs Festival are as as central to the Anglican choral tradition as is choral evensong TomHennell (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The programme I found (Prom 11 2005), merely says commissioned for the Chichester Festival 1965, and performed there by the combined forces of Chichester, Winchester and a.n.other which I've forgotten whilst walking upstairs, which is still not entirely unambiguous. I think wider discussion of the choral tradition probably belongs in Anglican church music, rather than here though. David Underdown (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

History

There was consensus to remove the history of the development of the Anglican Communion out of this article, seeTalk:Anglicanism/Archive 4#History. I have again removed text which exists verbatium in another article. -- Secisek (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

British English -ize -ise

It is agreed that Wikipedia entries relating to specifically to British life and history should use British English. But this seems to generate problems arising from the erroneous assumption that verbs in British English should always adopt the spelling "-ise" in preference to "-ize" (see the discussion in Authorized King James Version.

The correct position (according to the consensus of usage guides consulted) is that American English prefers the verb ending "ize", while Australian English prefers the form "-ise". British English allows both forms, with different publishers tending to standardise their style guides one way or the other. Hence Oxford University Press prefers "ize" spellings, while Nelson prefers "ise". Some 30 words have to be spelled "ise in British English (advertise, advise, arise, chastise, ...). A good style guide will list them. A smaller list (baptize, prize, ...) have to be spelled "ize". Otherwise, both forms are acceptable, and the one should not be edited into the other in Wikipedia entries.

However, the texts and formulae of the Church of England tend consistently to prefer the "ize" form (check your copies of the Book of Common Prayer, and of the Authorized Version). So terms specific to Anglicanism e.g in "The solemnization of matrimony" would usually be incorrect if spelled with an "ise" ending.

I hope this makes the rule clear. TomHennell (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that spelling diversity is an accepted component of Wikipedia; and that articles begun using one form should remain using that form (see discussion at colour). Since Anglicanism is a worldwide phenomenon (like colour), your characterisation (yes, I said "characterisation"!) doesn't apply. The articles I've developed have used the "ise" since that is a perfectly acceptable spelling option in Canadian English (according to MS Word), which I use. So altering for a false uniformity is really unnecessary and disruptive, imo. fishhead64 (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This article does not relate specifically to British life and history, since, as Fishhead64 points out, Anglicanism is found worldwide. In cases like this, we look to the oldest version of the page. If you look at the version of this page from February 2002 you see "organisation", "modernisation", and "characterised". While it's true that both "-ize" and "-ise" are permissible in British English, the history of this article prefers the "-ise" spellings. The spellings used in the Book of Common Prayer are irrelevant, since Wikipedia has its own manual of style. —Angr 21:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Further, don't the style guides specifically state that articles should not be edited to change spelling based on country preferences unless the article in question is only completely applicable to one country? In that case, if an editor has created an article that uses -ize, it should stay -ize. If the editor uses -ise, it should stay as such. However, I will say that since I am an American, I would tend to see words that end in -ise as being misspelled; if both are acceptable in British English, I would think then that the largest user base of the article in question should be used to determine which spelling is best. Canada accepts both; Great Britain accepts both; America prefers -ize. Australia prefers -ise. Since more readers would be familiar with -ize, it would not be UNREASONABLE to use -ize. But I would never make changes to an article ONLY to change the preferred spelling of words with alternates. Bill Ward (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

So would you also consider that advertise, advise, enterprise, televise, etc are also misspelt? --203.220.170.31 (talk) 05:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is specifically with the spelling of those specilised terms where Anglicanism has a standard form. As I said, for other words - unless they are on the "only -ize" or "only -ise" lists - either spelling is correct, and it is inappropriate WIKI editing to edit the one to correct to the other (but then does it mean that it is appropriate WIKI editing to revert an incorrect edit?). But leaving that aside - "baptize" is only spelled one way in Anglican formularies and texts; similarly with "solemnization of matrimony", and those are the spelling forms that should be used in the article for these words. TomHennell (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I can't see why one needs to replicate what a given Anglican formulary says unless one is directly quoting from a text (and wouldn't we need to have access to all of them, from Melanesia to the Windward Islands to know?). The concept is what is important. I can see your point, but I think it's hair-splitting a little too closely. fishhead64 (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Tom is correct (to my surprise) that baptize should be spelt that way. The OED normally lists both -ize and -ise (preferring -ize), but it doesn't give the option for baptze (baptise is only given as an archaic noun, equivalent to baptism). I'm less convinced by his argument in relation to the other spellings, again unless we are quoting directly. I think also that one of the spelings which was coorected was licence to license, which in British Engish is a matter of noun versus verb as the anon stated. David Underdown (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The OED is not the be all and end all for how to spell words in English. There are many other sources such as Chambers, Collins, etc. --203.220.170.31 (talk) 05:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

One thing the article definitely shouldn't have is a mixture of the two spellings. If we write "baptize" and "solemnize" we should also write "organization" and "recognize". If we write "organisation" and "recognise" we should also write "baptise" and "solemnise". —Angr 11:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree at all Angr; English spelling demands the "-ise" form for some common verbs - advertise, advise etc - and demands the "-ize" form for others - capsize, prize, size(as a verb). Baptize, at least in Anglican discourse, is in this second category. But most verbs can be spelled either way, and there is no reason why they shouldn't be. Any text of any length is therefore likely to have a mixture of the two forms. Forcing usages into consitency is no value in itself. TomHennell (talk) 01:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for improving articles on Anglicanism, but honestly, I think regularising the spelling to accord with one standard or another should be at or near the bottom of our priority list. Feelings tend to run high over such tokens of national identity, and I think that letting sleeping dogs lie is the best approach under the circumstances. The Old Testament axiom, "At that time there was no king in Israel, and everyone did as he pleased" is advisable in this case. fishhead64 (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Angr is right, if we write one form of "-ise" words then this form should be used throughout the article for the other "-ise" words, if we write one form of "-ize" then this form should be used throughout the article for the other "-ize" words. (Note: both do have exceptions where there is not an alternative spelling, eg: enterprise, capsize, etc.) But I think TomHennell is missing the point, baptise is not an incorrect spelling to use as he seems to think — "baptise/ize" belongs to the group of words that include "organise/ize", "recognise/ize", etc, where there are two acceptable spellings. The following sources disagree with him, indicating that both spellings are correct (but due to their own style guides they list the "-ize" form before the "-ise" form):

• Chambers lists both "baptize" and "baptise" as correct.
• Ask Oxford lists both spellings "baptize" and "baptise" as correct.
• Dictionary.com lists the "-ize" form first and says the "-ise" form is chiefly a British form.
• Collins lists both forms "-ize" and "-ise" as equally correct.
• Merriam-Webster lists both "baptize" and "baptise" as correct.

A good indicator of modern British usage is the BBC, and a google search finds:

• Results of about 242 from bbc.co.uk for baptise.
• Results of about 24 from bbc.co.uk for baptize.

Which indicates the "-ise" form is ten times more popular than the "-ize" form in Britain. --203.220.170.31 (talk) 05:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Tom, the words you mentioned (advertise, advise, capsize, prize, size) play no role here because they don't end in the suffix -ize/-ise; they just happen to end with the same string of letters. The words that really do contain the suffix -ize/-ise (and its derivatives like -ization/-isation) need to be spelled consistently. Which spelling one chooses is a matter of style, and we're under no obligation to use the same style as the publishers the Church of England hires to print their materials. Now, I'm American, so obviously my heart is with the Z-spellings. But as the version from 2002 shows, people who prefer the S-spellings got here first, so they got to decide. —Angr 19:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Good final point Angr - but factually incorrect. The section in question - on the diaconate in Anglicanism - was created by user Secisek on 9th August 2007; and used there the form -ize for both baptize and solemnize. Since you do not dispute (I believe) that "baptize" is a correct spelling, there can be no case for having subsequently changed it. I agree fully with your general point, that the spelling of words in general should follow the conventions of those originating the article. But I would hope you would agree with me that these two words are not here appllied as general descriptors, but as specialised terminology relating specfically to Anglican rites. In consequence they should follow the conventions and rules of Anglican nomenclature. I have checked in the Prayer Books of 1549, 1552, 1559, 1662, 1928, ASB 1980, and Common Worship 2000; and the form "baptise" is found in none of them. Do you know different? TomHennell (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I take issue with the claim that "baptise" and "solemnise" are examples of "specialised terminology relating specifically to Anglican rites." They are terms which relate to Christian practices; and, as I pointed out elsewhere, the prayer books and formularies of one province of the Anglican Communion should not be taken as the arbiter of spelling. Rather, the dictionary will suffice for arbitrating the "conventions and rules" of any nomenclature. The fact that Anglicans use both spellings should come as no surprise, given their diverse nationalities and backgrounds, and the fact that they are not specifically Anglican words (are there any?). As Angr points out, it is the original article's use which arbitrates between spelling options, not sections thereof. fishhead64 (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The BCP and KJV use other spellings that are not typical of modern English spelling in any country, e.g. Publick or Quire for the group of choristers, and we don't change instances of those to match the archaic spellings unless they are direct quotations. Similarly in British English the -ize ending is now archaic in many words or at very least only used in a limited way. Dabbler (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the relevent section in the article. It is not about the sacramental theology of baptism and marriage in general, but about the canon law of Anglican rites in particular. Anglican theology recognises baptism and marriage conducted by ministers of other Christian traditions (and marriages undertaken by a validly appointed civil registrar) as being just as capable of delivering the sacrament of God's grace, as the equivalent rites would be when conducted by an Anglican clerk in holy orders. But if a civil registrar were to take it on himself to conduct a marriage ceremony not according to the civil form set out in the Marriage Acts, but according to the religious form in the Book of Common Prayer, then that marriage would be voidable, and the errant registrar would probably be sentenced to term in prison. And as the example of Common Worship 2000 demonstrates, the form "baptize" is in no sense archaic; but is current, is in Anglican usage, and is the standard spelling with no alternatives. Anglicans do not, as far as I have been able to ascertain, "use both spellings" in their rites of worship - unless of course you know better, and can quote an Anglican liturgy with the forms "baptise" and "solemnise" TomHennell (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So if someone was "baptised" in another denomination because that was the spelling in their service it wouldn't be valid for Anglicans, but if they were "baptized" it would be? That is the level of nit-picking that I read this discussion. Dabbler (talk) 11:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Not at all Dabbler. A valid baptism in any (Trinitarian) denomination is a valid baptism in all such denominations. Same for marriage. But that is not the point under discussion in this section of the article, which is about the sacramental rites specific to a deacon in Anglican canon law. Canon Law - in all Anglican churches so far as I am aware - is relatively strict in requiring the forms of rite used to conform with those approved by authority, and set out in the relevant Prayer Book. Those rites follow standard formulae, and have standard conventions for spelling. My point is simply that when we refer to those specific rites (as in this section) we should use the conventional spelling of that rite, and that is indeed what the original editor of this section did. The nit-picking would be to say that - because non-liturgical language elsewhere in the article uses a different spelling convention - the specific liturgical terms in this section should be altered to conform with the rest of the article, and hence cease to conform to the standard form of the formulae to which they relate. TomHennell (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

To extend your argument, if the word "recognize" appeared consistently in the canon laws of the majority of Anglican provinces, would we be compelled to use that spelling in articles related to Anglicanism? You may respond that "recognition" is not a technical word, but what if it's recognition of non-Anglican orders, for example? This is the level of absurdity we're dealing with here. It's abundantly clear at this point that your concerns are not shared by other editors, so continuing to pursue it seems unproductive. fishhead64 (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Little mistake regarding Anglican church as third largest.

It would be the 4th largest, after Oriental Orthodox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.108.125.222 (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The sources I've seen all show it as the third largest. If you have an alternative - please show us where the figures are derived from. David Underdown (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Same with the sources I've seen. Still, I suspect those sources lump Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox together, which is misleading. —Angr 08:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not misleading, it is wrong. --Secisek (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I would rephrase "Anglicanism forms one of the principal traditions of Christianity, together with Protestantism, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy" as Anglicanism should be within Protestantism (it might be the biggest/more important, still should be classified within Protestantism) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.89.66.135 (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Anglicanism is generally portrayed as via media; labeling it as Protestant is controversial. Tb (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This is news to me. As a lifelong Episcopalian I have yet to meet anyone who does not believe Episcopalians are Protestants. The article is as a result very confusing, at least to uneducated American laity. The sheer amount of debate on this topic in the discussion forum shows that many readers do not find the article clarifying in that regard - it's actually *jarring* to read that I am apparently a member of some other sect. Most questionnaires including faith list 'protestant' as a category, and most people I know would classify Episcopalians under that rubric.151.204.140.143 (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What other sect does the article say you are "apparently a member of"? Still, the job of the article is not to reinforce people's antecedent opinions: sometimes the full complexity of the world as it is can be jarring. You write as if it is a criticism of the article that it does not reinforce what you already thought. Tb (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wiki pages for Charismatic Christianity and Pentacostalism both claim between 250 and 500 million followers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_Christianity, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecostal, Baptists are said to have close to 100 million: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptists#Membership

Hoax

D. J. Rozday the Armenian theologian may very well not exist: a brief search today revealed a few other Rozdays only (Sept 29, 2008 revision not valid) Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Catholicism NPOV dispute

Why is this page under the "catholicism" link when it is a protestant church? 81.129.62.111 (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. It's in Category:Catholics not in communion with Rome, which is an accurate description of the Anglo-Catholic end of the Anglican spectrum. —Angr 17:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The Anglican churches are catholic, or at least consider themselves to be. Anglicans say the Nicene creed, which includes believing in the holy catholic church. My baptism certificate is prefixed, "Membership of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church". And I am an Anglican. Millbanks (talk) 12:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

What ever you might say about Anglicans such as John Keble, Edward Pusey, William Laud, or for that matter Henry VIII, you could certainly not say they were "protestant"s. They would not have, either. --Secisek (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Practice varies. The (Anglican) Church of Ireland states specifically that it "is both Protestant and Catholic". But in Queensland, Australia, Anglicans would not be so forthcoming about being Protestant. Millbanks (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

And a few hundred miles to the south, they wouldn't be so forthcoming about being Catholic. —Angr 15:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You are so right! Millbanks (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Very true! -- Secisek (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The act of settlement states it is a "reformed religion" - a religion of the reformation. It certainly IS protestant. When Henry VIII broke with with Rome they became Schismatic. With the introduction of the Book of Common Prayer they became heretical. And technically, protestantism isn't a religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.74 (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you have to be anonymous, but, yes, the Anglican churches are Protestant (and catholic) and yes, there is no such thing as the protestant religion, nor the protestant church. My step son is Greek Orthodox, and we console each other that in the eyes of Rome, he is a schismatic and I am a heretic. Still, I sleep easy at night, with my heretic wife, who is the mother of a schismatic and married a heretic. Millbanks (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

lol (above). okay just to make peace (God willing). you either say both or neither. is 'Via Media' a doctorine? the Anglican orders and I think? sacrements are honoured in the Orthodox Churches, and also Catholic,.. almost, with orders, a one week fast track for preists on the left wing of the church. on the right wing we have Episcopalian to Methodisim...after that your in to Calvinism and saying that is included is maybe a bit like the converse that Anglicans are still in communion with Rome. Peace. dava4444 —Preceding undated comment added 02:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC).

We are in danger of tripping over terminology. The article has fallen victim to it. In Anglican terms "catholic" means "universal", and refers to the whole body of believers. Since the Church of Rome has arrogated the word "catholic" to itself, a reader can be misled by its use here. A couple of times the article referes to Western Catholic tradition, meaning traditional closer to Roman practice, not "catholic" at all.

Even the Church of Scotland, as extreme it its Protestantism as can be, declares it is part of the catholic Church. So does the Methodist Church. Surely these should be included in the Category "Catholics not in communion with Rome"? It is not listed. That category is a daft one; invented out of contradictory definitions and self-definitions.

The idea that "catholic" and "protestant" are somehow a contradistinction is a mischievous idea. Protestants are catholic.

There is no doubt that the Anglican Churches are Protestant by any normal definition. That they are catholic too is also undoubted by anyone but Romanists! Whether the Church of Rome is catholic as it claims is open to debate.

Howard Alexander (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What you say expresses one point of view within Anglicanism. Other Anglicans would recoil and insist they are not Protestant at all. Some would also say that--despite their intentions--the Presbyterians and Congregationalists and Baptists are not catholic. Some intend by "catholic" to mean specifically some assumptions about church order (episcopacy, succession) and sacramental theology. What you say here certainly well expresses the opinions of one party within Anglicanism, but it is by no means agreed on all sides. Tb (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case we need clarity of terminology. Howard Alexander (talk) 07:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and I think we have fairly good clarity. The via media language says "between Reformed Protestantism and Roman Catholicism", which avoids the ambiguities; we also say The degree of distinction between Reformed and western Catholic tendencies within the Anglican tradition is routinely a matter of debate both within specific Anglican churches and throughout the Anglican Communion. which expresses exactly the question you raise, and points out that there are simply different answers to that question given. Tb (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This article shouldn't be in the category 'Catholics not in communion with Rome'. Catholic in this sense means 'Roman Catholic' and this clearly doesn't describe the Anglican Communion as a whole. The wikipedia page 'Anglo-Catholicism' is in this category and that is sufficient. Sbmackay (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

'Catholics not in communion with Rome' are by definition not "Roman Catholic" in any normal sense of the term! 'Roman Catholics not in communion with Rome' would be a contradiction in terms. I don't have strong views of the category, which is essentially half-applicable, half-not, but overall it should probably stay. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Roman Catholic usually means Latin Rite Catholics in communion with Rome. Lots of non-Latin Rite Catholics are also in communion with Rome (the Byzantine Rite Catholics in Communion with Rome, for example), but aren't thought of in normal conversation as 'Roman Catholic'. The definition of Catholicism given in St. Athanasius' Creed is much larger than that claimed by the communion of the Bishop of Rome. The 'Catholic Faith' is trinatarian. Many in the Anglican communion are very much proud to be both Catholic and Reformed. Let the article stay in the category. Bo (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

That may be so in "normal conversation" between people with degrees in theology, but the distinction is notoriously lost on the vast majority of the world's population, & Eastern rite Catholics often find themselves ticking boxes reluctantly as RC, using the term, as most of the world does, for anyone in communion with Rome. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Bet they have fun explaining the priest's wife and children to other 'RC's then... That is part of the point, the East has married priests (brought up in the faith, not converts), doesn't use the filogue, and some don't ascribe to the Immaculate Conception, all very much part of being 'Roman Catholic' (in the Latin Rite). Roman Catholic to most folks (even those that reluctantly tick the RC box) is 'Latin Rite' (if it meant 'Catholic in communion with Rome', the reluctance wouldn't be their for Eastern Catholics). Bo (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. For most English-speaking people (who have ever thought about the matter at all) "Roman" is, not surprisingly, as opposed to "Anglo" (or in Holland or Germany "Old") rather than as opposed to "Maronite", "Armenian" or "Uniate". But of course both senses exist. And most Catholics of any sort dislike the "Roman" altogether, many rather strongly. You may be aware this issue was the subject of one of WP's longest and lamest article title disputes. Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying simply that everyone checks 'RC' reluctantly? If so, so be it. Catholic doesn't mean 'in communion with Rome', nor is it 'another name for 'Roman Catholic'...The glossary of the catechism uses 'in the West, the Roman and Ambrosian (Latin) rites', so anyone who even reads the CCC understands the distinction as I expressed it... If Joe Everyman doesn't get that distinction, perhaps the appropriate articles should be used to enlighten him...Bo (talk) 04:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That is not how the category is being used, it is being used for a much narrower definition of Catholic (look at the range of pages included. 'Catholic' in the broader sense includes Lutherans and Presbytarians, and many other Protestant groups, but they aren't in the category.Sbmackay (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The category seems to include almost anyone who claims catholicity via the Athanasian Creed and the Historic Episcopate. Anglicans claim both. Bo (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even convinced that all Anglicans do claim Catholicity via Apostolic succession. There's nothing referencing this claim in the article. Either way, it's likely to be misleading to the average reader.Sbmackay (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

What? If you'll notice the first line of paragraph three in the article on Anglicanism, the claim to tradition, the historic episcopate, early church fathers, and scripture are all there..Bo (talk) 02:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The claim that apostolic succession is a foundation of Anglicanism is there, but it's referenced by a CoE website which mentions the 'historical episcopate'. This phrase is interpreted as apostolic succession only by the Anglo-Catholic stream of the Anglican Communion, and is stated this way in only some of the Provinces. The statement is not NPOV and needs to be altered. Unless somehow Anglo-Catholic Anglicanism is the only Anglicanism. Sbmackay (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Many more than the 'Anglo-Catholics' consider the historic episcopate to be apostolic succession - Even Sydney Anglicans! http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/news/communion/explaining_the_episcopate/ Our agreement with that assessment isn't what matters. Bo (talk) 05:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That link is quoting the ACNA declaration, not Sydney Anglican opinion. See my comment below.Sbmackay (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thats nonsense. The Anglicans quite rightly claim to be the successors of all the medieval Roman Catholics in England. It was then what built all those impressive 800 year old churches, and wrote Bede's history, and Thomas a Becket. Unlike a lot of the other Protestants, they claim direct succession from that period. But Anglicans are not Roman Catholics now, their Church was firstly split off by Henry's divorce and then spent more than 100 years in a series of partly reversed reformations. They protested from the universal Western Catholic (Roman) church, and thats what they are, Protestants.Eregli bob (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

They protested, they reformed the church, and they continued the historic apostolic succession of the episcopate. That is what they are, a protestant, reformed, catholic church. Few in Anglicanism are more removed from the Anglo-Catholic branch within Anglicanism than Sydney, and even they hold to the historic apostolic succession of the Episcopate. Henry's divorce created a 'schism', but no heresies. Elizabeth's restoration of the Church of England is where a protestant reformed catholic church took hold. Again, it isn't our 'opinions' that matter, it is what do the Anglican Churches teach? Bo (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Did you really read the SydAng article you linked to carefully? Glyn Davies is quoting the declarations of the Anglican Church in North America, not the diocese of Sydney. He states his opinion as: "I do not think that it can be proved from Scripture that what emerged in the medieval church in terms of the ‘historic episcopate’ satisfies Article VI of the 39 Articles" He argues that 'historic episcopate' must refers to the NT office of bishop if it is to be consistent with the 39 articles teaching about the sufficiency of the Scriptures. There is no way the SydAng's would hold to Apostolic Sucession, and it's even less likely they would make it a foundational mark of Anglicanism.

As for Eregli's point - historic continuity is irrelevant. This discussion concerns the specific idea of Apostolic Succession, and whether that should be said to be foundational to Anglicanism.Sbmackay (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

See Glyn Davies second article on the topic

Also a comment under the article: "In the nineteenth century the Anglican Communion invented the expresion the historic episcopate in 1888 , so that the view that bishops were not the successors of the apostles could be maintained. Historic could mean an ancient but not a practice instituted by Our Lord. It could aso be inclusive of those who believed the opposite!"Sbmackay (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Most Anglicans claim lines of succession by laying of hands - the apostolic succession from New Testament Times (Even Sydney grants that it would have started in the NT, and they are mighty low-church). Jos puts it much more simply "It usually considered that the bishops of an Episcopal polity derive such authority from an unbroken, personal Apostolic Succession from the twelve apostles of Jesus. Bishops with such authority are known as the historic episcopate." http://www.anglicandioceseofjos.org/structure.html Bo (talk) 07:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Where do you get this idea the SydAng's claim apostolic succession started in the NT? If it's from the article you linked to, I refer you to my above comments which you don't seem to have read.

By the way, Jos?? Ironically, your source from the Anglican Diocese of Jos was written by Rev Sambo with helps from Wikipedia!!! That is hilarious. Circular anyone? NPOV on this is actually quite important, as evidenced by the fact a Priest in Nigeria is depending on unreferenced claims in Wikipedia to teach ordinands about worldwide Anglican beliefs (and those claims in my opinion are misleading). See my response to the Apostolic Succession section below.Sbmackay (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Episcopalianism

In an edit summary, Angr wrote:

although the largest Anglican church in the US is the Episcopal Church, Anglicanism is still called Anglicanism there, and Episcopalianism now redirects more sensibly to Episcopal

True. Many other Americans, especially non-Christians, call it Episcopalianism (documented by several dictionaries.) The term is also normal in Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Before 'Anglicanism' was coined, the tradition was called Episcopalianism in England.

The use of episcopalianism (uncapitalised) to mean episcopal polity is very unusual, both in Wikipedia and in the world at large.

I propose including the phrase

(sometimes known as Episcopalianism)

in the lead section of the article.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 06:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, I'm not convinced anyone calls Anglicanism in general "Episcopalianism". At best, people in the U.S., Scotland, etc., may call their local brand of Anglicanism "Episcopalianism", but I seriously doubt there are Americans or Scots who would say, for example, "Episcopalianism is the state religion in England". —Angr 08:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not convinced about the general case either (though in the 17th and 18th centuries they did, so a mention makes piped links from historical articles like St. Bridget's Kirk work.)

However, in my opinion, as long as a significant minority calls its local brand Episcopalianism, that is enough to be worthy of mention in the lead, since the local brands are identical to the English version, apart from the increased democracy.

In particular, the provinces planted by overseas missions of ECUSA are certainly Episcopalian as much as they are Anglican.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I am still struggling to make piped links like [[Anglicanism|Episcopalian]] be unsurprising to the reader when they follow the link from a historical article such as St. Bridget's Kirk.

I looked up the Oxford English Dictionary today, and though it traces both Anglicanism and Episcopalianism to the 1800s, Anglican and Episcopalian both go back further, both meaning more or less the same thing as adjectives.

Therefore, I still think the phrase will be useful to readers:

(sometimes known as Episcopalianism)

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I am an American who attends an Episcopal Church and I have never heard "Episcopalianism" in my life. If it is used, it is WP:NEO. -- Secisek (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

AHH! I see. I just went to St. Bridget's Kirk and it was not "Episcopalianism" (as in an Anglican denomination) that King Charles wanted to impose on the Scottish kirk, but rather Episcopal polity. Episcopalianism in that sense is not exactly the same as the Anglican Church of England. The link there should pipe to the polity, not to this page. -- Secisek (talk) 07:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Here in the US, I have certainly heard "Episcopalianism" as the "ism" term referring to the faith of the Episcopal Church, an Episcopalian (member of TEC) is sometimes referred to as a practitioner of Episcopalianism. It's certainly not WP:NEO; if necessary, we need it restricted to the US. I have never heard "episcopalianism" identified as simply "episcopal polity", except in a context where "episcopal" in turn is referring specifically TEC or Anglicans in general. I have never heard of a Roman Catholic referred to as an "episcopalian", for example, whereas "episcopalian" is a more-or-less frequent term--especially in the days before such common knowledge of the Anglican Communion--and certainly should redirect either here or to a specifically American site, such as Episcopal Church (United States). But here seems right. Tb (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "Episcopalianism" can mean the practice of the Episcopal Church. I have doubtless used the word myself when saying, "My parents both grew up Baptists, then after their marriage they converted to Roman Catholicism, and about ten years later they converted to Episcopalianism". I don't mean they converted to episcopal polity (which they already had in the RCC) but that they converted to the Episcopal Church; they became Episcopalians. (On a side note, I find it frustrating that there's no word for the practice of Baptists - Baptism means something else, as does Baptistry, and Baptistism just sounds dumb.) —Angr 08:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The sample redirect cited above concerns the placement of Bishops in the non-Anglican Church of Scotland. It should NOT in the example given, redirect here, it should redirect to episcopal polity. -- Secisek (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Charles did also try to impose the BCP, he was trying to bring the two churches very much in line, James VI (and I) tried to impose only the Episcopal polit, Charles certainly got closer to imposing Anglicanism, it was only following the Glorious Revolution, and the non-juring bishops; support for Jacobitism that the Scottish Epsicopal Church became a completely separate body. David Underdown (talk) 10:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Now this touches on a difficult question, early Church of Scotland bishops retained their titles, but not their power as the kirk switched to a Presbryterian polity. What do we make of those bishops? I once suggested that they were in fact Anglican forerunners of the Scottish Episcopal Church and I was assured that was not so. How about this guy for example: Alexander Campbell of Carco. Protestant and Geneva trained, but a "Church of Scotland" bishop. What do we make of him? Could we call him an Anglican? He is clearly practicing "Episcopalianism" but is he Anglican as we understand the term? The Anglican Scottish Episcopal Church is often dated in it origins to the Restoration - with the non-jurors at the time of 1688/9 forming an Anglican breakaway Church off of the non-Anglican (but sometimes lead by Episcopalianism) Church of Scotland. Thoughts? This IS complicated stuff.

On the subject of our American church, I don't have to tell any of you that the notion of a denominational "Episcopalianism" is nearly dead here. "Anglicanism" will sadly be the only thing tying some churches together in any way in the very near future. -- Secisek (talk) 11:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what Secisek is speaking of, except thatc it seems to be a veiled reference to the current schism. Tb (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll calrify. The notion that we in the USA belong to a denominational "Episcopalianism" because of our membership in the Episcopal Church is corruption of the term. This will become more clear, as there are more and more self-proclaimed Anglicans who will leave the Episcopal Church. It would still be proper to refer to them as practicing "Episcopalianism" in their non-Anglican Communion churches. That is why the redirect of "Episcopalianism" should not point here. They may be governed by Episcopal polity - and therefore practice "Episcopalianism" - but if they wind up outside of the Anglican Communion, would it still be proper to call them Anglicans? This is hypothetical and we have no answer yet. This is also tangental to the issue I was raising which concerns the imposition of Episcopal polity on a non-Anglican Church as we saw in the Church of Scotland. -- Secisek (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I fear you are rather over-simplifying matters Secisek. Anglicans of the 19th century certainly regarded the writings of Caroline divines as prefiguring many of their ideas. But that should not be taken as implying that there was a continuity in those ideas in the Church of England throughout the intervening period, and certainly not that these ideas were regarded in the intervening period as characteristic of "Anglicanism"; if that term was used.

Effectively, the British Isles in the 18th century had four "protestant episcopal" churches; the established churches of England and Ireland, the Episcopalian church of Scotland, and the 24 "Qualfied Congregations" in Scotland, who recognised the Hanoverian Succession under the Toleration Act of 1712. (The latter group, which had no bishops or diocesan structures, might plausibly be considered to be 24 congregational churches). The Scots Episcopalian bishops cannot be considered Anglicans - as they denied the validity of the episcopal orders of the Church of England, and vice versa. But, asked to identify "Anglicans" within Scotland, 18th century English divines would have pointed to the qualified congregations, not to the Episcopalian bishops.

Hence it is probably only correct to conjoin "Episcopalianism" and "Anglicanism", if referring to the period after the various churches carrying these labels came to mutual acceptance and recognition; i.e. after about 1850. TomHennell (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic Church can be described as practicing "Episcopalianism" which is a theoretical system for organizing church goverment, not a subgroup within Christianity that operates under a common name, tradition and identity, which is the definition of a religious denomination, like "Anglicanism". Use of the former as a synonym of the later is a corruption and should be avoided.

That aside, what do you make of the Scottish bishop I cited above? I took the Anglican project flag off of him, but was uncertain in doing so. Is he a non-Anglican practioner of "Episcopalianism" or an Bishop in the Church of Scotland when it happened to be Anglican for a time? -- Secisek (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I cannot see any respect in which he could be classed as Anglican - and certainly the Church of Scotland cannot at this time be so termed. From the article, his career rather seems typical of the tulchan bishops of the latter half of the 16th century in Scotland. Melville denounced episcopacy in principle from around 1574 onwards, but it is only in 1580 that this view was accepted by the General Assembly, and 1581 when it was incorporated into the second Book of Discipline. After this date, even though the bishops had no effective authority, they remained a legally necessity for the Church to maintain access to its properties and income - as long as James remained adamantly oppposed to legislation abolishing their legal status. And. of course, their continued existence made it possible for James gradually to restore disciplinary jurisdiction to them from 1610 onwards TomHennell (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

That was my feeling as well, which is I removed the Anglican tag that some well-meaning editor placed on it. On the other hand John Paterson (archbishop), as a Church of Scotland non-juror, clearly planted seeds that would lead to Anglicanism in Scotland. Agreed? -- Secisek (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Numbers of Adherents

The main article says there are 77 million Anglicans, though the articles it refers to give figures of 70 million and 73 million. But how are these figures arrived at? I've put a similar question about their numbers to the Roman Catholics (in the talk page of the article about the RC church), and have received some interesting answers, even though their discipline and public relations are greatly superior to those of the Anglican churches. Millbanks (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)