Talk:Church of England/Archive 1

Go to Talk:Church of England/Archive 2

Supreme Governor

Who was Supreme Governor of the Church of England during the Commonwealth?

I think it was disestablished. Assuming the CofE was Royalist (a complete hunch), then I'd reckon they would recognise Charles II. Timrollpickering 07:54, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Nope. The Church of England was turned Presbyterian, and eventually congregationalist, during the Civil War. But it was still the established Church of England. I'd say it's accurate to say there was no Supreme Governor at this time. john 16:15, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Are you sure or can we cite that? c.f.: Supreme Governor -- SECisek 20:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

'Established' Church

This article is remiss in its largely ignoring the many legal aspects of this Church being 'Established'. There are legal and constitutional issues to be presented. I suggest these sources as starting point:

- Some notes on the Church of England and "Establishment" http://ubh.tripod.com/whist/chhist/ce-est1.htm

- The Church of England - Legal http://www.churchsociety.org/issues_new/church/legal/iss_church_legal_intro.asp Extramural —Preceding unsigned comment added by Extramural (talk • contribs) 20:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Church of England in Wales

The article on the Church of England states that it is the established church not only in England but the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, but omits the far more significant country of Wales, where it is the dominant church (indeed the present Archbishop of Canterbury is Welsh). Furthermore, the future Supreme Governor of the Church of England is the heir to the throne, i.e. the Prince of Wales.

The Church in Wales is not the established Church of Wales - Welsh disestablishment occurred early in the last century, i believe. Something like 90% of the Welsh were of dissenting churches at that time - I can't imagine the status of the formerly established church has changed much since then. john 00:56, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The most significant thing here is that the Church in Wales is not a part of the Church of England. The Church of England is the mother church of the Anglican Communion; the Church in Wales is a separate church which is also part of the Anglican Communion. Therefore mention of Wales is not relevant for this page; it may be relevant on the Anglican Communion page. Yes, it IS unusual that the current ABofC has never been a Church of England bishop; but in theory, the head of the Church of England could be from any church in communion with the CofE - ECUSA, the Nigerian Anglican Church, even, I think, in theory the Old Catholic Church in Germany. TSP 04:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As the article and the Church's website note, a small part of Wales is in the C of E's jurisdiction (I may have even put this in myself) but I am curious for mor detail. I have emailed the Labmeth Palace Library about this. Carolynparrishfan 14:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Done Carolynparrishfan 14:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Order of headlines in article

A question before I rashly change it- is there a reason that "appointment of bishops" and "recent developments" is listed before "history"? Seems pretty counter-intuitive to me. --Puffy jacket 11:13, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Perhaps it's so you can get the headline news before diving into history? Just proposing an explanation, It makes sense to me the other way too.--Fish-man 11:51, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Frankly, the appointment of bishops thing should maybe be spun off to another page altogether. But as long as it's here, I'm gonna move it to a more logical place. Doops 17:17, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why

Does it say "other Protestant churches". In what sense is the CoE cut and dried Protestant? I am not aware of any self declaration of that form.

--BozMo|talk 20:12, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree, from my understanding the Church of England is both Protestant and Catholic (ish..) hence the Anglo-catholics in so called 'high-churches' and the more 'low-churches' which have signed up to the Evangelical alliance... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.241.231.150 (talk • contribs) Revision as of 22:05, 20 May 2006

"At the Reformation the Western Church became divided between those who continued to accept Papal authority and the various Protestant churches that repudiated it. The Church of England was among the churches that broke with Rome." - the official history on the CofE website

The Church of England also seems to fit (and, indeed, is mentioned in) the description on our Protestantism page. TSP 22:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

ECUSA and Break with Rome

Two items, which I think it would be nice to bring out.

1) The church has been in England for a long time even prior to the rise of Rome - it would be nice to include a bit about the influence of the early church there, and their artifacts (Book of Kells, etc...) which still color the church both in England and in the States. I am certain the Archbishop of Canterbury would also state that he saw the roots of Anglicanism dating back to those early Christians (not just to the first Archbishop). I think we should document this.

2) The ECUSA seems to be treated as if it is part-and-parcel of the COE, when in fact, although ECUSA owes allegiance to the Archbishop of Canterbury, that is about as far as it goes. ECUSA follows it's own path, and looks to the ABC for guidance. Including the Gene Robinson ordination (which imho, was a good thing) directly with COE information seems misleading - information about that event seems like it belongs more in Anglican Communion and the web page for ECUSA. -Fish-man 18:43, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think both these concerns have been addressed by revisions in the last month. Doops 22:18, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Church of England religion

I don't get it. So is the church of England currently and officially a Protestant church or a Catholic church? And I have another question, Protestant and Catholic are both Christian right?

I think a look at Nicene Creed should begin to answer your question. Crculver 03:46, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Protestantism and Roman Catholicism are two of what most people would call the three main strands of Christianity, along with Eastern Orthodoxy — but there's nothing official about it. These are just the terms people use. But fundamentally, "protestant" is just an adjective meaning "engaging in protest" and "catholic" is just an adjective meaning "universal." While the Roman Catholic church is pretty much one monolithic thing, there are literally hundreds of independent Protestant churches. The Church of England is definitely one of them, since after its break with Rome it adopted many of the principles of the Protestant reformation. But it also thinks of itself as "catholic" in a certain sense of the word. Since the adjective "catholic" means "universal," a "catholic" church is a universal, world-wide church. The official position of the Church of England is that it is the legitimate English branch of the old world-wide (i.e. catholic) church, and that it only broke from Rome because the Pope was being too autocratic in preventing reforms. For a long time, it was popular in the church of England to call the pope the "Bishop of Rome" — recognizing his legitimate right to run Rome, but denying that he gets to run the whole world-wide church. Officially (in theory), if the Roman Catholic church reformed itself and stopped claiming things like Papal infallibility, the Church of England would fit right back into it. Nonetheless, if you had to assign the C of E to one of those three main strands, it would be in the Protestant one. (Additionaly, in its beliefs and ceremonies, it is one of the protestant churches most similar to the Roman Catholic one — which is probably the real, folk etymological reason people continue to call the C of E "both protestant and catholic".) Doops 05:12, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, I think that's wrong. The C of E in all its formal statements regards itself as a part of the Catholic church (with a capital "C") which ended communion with Rome when Elizabeth I was finally excommunicated some time into her reign. It was the act of excommunication which was the schism. The Roman Catholic church tries all the time to claim ownership of "Catholic" as a term but it is freely used and owned by other churches including the CoE and the Old Catholic church and others. The Bishop of Rome is a common term for the pope, not just in the past, in all churches so I don't think that bit is right either. However, there is not a lot of point in correcting the main article since WikiPedia always fails when popular opinion runs contrary to history. --195.157.186.49 13:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see how you disagree. If I'm reading it correctly, I agree with everything you wrote; your ¶ doesn't appear contradict mine — they're just different sides of the same coin with different emphases. Doops 17:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Only a church directly established by apostle(s) can claim to be "catholic" christian. Roman catholic (Peter and Paul), orthodoxy (John the youngest), the coptic, Thomas-christians in India, etc. Calvinists, Lutherans and Henry8-ists cannot claim to be catholic, since they do not have any apostolic continuity. They are self-invented religions (calvinist, lutheran) or mockings of a religion (Henry8-ists adore a serial wifekiller). Any person who claims to be a christian priest without receiving the ordination from a bishop who is in effective community of a church directly established by apostle(s) is bound for hell! 195.70.32.136 09:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This is irrelevant, as it's a matter of opinion not encyclopedic fact; but, seen as you raise it, the Church of England was founded by the Catholic bishops of England - the founding bishops of the Church were consecrated bishops of the Roman Catholic Church before the Church of England was founded; therefore, assuming a valid apostolic succession still exists in the Roman Catholic Church, it does in the Church of England also. And, of course, Anglicans do not adore Henry VIII; I don't actually think I've ever heard him mentioned in an Anglican service. TSP 11:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, bishops in the catholic church can only be created by the pope in person or by three bishops acting in unison who were explicitly tasked as such by the pope himself in case of great difficulty of travel. Therefore noone could create a bishop in Britain after they rebelled against Rome, meaning new priests cannot be created as well. Therefore all current such ones are faux and have no power to invoke the sacraments. It is explicitly stated in the Bible that Peter has the utmost authority until Christ returns. There is good reason that the majority of anglican bishops reportedly does not believe in resurrection nowadays. They have no hope to go anywhere but hell then. The best minds in the anglo-saxon word all converted to catholicism. 195.70.32.136 09:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This remains irrelevant to the article, but I don't believe that has ever been the understanding of either the Roman Catholic or the Anglican church. The sacrament of ordination to the episcopate is seen by both those churches to grant (possibly irrevocably) to a bishop the ability to ordain and consecrate; hence, a consecration carried out by bishops without the authority of the Pope might be unlawful, but would be valid - i.e. would confer the status of bishop. See valid but unlawful and valid but irregular.

In fact, the Roman Catholic Church's objection to Anglican orders lies in the form of words used in the consecration of the original Anglican bishops. TSP 15:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Governors

Is it correct to describe Mary I as supreme governor? I thought during her reign it was the pope --BozMo 07:59, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Is the list of governors of the church completely necessary? I would have thought that it was sufficient to say that it is the sovereign, and then mark the Commonwealth and Mary I as exceptions. The schism with Rome is also to do with the rise of nationalism, humanism (in the original sense) and grassroots protest for a reform of the church. Arguments between the Pope and Harry were just the pretext. It is unlikely that the king was ever really Protestant. As with many articles, it is easy to think that only grandees matter: can we have something about the place of the CofE in English society?

Gareth Hughes 13:53, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I quite agree - given that there is a perfectly good list of monarchs elsewhere, and especially given that this page doesn't contain a list of Archbishops of Canterbury, which would be far more relevant, this list seems quite superfluous. It's also possibly wrong, given that - as has been noted - Mary at least was a Roman Catholic who certainly wouldn't have regarded herself as Supreme Governor of a protestant church. I'll remove if no-one gives a good reason for its presence in a few days. TSP 04:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This list ALSO contradicts the one on the Supreme Governor of the Church of England page! I'm going to remove it now - it seems to serve no purpose, is duplicated in one other place and contradicted in another! If someone really feels it should be there they can roll back, but it seems to me to clearly be doing more harm than good. TSP 04:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Done; I've moved the text to Talk:Supreme Governor of the Church of England so it can be compared with the text there; it can also be got back from there if you disagree that it should have been deleted. Hope I haven't seemed rude. TSP 05:31, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, thank you for your boldness. I think the page looks better without the list. The notion of Supreme Governor is important in the Church of England, but not that important. I have already said that I feel this article dwells too heavily on structural and historical considerations rather than giving the reader a clear impression of what the Church of England is like. I would like to contribute a little to the article, but I'm stuck on other things for a while. Gareth Hughes 12:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Appointment of Bishops

This section is extremely lengthy and goes into this not-especially-important process in a detail out of all proportion with the article's coverage of other issues.

I've just removed a section of it - "(Seniority of consecration in the Bishops' Orders, not seniority of appointment, determines who may serve in the House of Lords. Even if a Bishop is translated to another see, he does not lose seniority.)" - because it is simply wrong (membership of the House of Lords is based on how long you have been a diocesan bishop - date of consecration isn't relevant). However, I'm not sure what to replace it with - it seemed out of place here anyway - because this section is so out of proportion with the rest of the article. A corrected version of this sentence would properly belong in the section dealing with bishops' membership of the House of Lords; but there is no such section. Should this bit of the article be left, in the hope that the article's coverage of other issues will expand in proportion? Or is there somewhere else it can go? TSP 02:01, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Assets

Whoo, OK, whole new can of worms. We need to be careful with POV here; this section started off very NPOV and still is to a degree. For example, it refers to Bishopthorpe Palace's 15 "servants". It links to a slightly POV editorial article to back this up, but even this only says "staff" - given that Bishopthorpe is a conference venue, a historic building, and an office as well as the archbishop's home, it is not likely that most of these are accurately termed servants. I've no idea how many household staff the archbishop has, though I do know he makes is own breakfast. The average bishop in my experience has one or perhaps two full-time-equivalent household staff (gardener, cleaner, chauffeur). This doesn't include secretaries, but then you wouldn't say that a businessman's secretary was a servant. The Church has recently been reviewing whether current houses are economic. Auckland Castle, for example, which is mentioned as an example of excess, was proposed for sale; it's been kept because it is close to making a profit from conferences and so on - meaning that the bishop would be living there for free.

"Palace" is just the term for a bishop's house - some 'palaces' are three-bedroom semis on ordinary streets.

I think this is a valuable subject to have a section on, but it's not started off well.... well done to all those who've tried to neutralise it, but it still needs carefully going through sentence by sentence. TSP 12:40, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC).

• sigh* I'm really having difficulty making this section meaningful. The income of £134m is, I *think*, the Church Commissioners' income. (£134m is pretty insignificant for an organisation the size of the CofE - clergy pensions alone cost over £100m/year.) This is a pretty meaningless figure, though - the Church Commissioners are just a church body which looks after some jobs - they are not 'The Church'. The only meaningful figure really would be total income for all churches, I think, and I'm not sure that figure is obtainable. The total assets the Church Commissions manage is about 3.9m - I don't know what the 'total funds' figure cited in the article is. TSP 13:07, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What this section needs is a historial account of the church's assets, covering Henry VIII's seizing of the monastaries and, more importantly, the church commissioners' sale, at some point in the 19th century, of the remaining lands so they could (perhaps unwisely in retrospect) invest the proceeds in more liquid places like the stock market. Bishops' palaces, although interesting, are really not that important in the broader scheme of things. Doops 16:00, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The highly POV link so emotionally criticised by TSP is from the web site http://www.anglicansonline.org/ - presumably not widely regarded as "enemys of the church".

While TSP might find "difficulty making this section meaningful" the figures stand for themselves without additional POV statements and are simply the Church of England's own published figures.

I agree that the palace servants are servant only in the same sense that royal servants are servants (or that maids or chauffeurs are servants) and I will amend my comments to that effect in due course.

This may be someones cherished home ground, but in other parts of this Wiki I think a rather more professional approach is traditional with fewer "Whoo"s and "*sigh*"s and recollections of "bishops I have known" at a little more focus on the facts.--Daedelus 11:31, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Come now, that's not called for. This is the talk page, for pete's sake; it's not really fair to call TSP's professionalism into question on the basis of a few comments here. And frankly, Daedalus, you would come across as more "professional" yourself if you could conduct your arguments by focusing on the article rather than making it personal about TSP him-/herself. Doops 15:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's true, I know some bishops - to an extent, that's why I'm discussing it here rather than editing the article itself, because I don't want to fall into the trap of bias the other way - but that's also why I know that the impression given at least by the inital draft, of bishops living in servant-attended luxury, was very far from the truth. I'm afraid that my natural inclination with this section would be to wipe it and start again; while the 10 or so historic castles serving as bishops' homes, and the Church Commissioners' investment funds, are conspicuous assets of the church, I don't actually think they're particularly notable assets. Far more interesting and representative are the thousands of (often historic) churches, and the funds raised in individual parishes and used to pay clergy and do parish work.

Regarding the Independent article: no, the article isn't actually especially anti-church (not that I think Anglicans Online would refuse to host it if it was - as far as I can see they just archive all church-related articles they find interesting), and I did edit my initial text within minutes of posting it to correct myself - I'd only read the first paragraph or so when I originally commented on it, for which I apologise. Nevertheless, it's an opinion article, using statistics to make its point; not an unbiased source of statistics. I don't doubt the statistics are true, but they may not be representative (as I said above, the Church Commissioners are a very small part of the church). I think it's Wikipedia's task to be representative, not to use the facts or statistics which best demonstrate any particular point of view; and to that end I think our approach for this section needs examining carefully. TSP 01:03, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS. I read the talk page before reading the article today; it's looking a lot better, thanks to everyone who's worked on it. TSP 01:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The finances of the Church of England are quite complicated. The figures given do not 'speak for themselves', they do need interpretation. The Church Commissioners deal with the budget of stipends, training and pensions. They also deal with bishops' expenses, but that is in the process of review. The review found a great disparity in bishops' expenses, but that was based more on the difference in extra-diocesan responsibilities than the households they kept. Auckland Castle, for example, is the diocesan office for Durham Diocese, a conference centre and the home of the bishop (which takes up decidedly less space than the other operations). Parishes and dioceses have to foot the bill for the maintenance of a great chunk of built heritage, too. Durham Diocese, where I used to serve, had to consider a policy of not filling vacant parish posts for a year to reduce the stipends bill, and most other dioceses of the Church of England are finding that costs are increasing faster than income. Yes, the church is rich, but we're can't find much of a market for used cathedrals. Gareth Hughes 14:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm actually fairly happy with the passage as it stands now - User:Doops did a great rejig, which I think put User:Daedelus' original content and the content you (Gareth) and others added in response to it into a better context and brought out its proper significance. I've added some more content, clarifying the role of the Church Commissioners (who, incidentally, probably deserve their own page) and putting in several figures from the Church of England's Funding pages] where areas weren't covered in the rejigged version, and it's starting to look pretty encyclopaedic to me now; though I haven't really gone over the final paragraph, which covers among other things the thorny issue of bishops' houses, so I can't comment fully on that.

Incidentally, I'm in Durham diocese at the moment - not clergy, but I'm on Diocesan Synod, which discussed Auckland Castle just last meeting (with the bishop explaining the figures and exactly why it wouldn't be economically better for the diocese to sell the house)... so I was amused to see it as an apparent example of excess here. I think there ARE bishops' houses which are needlessly expensive - both the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds have asked recently for smaller houses - but because it makes so much from conferences and so on, Auckland actually isn't one of them. (Its context on the page now looks reasonably fair, though.) TSP 14:47, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Categorization

My apologizies; the topic is covered under Wikipedia:categorization. Articles should generally be put under the most specific subcategory of a series to which they belong. This makes navigation of the category feasible, so that Church of England and Category:Church of England do not both clutter the same supercats. Exceptions to this general rule should be specifically argued for, as special cases, and not in ephemeral edit summaries. Septentrionalis 18:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

If the presence of Church of England and Category:Church of England in Category:state churches (Christian) is clutter, then surely it is the latter which should be removed, not the former. That's just logic. Doops | talk 20:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That would involve eliminating the category; which would involve cluttering three categories it represents over all the members again; which would produce more ness that it solves Anyway, ease of navigation require that you be able to go from Category:Religion in England to the members of Category:Church of England .

What I would need to persuade me is some reason why this particular case should be an exception to the general rule of thumb. It would have to be something that is not true of every article in a subcat. If you have such a reason, you haven't stated it. Septentrionalis 22:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't involve uncreating the category. Category:Church of England is a useful category for pages related to the Church of England. Not evey page related to the Church of England, however, relates to Category:state churches (Christian). Heck, some of the pages (e.g. All Saints, Rome) don't even relate to Category: religion in England!

Categories should contain parallel things. For example, look at the population of Category: state churches (Christian). Note that there are absolutely NO loose articles about random trivia in the category. It would never occur to somebody writing an article about Uppsala Cathedral to categorize it in Category: state churches (Christian). Well, the same thing is true of Michael Scott-Joynt. Yet he is placed by implication into the category by the current structure.

Bear in mind that every category name has an implied "-related things" in it. So Category: Church of England is a category for Church of England-related things. Category: state churches (Christian) is a category of state-church-related things. Being a member of one does not necessarily entail being a member of the other. So it shouldn't be a sub-cat. Doops | talk 22:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

A slight discrepancy of this kind is true of many subcats. Nor are the members of a cat always parallel, especially when it is abstract. I looked at the cat before I reverted, and I don't think it serious. (For example, Michael Scott-Joynt is related to a state church.) I am not convinced, although I will look again. A consensus may be convincable; if so, this is an exception.

Septentrionalis 23:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The real problem is that Wikipedia:Categorization has no guidelines at all for what to do in the case of eponymous categories. I feel that it's both fallacious and not very useful (missing the whole point of categories) to assume that a page and its eponymous category are one and the same & allow it membership only in its eponymous category. I'm willing to wait here for the results of a discussion there. Doops | talk 23:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Supreme Governor and the Church of Scotland

I believe the British monarch is an ordinary member of the Church of Scotland and I wonder: does QEII ever attend an Anglican church in Scotland and is her status as an ordinary member of the Church of Scotland one that may be assumed by any member of the Church of England? Laurel Bush 12:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC).

As a result of discussions in other pages my current understanding re QEII and the Church of Scotland is as follows:

The monarch is recognised as a member of the Church of Scotland, but whether she is listed on the roll of any particular congregation (like any other member) is unclear.

The monarch has no position in the Church equivalent to that of Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Which means, for example, that she has no role in appointments to office within the Church of Scotland.

The monarch is sworn to to protect the Church of Scotland, and the Church is recognised as the "National Church".

The monarch or her representative is routinely invited to speak at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, an invitation not routinely extended to a simple member of the Church or member of the general public.

There is a widespread but questionable belief that the monarch is a simple or ordinary member of the Church of Scotland. The monarch is not the Supreme Governor, anything like it, but she does appear to have a special position, representing or symbolising the relationship between Church and State or the status of the Church with respect to the State.

Laurel Bush 17:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC).

Incredible as it may sound, by a legal fiction (?) the reigning monarch of the UK changes demonination on crossing the Anglo-Scottish border. Norvo 03:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Left EXPERT template on related topic

Clarified this text as I could -- Left EXPERT template on Talk:Evangelical where I couldn't cut the gordian knot.

Best regards, FrankB 21:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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!

Minor Query

For how long was the Church of England back in communion with Rome after the act of reunion? Surely until Elizabeth was excommunicated which was some years into her reign wasn't it? So the reunion shouldn't be described as "brief"?

Almost immediately on becoming sovereign in 1558, Elizabeth I reinstated Cranmer's (second) Prayer Book of 1552 with very minor modifications. This doesn't accord with the notion that the C. of E. remained in actual communion with Rome. Norvo 03:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Anglican Bishops

Can someone add a section on women in the Anglican hierarchy, and the recent debates on women bishops to Women as theological figures. The subject could probably be developed as a separate section.

Jackiespeel 21:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Add more symbols of the Church of England perhaps such as certain diocesan flags or the archbishop's flag, St George's flag.--

"Articles of Religion" (thirty-nine)

I am curious as to why there is no reference on the main "Church of England" page to the 39 Articles, which are "historic defining statements of Anglican doctrine" according to the page on the articles themselves. Even allowing for controversy over their doctrinal status today, there is presumably a case for including a reference/link in the History section? Brickie 15:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of information missing from this article. I know several people who wish to expand this article, and they commented on this. If anyone could help make a list of topic which need to be expanded that would be helpful.(14:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC))

I would want to see more on the #Articles# and the #Lambeth Quadrilateral#.----Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2009 (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 21:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The Church of England

From the end of the 4th century to 664 there were 2 distinct churches in Britain, the Celtic and the Roman. In Scotland a Christian church was established at Whithorn by St. Ninian, and in the 6th century St. Columba came from Ireland to the Scottish island Iona and his teaching spread from there. Meanwhile southern England had been overrun by the Heathen Saxons. Augustine was sent by Pope Gregory from Rome to convert the Saxons and he landed in Kent at 597. He succeeded in his task and became the first Archbishop of Canterbury. In 635 Aidan, a monk of the Celtic Church of Iona Scotland, settled on Lindisfarne, or holy Island, off the cost of Northumberland and converted northern England to Christianity. For some time there was a certain amount of rivalry between the Celtic and Roman Churches, but at the Synod of Whitby in 664 all English Christians became members of the Church of Rome. Often parts of England became heathen for a while, and invasions of the Vikings from Scandinavia weakened the power of the church, although King Alfred the great in the 9th century did much to revive Christian learning and ideals.

Section on criticism, popular culture, etc

Why isn't there anything in the article which deals with the popular opinion of the church, references to in popular culture? What about mentioning Eddie Izzard, and his "Cake or Death!" routine? Or his claim that Henry the VIII wanted to found a "psychotic bastard religion"? Given that the religion we're talking about WAS set up by a maniac king in order to further his own personal goals, that would provide a bit of objectivity here.

80.233.142.14 20:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Great, now you just need relevant sources for all of that... CaribDigita 20:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Where is God?

Should God be mentioned in this article? He is mentioned once, and Jesus not at all. What is the Church's stance on God: how do they view God? Ditto Jesus..? --Mal 08:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Broadly speaking they are in favour of God and Jesus. Dabbler 23:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

lol! I'd like to think so I suppose! ;) --Mal 22:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It is, as stated in the first paragraph, a Christian church. People who don't already know the basics of Christianity can follow those links. The Church's theology is explained a little in the 'Theology and sociology', but mostly in terms of other groups, so without explicit explanations of the beliefs of those groups, because that is covered in the linked articles. TSP 11:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• I still think Jesus should probably be mentioned somewhere in here.... he is a somewhat significant figure in the church of england :P Squidfish (talk) 03:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, being an editor of many moons experience now, I realise that of course. But that being said, I also appreciate that different Christian sects also often have differing views on exactly their perception of God. --Mal 18:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

History section

The emphasis on the history section is ridiculous. This is not an article o n the history of christianity in Britain. It is an article on the Church of England, and as such, it should largely focus on the history since 1534. Notice that we don't have an article on the Church of France - the whole reason to have an article on this is because of the existence of the church as an independent entity since 1534, not its earlier history as part of the broader Catholic Church. john k 20:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Note further: the first three paragraphs deal with the period up to 1534. The l ast two paragraphs deal entirely with the period between 1534 and 1560 or so. There is n o discussion of any developments since then - nothing about Laud and the Civil War, nothing about the Restoration, the nonjurors, the Great Awakening and establishment of Methodism, the Oxford movement and the evangelical revival of the early 19th century, or anything else. This is ridiculous. john k 20:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not following you, we just seem to hang out in the same places. AGAIN, don't talk...EDIT. This isn't representing a POV, nobody wants the article to look this way. It isn't being proposed for FA or anything, you will not get an arguement - it needs work! Not so very long ago, the Anglican articles largely all looked like crap - can I say crap on WP? - which is why WikiProject Anglicanism was started. There just aren't enough editors to fix everything Anglican overnight, esp. when dozens of pages worth of material gets typed onto talk pages to assert the moral right to call Rowan Williams the Archbishop of Canterbury or hours get spent tracking down vandals who remove the word "Roman" from every instance of "Roman Catholic" - even if the word appears in a quote from the Pope.

What else have I been doing? I had been working on the Cranmer article, which I am getting pretty satisfied with, and then I became distracted trying to straighten out several new articles on so-called "Proto-Protestant" sects that were - almost down to the very last letter - fictions created by "Restorationist Christians". I was going to tackle Cardinal Pole after Cranmer, but he may have to wait until we get a few more of the Top importance Anglican articles to GA status.

Yes, this article is ridiculous as is and I challenge you to begin to fix it and cite it!

In good faith, -- SECisek 21:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

SECisek - this wasn't mean to criticize you, or anybody in particular, just to draw attention to the bad shape it's in. I'll try to at least add some (probably uncited for now, but hopefully undisputed) stuff on later history at some point soon. Probably not today, though. I am, I admit, much better at complaining on talk pages then actually getting off my ass and writing things. My eyes are bigger than my stomach. BTW, the history section of t he Anglicanism article is far better than this, so it's pretty clearly mostly a matter of this article not getting any attention. Anyway, if nobody else does, I'll try to improve, but I can't promise I'll get to it any time soon. john k 17:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You wrote " just to draw attention to the bad shape it's in."

Bad shape? Yeah, we know...wink wink nudge nudge. Seriously, do what you can when you can. Although you seem to have your hands full over at Cromwell, where I lurked by recently to tag the Article for the Anglican Project (he DID abolish the episcopacy). Cheers -- SECisek 17:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Denomination Info Box

There are going to be huge issues with this box throughout the anglican communion pages. Let's see what's here, shall we?

Classification: Protestant In the lead paragraph just to the left of the box it states clearly that the C of E self identifies as both Catholic and Reformed with not a mention of Protestant.

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

Polity: Episcopal I suppose I can buy that but it is going to look silly on the pages of churches with the word "Episcopal" in their name.

Founder: Henry VIII Christ was the founder, end of argument. St. Augustine before Henry. This is just wrong.

Origin: 1534 Was that the year the Roman and Irish missions arrived or is that the year the king of Kent converted...I forget...hmmm?

Separated from: Roman Catholic Church No way, they left us: as a point of interest, Canterbury never declared itself out of communion with Rome - it was the other way around.

Associations: Anglican Communion I guess...what about the Old Catholics and the like?

Geographical Area: England and Gibralter...and all of Europe...and...

This box just is not a good fit for the C of E or probably any of the daughter Churches. Thoughts? -- SECisek 05:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Greek Terms

When Greek terms are used, I think it would be helpful to have a transliteration for those who haven't yet master Greek lettering. Only having the Greek letters make things be rather difficult.Sir Akroy 00:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It immediately follows the description of the church as being cathlic - is that not clear enough? David Underdown 08:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Silly?

Having an Offical names subsection is not silly, this is silly: Talk:Episcopal Church in the United States of America#Name. It is also unending and per the (now archived) discussion at the wikiproject Anglicanism page, I am in the process of standardizing all the churches in the communion. This article has still has sections that are quite stubby, please add something rather then removing something. -- SECisek 00:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Although such a section makes sense in the context of that article, it doesn't here. That little one-sentence section is weird and disruptive to the flow; readers will wonder why it's here— and the answer to that question shouldn't be "it proved necessary in some other article so we put it here too." Too much standardization becomes mere procrustianism. Personally, I'm not a big fan of standardization in the first place — it doesn't seem to me that it's the wikipedia way — but if you care about it deeply go right ahead. However, in doing so, bear in mind that while perhaps a range of articles could all have section headings chosen from the same menu, that doesn't mean that EACH article has to have EACH section. Standardization has a little room for picking and choosing, in other words. (Also, your last comment is out of order.) Doops | talk 00:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I do, however, apologize for my edit summary, which probably came across as rude. That wasn't my intention and I'm sorry. Doops | talk 00:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair play, in articles where it can be more then a few sentences, I'll include. It just turned in to a huge problem at ECUSA -- SECisek 01:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Since I started this whole nightmare with the first 'Official names' sub-heading at the Anglican Church of Canada page on 24 Jan 2007 - see (diff). Then I proposed putting an 'Official names' section as a standardization in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anglicanism on 10 Feb 2007 - see (diff). Then I put the sub-heading on the Episcopal Church in the United States of America page on 02 March 2007 - see (diff). Then everything went to heck. So I've some explaining to do. To repeat myself, a number of churches in the communion have either official indigenous non-English names or a plethora of old and discarded official names. What I didn't count on at the time was acrimony caused by those discarded official names. I still think it is a good idea because it should give a place for all the alternative names and thus allow NPOV. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Anne Boleyn, Thomas More

I added important historical facts to this article like Henry VIII's famous friend Thomas More and Anne Boleyn - THE key figure that sparked the birth of this church and the historical fact that Henry VIII was excommunicated. Why would anyone want to eliminate these facts, they tell the true story. Without them the page is incomplete. Someone reverted my edits as soon as i made them. NancyHeise (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Anne Boleyn herself i wouldn't rate as that important, it's the divorce from Henry that's teh eral issue, if it wasn't her, it may well have been someone else within a few years. More is possibly a better canidate for inclusion, but the current wording is rather superficial. Remember that in this article we are only giving a very brief overview, detail is in History of the Church of England and English Reformation. David Underdown (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the opening sentence from Anne Boleyn's Wikipedia page :"Henry's marriage to Anne, and her subsequent execution, were part of the complex beginning of the considerable political and religious upheaval which was the English Reformation, with Anne herself actively promoting the cause of Church reform. She has been called "the most influential and important queen consort England has ever had"."[3] The words "Anne herself actively promoting the cause of Church reform" and "the most influential and important queen consort England has ever had" I think make her a serious enough person for her name to be included in this article. These are key historical facts, not POV. Please keep in mind that often children use Wikipedia to do research for their school projects, these facts with wikilinks will only help them get a clear picture of the birth of this church. Right now, the page is full of things that are not very well presented making the whole issue confusing. At the very least the page should mention the names of key figures in the birth of the church. NancyHeise (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the POV edits, I don't mind a mention of Anne Boleyn, or Bullen or however she spelled it. Hoever, referring to "true" doctrinal Catholic and editorialising that Henry had a problem with adultery are definitely POV, he may have been an adulterer but his serial marriages indicate that he didn't want to be an adulterer, he wanted to be married. You also put in the statement that Henry had "hundreds of Catholics" executed. My research indicates that this is not the case and unless you can provide references, it should stay out. All in all, your edits rad like a staunch Roman Catholic who disapproves of Henry and wants to paint him in a bad like. Hardly NPOV.Dabbler (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to insert facts, not POV. Right now this article really needs work. I find it misleading, confusing, poorly organized, COMPLETELY POV, and lacking references. I will leave open the offer to improve the article's POV problems and organization. Cheers! NancyHeise (talk) 14:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is any more point of view than the RC article (and I've followed both for an extended period of time). It might be more effective if you pointed out a few specifics taht you find confusing here on the talk page, and we can address those issues between us. Labelling the whole article as confusing does nothelp to take things forward. Now, obviously there are things which I probably take for granted which may not seem obvious to you, so there are undoubtedly improvements to be made, but some of your changes have not been particularly helpful - the introduction to the article is not the place for a lengthy sentence on how it's not RC for example. Particularly since the previous sentence about the reformed nature of the church says that the CofE does not recognise papal authority it's palpably obvious that it cannot therefore be part of the RC church. David Underdown (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope people with an interest in this topic are aware of the distinction between annulments anddivorces. In terms of Church Law both of Henry's marriage break-ups were annulments. In Henry's view, at any rate. 124.171.40.56 (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Nennius

suggestions for improvement

I would like to suggest editors of this article take a look at the Featured Article on Islam for ideas about how to improve this one. If you will notice, the Islam article is written in simple language that is easy for anyone to understand. It is well organized and tells the reader the plain and simple facts without clouding the issue with too many details that are already covered in other wikipages. Those pages are referenced with either a brief sentence mentioning the wikilinked subject or in the See Also section. Right now, this article is not clear to the reader on what the Church of England is. The language used to describe it would not be understood by a non-Christian teenager doing research on the subject for a school paper. If you would like ideas on organization for this article, I would like to point you also to the Featured Article on Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami and Roman Catholic Church. Please remember that the lead paragraph is used to give a general overview of the entire article in a concise manner. If you don't talk about it in the body of the article, it should not be in the lead paragraph. Your lead paragraph could be reworded to make the reader more clear on what the Church of England is. Good luck! NancyHeise (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Only religion with a logo:)

Hello, is this just a unfortunate name, or does really Church of England have a "logo"? If true... my God, we're waaaaay far from Jesus. Remember Eddie Izzard? "Today Church of England is more of a hobby-type thing"... oh my yes, we have a logo and some pretty cool songs. 193.170.226.34 (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Is 'logo' the wrong word? Maybe. But the CofE is far from the only church to have one. Here's the Methodist Church of Great Britain's. Here's the United Reformed Church's. Here's the Church of Scotland's. Here's the Scottish Episcopal Church's. Here's the United Methodist Church's. Here's the Anglican Church of Canada's. Here's the United Church of Christ's. Here's the Free Methodist Church's. Here's the American Baptist Churches USA's. Here's the Southern Baptist Convention's.

In fact, I'm having some trouble finding a major denomination without a logo; apart from the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, which each reject the concept of denominations and consider themselves to alone constitute the true Church (to over-simplify the issue a little), so perhaps would feel that having a distinctive logo for their 'denomination' would weaken this stance (although the Papal emblem and the Russian Orthodox cross serve some of the same purposes.)

In almost all everyday uses, individual Church of England churches will identify themselves by the traditional marks of Christianity - the cross, the fish, the chi-rho - but it can be useful to have a distinctive symbol of one denomination, for example to put on a church noticeboard outside, so that those used to one denomination's practices can easily find churches of their preferred denomination. TSP (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Reader

Could we add something on the office of "Reader". Not being Anglican myself, I hesitate to write this in case I upset anyone by getting it slightly wrong! dbfirs 09:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well we really need to incorporate an overview of Anglican ministry, and for Readers, material from Lay reader. David Underdown (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Historical Classification

I saw the historical classification as such: Anglican (1534-), Roman Catholic (597-1534). This amounts to an assumption that the pre-Great Schism Church was the Roman Catholic Church, rather than for example, the Eastern Orthodox Church. Because the Eastern Orthodox would contend the contrary, that the pre-Schism Church was Eastern Orthodox, labeling the Church of England before this as simply "Roman Catholic" is a stark violation of NPOV. I changed the classification information to: Anglican (1534-), Roman Catholic (1066-1534), Eastern Orthodox (597-1066) to make this point, and will edit it to stay as such until someone comes up with a solution that does not violate NPOV. Deusveritasest (talk) 23:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted this edit to the page, as it's a very odd view. England may not have been strictly adherent to Rome before Augustine and Whitby (not 1066, what does that really have to do with it?), but it certainly wasn't under the authority of any of the eastern Patriarchs. Some Orthodox might throw around ideas of eastern influence in the early British and Anglo-Saxon church, but it is absurd to make the jump to the country being Eastern Orthodox, and even moreso to give 1066 as the date of Romanising. Give a decent reference for this, and please don't stick it on the article again. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 01:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't happy when I saw the historical classification section either. The present wording makes it look like the C. of E. was a new church in 1534, rather than simply the church that had been there for almost a thousand years. This reads like a Catholic Truth Society version of history. The place for that sort of thing is on Roman Catholic websites. It should have no place on Anglican ones. I am also wondering what is the problem with acknowledging that at the time the C. of E. was founded( and I would take the Synod of Hertford in 674 AD as an appropriate date) the Patriarchate of Rome was still teaching what we now call the Orthodox faith? To me the question is when did the C. of E. cease to be Orthodox? When the filioque was introduced, whenever that was? When communion between Rome and Constantinople was broken in 1054? Or in 1066 as I have seen suggested on some Orthodox websites? 124.171.40.56 (talk) 09:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Nennius

It also suggests that the Church of England was 'Anglican' after Henry VIII broke with Rome. Given that many historians see Anglicanism as a creation of 1650s (such as John Spurr for example) and developed throughout the later 17th century its another High Church POV definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.141.150 (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There isn't clearly a way to solve the problem. "Anglican" is at least a decent current term. Saying "Protestant" is certainly inaccurate for the reign of Henry VIII, and is POV as a contemporary description. While "Anglican" might be anachronistic, the only clear alternative is something like "non-Roman, Church of England", which is hardly helpful. Normally in an article the solution is simply to explain the full complexity, but that doesn't work for a sidebar. Perhaps something like "Roman Catholic 597-1534, separated from Rome 1534" is about all we can hope for? That seems neutral, at least, I can't imagine what buttons it pushes, though I'm sure someone will tell me. Tb (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this is right. I suppose you might describe the 'Church of England' as 'independent' from 1534, then alternating 'Protestant' and 'Catholic' during the various phases and monarchs of the reformation, and briefly other things during the Commonwealth, before alighting on 'both Catholic and Reformed' to the present. But the term 'Anglican' seems to sum up all of those tendencies nicely! Before 1534 there would be no conception of a 'Church of England' except as the Church 'in' England, so it would be wrong to refer to the 'Church of England' as having been anything at all before 1534 (or whenever you choose as the founding). That Church had no separate legal identity from the broader 'western' Catholic Church, unity under the Pope having been the defining feature of the western Church at that time. This article seems intended to refer only to the institution of the Church of England, not to the broader history of Christianity in England, or of the 'official' Church in England at any given point, so we should perhaps not refer at all to the period before 1534? If you were to refer to the broader Church in England, before the founding of the Church of England the best description would be 'Catholic', as a branch of the (Roman) Catholic Church, and before the Schism as 'Christian' as part of 'the Church' or single 'Christian Church'. An earlier poster thought that 'Orthodox' might be term to use before the Schism - this is wrong. The Churches would have thought of themselves as Eastern or Western parts of the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. In fact, even today the (Roman) Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches consider themselvess to be both Catholic (universal) and Orthodox (right-thinking). Hope this helps! 90.193.97.18 (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Priestly Orders

There doesn't appear to be any mention of the orders of clergy (Deacons, Priests and Bishops), other than in the Structure section and I haven't see any links to a similar page. --Ormers (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought we did have a link to the article Anglican ministry, but it seemed to have gone walkabout, I've added it as a see also at the top of that section. David Underdown (talk) 08:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks David, makes more sense now! --Ormers (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Celtic Church

In several places in this article I have caught sight of the expression Celtic Church. The idea that there were separate 'Celtic' and 'Roman' Churches in Britain at one time is a post-reformation way of looking at things. Differences between the two groups tended to be because the problem of distance and poor communications meant that the Britons and the Irish were frequently following customs which had become obsolete in other places. Also because Popes in those days did not control the church in the way they control their section of it today. The Irish church ran its affairs with very little refence to Rome, but so did the churches in Gaul and in the Iberian Peninsula at that time.124.171.40.56 (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Nennius

Merge proposal

There is really not a good case for the proposed merge of High Church and Anglo-Catholicism with the Church of England. Although they originated in the CofE, they are now widespread throughout the Anglican Communion and in the case of "High Church" used for other denominations too. Dabbler (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And the articles are evidently sufficiently long to stand by themselves. David Underdown (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the proposal, as the proposer hasn't really given a justification for the merge (or made any other edits before or since the proposal), and it seems to be attracting no support here. Both the articles concerned really relate more generally to Anglicanism, not just the CofE, and as has been said all articles seem long enough to stand alone. I can't see this proposal going anywhere. I'll leave a note on the proposer's page - he/she is of course entirely welcome to come and give a reasoning for the merge, but in the absence of one I think the proposal is unlikely to have any success. TSP (talk) 10:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

QQ

The expression in the intro "it does not accept Papal supremacy" jars a little but I am not sure why. I think the more familiar expression would be not accepting papal authority, not supremacy. Is it just me or does anyone else feel it a bit odd? --BozMo talk 12:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Supremacy is how it's termed in English law — Acts of Supremacy. However, I agree that authority is a more modern wording. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

New theology section seems POV

This strikes me as being written from a very personal and anti-Roman Catholic opinionated perspective but as I am not a theologian or an historical theologian or a current member of the Church of England I can't really correct it accurately. Dabbler (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

To me it seems basically redundant to the Doctrine and practice section, so I've removed it. Some stuff probably could go back in, but it can be added to the existing section, rather than creating a new section. David Underdown (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Reformation to Restoration History without any Citation

This whole section is written entirely from a High Church POV - one would expect some reference to historical works here, especially since the work of Professors Patrick Collinson, Nicholas Tyacke,Peter Lake, Kenneth Fincham and most historians since about 1960s have challenged the 'Puritan v. Anglican' view of history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.141.150 (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It assumes as uncontested the assumptions of those who read the via media theory way back into the Elizabethan era, rather than to 19th century Tractarian revisionism. To suggest that the liturgy of the Elizabethan church is basically in continuity with the pre-Reformation church is extremely misleading; it overlooks the dramatic changes represented in vernacular worship, the official anti-transubstantiation position of the church, the disuse of the term 'mass,' etc. The English liturgy was more "reformed" than those of many of the "orthodox" Lutheran churches of Germany of the same period, in fact. If it marginalized certain "Genevan excesses," the mainstream of English church leadership in late 16th century nevertheless pursued a self-consciously Protestant path. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwd321 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Before we go removing long sections, please add {{cn}} behind controvesial points and citations can be added as needed. The whole article is in need of more in line citations. -- Secisek (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2020 and 15 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ecardon3.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Total baptized

There may be a source for the figure 27 million baptized, but it's not either of the two currently being used. The Times gives 25 million plus, the Beeb gives "about" 26 million. Those are figures for all of the United Kingdom, although some parts of the page—such as the map of dioceses—make it seem like this page is only about the church in England, in which case there's no source at all for the number but it's significantly under even 25 million. — LlywelynII 18:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The World Council of Churches uses the number 25 million and the Church of England Yearbook 2004 gives the number of 26 million.SeminarianJohn (talk) 10:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

That figure seems ridiculously high, even allowing for the 1933 data that showed 75% of the population were baptised. (At a push, that cohort might amount to 2.25m living in 2020 - see [1].) In any event, being baptised is only very loosely connected with "membership" in the sense that the average reader would interpret that word. Most CofE baptisms are paedobaptisms rather than credobaptisms - they say more about the position of the parents than of the child. I suppose this might be the Dawkins argument - no such thing as a "Catholic child" etc - but in any event the 25m figure is ludicrous now & needs to be updated as well as clarified. - Sitush (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge with A Church Near You

Shall we merge A Church Near You into this article? George Ho (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the merger is a good idea. The website doesn't appear to be notable as a separate entity. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The website is under copyright by the Archbishops' Council. It is even linked to by the official website for the Church of England (https://www.churchofengland.org/) Susdit.genre (talk) 07:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

How exactly do you plan on integrating this article into the Church of England article without sounding weird? Seems like it would be more misplaced there and really deserves its own article. Has no one looked for more reliable sources to help add to this page? Again, it seems like a strange merge proposal to me. 69.73.114.64 (talk) (ex user) 19:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This page is basically a promotional ad for a product being peddled by The Anglican Church. None of the sources are third party, and shameless name-dropping ("...with a radio campaign backed by actor Jeremy Irons") isn't even backed by sources, therefore failing to meet Wikipedia Notability guidelines. The only reason anyone has let it live this long is because it's connected to a church, and churches are considered non-profits. I think a merger into Church of England is a generous offering over complete deletion. The only user who argues to keep it is hiding behind a naked IP. Kendrickhaveadream (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

"...a vital criteria for finding a church in which people could marry." How could peacock words like "vital" followed by a very expensive product get away on any other venue's Wiki? Imagine a sentence like that connected to a web product the Plaza Hotel put out. Kendrickhaveadream (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion has been dragging on for four months, with little interest. The consensus seems to be to merge the article. I've copied some of the text to this article, but I've deleted the fluff and self-promotion. Other editors feel free to correct the section as you seen fit. --Hazhk (talk) 13:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST:re}} (Talk) 06:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

See: Dissolution of the Monasteries; I think Catholics would like to know what is going to happen with the ruins located in England. There was apparently a massive destruction of them when the Churches collided (or when the Church of England was forged) and monasteries were subject to destruction. Is there anything like that to help grow Wiki (geolocations), to give the directory a historical aspect? Twillisjr (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

20th Century

Sections in "History" : It seems odd to have the 20th Century not present between the 19th and the 21st; it was, after all, quite eventful. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Founder, founding date

There doesn't seem to have ever been a consensus here that Augustine founded the Church of England in 597, let alone any reliable sources for that claim, as opposed to the Church itself tracing its history to that papal mission which is (correctly) stated in the lead. Haldraper (talk) 10:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks that Henry VIII founded the Church of England knows very little about its history. Did you really think you would get away with that? Anglicanus (talk) 10:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I do think that as it happens, but that's beside the point. You need to provide reliable sources to back up the claim that Augustine did. There also seems to be little point in having a link to "Roman Catholic Church" in the infobox which immediately redirects the reader to the correct page title of "Catholic Church". Haldraper (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

As stated above by Anglicanus, the suggestion that Henry VIII founded the CofE simply reflects a very poor knowledge of church history - and a very poor understanding of the man Henry VIII too. If you want a source just pick up any of the thousands of books on English church history. It won't wash. As for your comments about "Roman Catholic Church", there are multiple reasons why that is the correct phrase to use here. For one, when Henry stopped recognising papal authority over the English Church it was an alteration of the relationship with the western rite Roman Catholic Church, and not any of the other constituent autonomous churches which collectively form the Catholic Church. For another, the English Church continued to be catholic in form and practice (there was no change to liturgy, structure, etc - any alterations which did occur came much later), so again the use of "Roman Catholic Church" makes the position much clearer, and removes ambiguity. For yet another reason, the Church of England remains both the Established Church in England, and the historically consistent Church with the Augustinian mission, and as such is the Catholic and Apostolic Church within England by any theological or legal definition; it does not claim to be the Roman Catholic Church, but it certainly does claim to be (and is) the Catholic Church - again, I am not pushing a personal POV here, merely stating the actual facts of the situation. All of this is why there has been a clear consensus, long-established. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 13:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable in Wikipedia articles to link to an article via a redirect if the redirect name is more appropriate. Not only is it acceptable but it is also encouraged by the MoS. There is nothing "correct" about the Catholic Church article name. It is simply the name chosen by consensus and was previously Roman Catholic Church also by consensus. When it was changed to its present name the consensus decision included the principle that this was not a reason to also change "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church" in any other articles without consensus. Afterwriting (talk) 14:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

All reliable sources describe the change in status of the Church of England during the 16th century as a reformation, not a foundation. You can only reform something that already exists and the Church in England can also be reliably dated back to St Augustine's mission. Dabbler (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

If that's the case, why isn't the claim that Augustine founded the Church of England in 597 backed by a reliable, independent source?

As a comparison, in the infobox on the Catholic Church page the founder is given as "Jesus Christ, according to Catholic tradition". It might be possible to do something similar here. Haldraper (talk) 08:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

There ARE references (in the corresponding lead paragraph text), currently (as of today) refs 5 & 6. There is also a link to the CofE History page for those who wish to go into more detail on the Augustian mission, and Augustine's founding of the Church. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 09:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Those refs only support the CofE's claim to have been founded by Augustine, not an academic consensus that he did.

A Google search for "founder of the Church of England" tends towards Henry VIII being widely regarded as such, for example here: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gPYVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA181&dq=%22founder+of+the+church+of+england%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjHrv-b4JzLAhXFuBQKHWZgC7kQ6AEIKTAB#v=onepage&q=%22founder%20of%20the%20church%20of%20england%22&f=false

Haldraper (talk) 10:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of what some academics think, the Church of England itself has never considered that it was founded in the 16th century by Henry. That is the usual ignorant and polemical Roman Catholic viewpoint but it is not the Church of England's own understanding ~ which is that it is the continuation of the English Church which existed prior to the English Reformation. Roman Catholics and others can disagree with the validity of this claim but they cannot avoid the fact that this is what is claimed. On the issue of Augustine as "founder" I also have some doubts that he should be referred to as such in the info box without the inclusion of "according to Anglican tradition" or something similar. Afterwriting (talk) 12:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

As you say, there is no dispute that the CofE considers itself as having been founded by Augustine, as stated in the lead. As for the infobox, I concur with the idea of adding "according to Anglican tradition". It also reads at the moment as though the CofE separated from the Catholic Church in 597 which obviously needs fixing. Haldraper (talk) 12:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Would an alternative be to have two values in each category? Augustine of Canterbury / Henry VII; 597 / 1534. This is roughly what is done in the case of, e.g. Newcastle University (which dates its founding both to the start of Durham University activity in Newcastle, and to its separation from Durham).

I don't think the analogy to the Catholic Church article quite lines up; what that page is saying is that the origins of the church are outside of reliable historical record, but it understands itself to have been founded by Jesus. In this case, the historical events are not in doubt, the question is what part of them constitutes a founding of the church; so the same solution is not necessarily appropriate.

(I would prefer to have no value than only Henry VIII, whether or not that is the popular understanding.) TSP (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think that might work. Haldraper (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I cannot see at all how this might work. Both "founders" are disputed and at least one will not be considered factually correct by many. In my own view neither is a founder in any clear sense. There is also no requirement, surely, that any "founder(s)" be mentioned in the info box. In this case, therefore, I suggest the most sensible thing is to not maker any claim or assertion in the info box who the founder is but leave the issue to the article itself. I note that no founder is mentioned in the Eastern Orthodox Church article. Not an exact analogy of course but it indicates that information about founders is not really needed. Anglicanus (talk) 04:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Anglicanus and TSP who appear to be well educated and informed editors. The article is merely relaying the information that the CoE understands itself to be traced to St. Augustine of Canterbury and even Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would agree that the Church in England has ancient roots. To suggest that King Henry suddenly founded a 'new' institution would be inconsistent with history and the CoE's self-understanding. TSP rightly points out that there are different conjunctures in the CoE's history that have shaped its formation and evolution. The article already accurately describes how the CoE, and Anglicans in general, trace their roots to St. Augustine and how King Henry separated it from the Church in Rome SeminarianJohn (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the arguments of Haldraper (talk · contribs). However, I have added founder "according to Anglican tradition" as proposed in this discussion, since the view is also reflected in the lead section: "The church dates its establishment to the 6th-century Gregorian mission in Kent led by Augustine of Canterbury". Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

It may have been "proposed" but there was no consensus as subsequent discussion shows. The argument that Augustine "founded" Christianity or a Christian church in England is factually incorrect. He did, however, succeed in making the already existing Christian bishops and communities more organised as well as eventually bringing them under Roman authority. Afterwriting (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I do entirely agree with all of Afterwriting's comments above. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 16:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

If there is a consensus of this view in the lead section, why shouldn't it be indicated in the infobox as also proposed? Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Since none objection have been presented to that argument, I suggested the edit inside the article with a note. Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST:re}} (Talk) 06:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

We can go on arguing about this ad infinitum if you want, but the simple fact is that the history of Christianity in England and the Church of England is too complex to claim that any one person was ever a "founder" of the English Church. Neither Augustine or Henry VIII were the "founder" of the Church of England. Augustine only "established" the English Church as a more official national province of the Western Church under Roman authority and practice. Afterwriting (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

From the History of the Church of England article: "Christianity arrived in the British Isles around AD 47 during the Roman Empire according to Gildas's De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae. Archbishop Restitutus and others are known to have attended the council of Arles in 314." Afterwriting (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

However, the church in Roman Britain is not the same as the church in England, which country only came into existence after the departure of the Romans and the arrival of the pagan Anglo Saxons. The remnants of the original Roman Christians were confined to Wales and Ireland and lost most contact with Rome. They were not in direct line to the English church. The Anglo Saxons were proselytised starting with Augustine of Canterbury and since that time there has always been a church in England and of England. Some of the time it was in communion with Rome and some of the time it was not. So the case for Augustine being the originator of the Church of England (as opposed to Christianity in the British Isles) is very strong. Dabbler (talk) 00:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Although the establishment of a "Church of England", as such, was largely due to Augustine's mission that still does not necessarily make him its founder in my understanding of what the word means. As has been argued previously, we do not need to assert anyone as being the church's founder and there is no consensus among editors regarding this. Let the body of the article describe the complexity of things. Afterwriting (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I reverted some changes by User:Chicbyaccident, using [2] to give a formulation of "it traces its roots to the 6th-century Gregorian mission in Kent led by Augustine of Canterbury". I quite like the idea of this - simply report what the church itself says rather than attempt to evaluate it. However, the source cited says no such thing. It says "The roots of the Church of England go back to the time of the Roman Empire when Christianity entered the Roman province of Britain. Through the influences of St Alban, St Illtud, St Ninian, St Patrick and, later, St Augustine, St Aidan and St Cuthbert, the Church of England developed, acknowledging the authority of the Pope until the Reformation in the 16th century." Given that St Alban is said to have lived in the 3rd or 4th century, and St Illtud in the 5th, this cannot reasonably be characterised as the church tracing its roots to the 6th century. TSP (talk) 13:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Would you be willing to implement that take then in the article? Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST:re}} (Talk)

Before you fix on the Roman date as being the "roots" I think you should look at the more detailed history on this page of the CofE site [3]; This states quite clearly to me that the "roots" are not of the Church itself as an entity but of Christianity in Roman Britain. The Roman church was destroyed by the pagan invasions and Christianity only reestablished itself in England with Augustine. Since Augustine, the Church has had a continuous evolving existence. It went from Roman Catholic to Protestant and so to Anglican while retaining the same corporate existence. The pre-Augustinian church was extirpated and any influences that it had on the CofE were indirect from Rome or the Celtic churches which survived the pagan invasions in Ireland, Wales and Scotland. Dabbler (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Would you mind editing the article accordingly? Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST:re}} (Talk) 19:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it's fine how it is - the current statements seem to be reasonably well-sourced? TSP (talk) 11:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The infobox, including the founder varaible, can problably be updated in analogy with that of Church of Ireland, which is more precise. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage and LGBT clergy section

This section is getting rather long and in-depth - it's now about 1/3rd of the Doctrine and Practice section. While this has significant current relevance, I don't know if this level of detail is justified in an article covering the entirety of the church? (It is, for example, almost the only mention of marriage in the article.)

It's also in a very different style to the rest of the article - the average paragraph length in the article is about 42 words. The average paragraph length in that section is over 300 words. It offers a lot of minor detail (is the action of St Bartholomew's Church really that relevant?) and is quite wooly and subjective in some places (what does "the Church of England has decidedly taken a liberal position on a number of issues relating to human sexuality" mean, and what is the source for it)?

I wonder what's the best approach to this? It could be split out into a separate article where it could more reasonably have the level of detail some parts of it have at the moment. I think if not it should be cut down a bit to take out some of the more subjective bits and cut down the level of detail a little. It should also be significantly copyedited into 2-3 sentence paragraphs like the rest of the article, rather than 15-sentence paragraphs as at present! TSP (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I would be in favour of splitting of into an article like Homosexuality and the Anglican Church of Canada for example. Just leave a short summary and a link to the new article. Dabbler (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I would also favour splitting it into another article as is done with the Anglican Church of Canada. That separation seems like it could provide the in depth details while at the same time, as TSP has suggested, leaving the opportunity to more briefly and succinctly summarize the views, both provincial and localized, in a shorter section for the CofE article.SeminarianJohn (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I also support creating a separate article on this issue. As others have said, the issue is taking up too much space in the current article. There may also be some WP:RECENT problems as is. Afterwriting (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

That's a very good point, Afterwriting. I started the section and most of the information comes from the 90s-present. I do not, as of yet, know how to really move a section to a new article, but I think someone should initiate that so we can summarize on the CofE page.SeminarianJohn (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I condensed it considerably and think it is much better. However, I remain in favour of creating a new article so that the citations and information could be represented well on a separate article unique to the topic and so that the CofE section could be further condensed in summary. As of now, the section is about the same size as worship and is now smaller than the section on Women's ministry. Moreover, I removed some of the more subjective language. SeminarianJohn (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Clerical Abuse Investigations

First, apologies if I'm editing this talk page wrong: I'm doing this from my phone rather than my computer, which I'd unfamiliar.

The recent prominence in the news regarding the C of E having a number of Clerical Sexual Abuse scandals, and the efforts the Church is going to to try and root out evidence of past abuse and cover-ups to prevent them happening again, seem to be something that ought to be mentioned under the History/21st Century section; or if not there, then at least somewhere on the page. I was reading an article about it, came on to the wiki for more information, and the fact that the article isn't linked from here makes it difficult to find. By way of comparison, the article on the Catholic Church has a whole section devoted to clerical abuse. Obviously the revelations regarding the Catholic Church have been public knowledge for far longer, and the problem is (as far as we know) far less widespread in the C of E, but it still seems to me that it's worth mentioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.28.80 (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

And I've realised that I'm not properly logged in, so it hasn't signed this properly. User:thedisillusionedyouth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.28.80 (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

(Just confirming that those two edited were actually me) Thom (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

There's a rise in cases coming forward and emerging into media - especially now that the IICSA Inquiry is under way. And there's a complexity of issues arising from these cases. Features such as denial, amnesia, institutional complicity, failure to respond or adequately record, ignorance amongst many clergy and bishops of their own safeguarding guidelines, etc have all emerged into media recently. The safeguarding crisis highlighted in the Elliott review, and in the CDM Clergy Disciplinary Measure complaints brought against five bishops by a survivor, and a wide range of failures elsewhere - would all indicate that the CoE has real difficulty in this area. Not sure that's adequately represented yet on wiki. I'm a learner wiki - so please forgive any mistakes. Very new at all this. At some stage I suspect the whole section on this topic may need its own page?

Joelionheart (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Separated from Roman Catholic Church

First the Church of England states in the creed and its foundational documents that it is still part of the Catholic Church so it does not agree that it has separated from the Catholic Church, it was separated from that part of the Catholic Church which is controlled from Rome. While the initial break came about by action in England, the final break was the excommunication by Rome. Putting in the dates is simplistic and unhelpful because so many events occurred during the process of separation before being finally accomplished.Dabbler (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

There are two dates for those two events, yes. What is the problem, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

There was a reconciliation in the middle, there were different stages to the initial and final breaks not all accomplished in a single dated event. Picking out two dates is simplistic and is anyway covered elsewhere and is unnecessary in an infobox. Dabbler (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

By the way I can accept 16th century in the infobox if that satisfies you too. Dabbler (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree - the use of those two dates, or either one of them, is wildly over simplistic and unhelpful. We have been here before, and decided not to include dates in that part of the infobox. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 17:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The article reflects two significant times for the emergance of the Church of England, depending on which of the two available perspectives you choose. What is the problem with reflecting these two bits of information from the article content in the infobox, please? Itsn't that precisely what infoboxes are for? Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, a good infobox contains simple and straightforward shorthand information on the subject. Where the issues are complex, as in the founding dates of the Church of England, then you have to put in explanations or footnotes which defeats the purpose of the infobox. If there are complexities that cannot be adequately explained in a simple entry, then omit them from the infobox and explain in detail in the article. Dabbler (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

All other Christian denomations with well-maintained infoboxes indicated founding date(s). What about indicating "6th-16th century", if all else options would be considered too complicated? Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Because the question for the uninformed reader is then "Why such widely separated dates and so they have to read the whole article to sort out the puzzle which may be irrelevant for the rearder's original purpose. If they come specifically looking for founding dates, then they will have to read the article anyway.. Both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches claim to date from the 1st century AD, the Roman Church says it was founded by Jesus Christ in Judea and Jerusalem. As the Church of England also follows the Apostolic Succession, perhaps this article should also claim to date its founding from that time. Methodism does not have any founding date in the infobox, the Methodist Church of Great Britain does but that was a single date with the combination of several strands of Methodism which is relatively straightforward compared to the C of E.Dabbler (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, let's see what the article says, as reflected in the lead section:

1. "[D]ates its establishment as a national church to the 6th-century Gregorian mission"

2. "[R]enounced papal authority [...] in the 1530s. [...] The Act of Supremacy 1558 renewed the breach"

These are the two origins that are presented throughout the article content, as alluded to in the lead section comme-il-faut. So either the reader would conclude 1) 6th century, 2) 16th century, or 3) both. Rather than accusing me of insisting on oversimplification, are you sure you are not making it more complicated than it has to be? After all, simple presentation of bits of information is what infoboxes are for. On a further notice, the infobox already states that the church separated from Rome in the 16th century, for that matter. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

What are you arguing? that the "Founded" date should be the date of the separation from Rome? which is the heading of this discussion, or the Augustinian Mission? Or possibly even the Restoration Church after the Puritan/Presbyterian period during the Commonwealth? All three of which have some claim to be considered as a founding date. I have no issue with the mention of the separation from Rome because most people agree that that is probably the most pivotal event in the history of the Church without necessarily agreeing that is the founding date. Why not leave it at that? Dabbler (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I take it that 6th century is the foundation according to the Church of England's own understanding. I don't see no problem with indicating that in the "foundation" variable of the infobox, adding "by Anglican tradition", as has emerged as modus operandi in other equivalent infoboxes. I have a hard time understanding why you wish to obscure this from being reflected in the infobox. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not right either - [4] traces its history back to at least the third century AD, when a British Christian church was mentioned by Tertullian and Origen. And, of course, if you interpret the question in the same way as the Catholic Church infobox does, of course it traces its origin to Jesus Christ in Jerusalem in the 1st century.

I think people are opposed to including any of these dates because any one of them seems like a vast oversimplification. TSP (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely correct TSP. Anyone who thinks they can provide a foundation date for the Church of England has seriously misunderstood its history. The Church itself cannot pinpoint a date, and neither does any serious work of reference. The strongest candidate would be 597, for obvious reasons connected with continuity of leadership, but even that date ignores many aspects of the complex history. The infobox is best without any manufactured date of foundation - as most editors have concluded every time this question has been raised or re-raised by the same person. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 11:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, excuse me, but the article content repeatedly presents what the sources says about the origin of the Church of England. None of you have argued for change or deletion of this very article content. Naturally, you could argue that the precise wording of reflecting this in the infobox would require some evaluation - but I still don't see the argument of a rejection of the presentation of article content in the infobox altogether? Ergo, either the information is to difficult to assert in the in the article content (and thus in the infobox too), or the other way around, right? Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Please indicate where the origin of the Church is repeatedly stated in the article. The wording is very careful to suggest that the Augustine's mission is the date that the Church traditionally recognises as the start of its "formal history" but, as is noted immediately above in the article, there had been Christians and Christian Churches in England for centuries before that, just not as organized as Augustine's church became. The English Reformation starting in Henry VIII's reign was not a new origin but a change of an existing and continuing organization as is demonstrated by the claim of Apostolic Succession. Dabbler (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

It's been repeated above. Anyway, what about changing the "Separated from" variable to Catholic Church in England and Wales, which would arguably be more correct? Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I can't see any logical argument for such a change being "more correct". It would be quite wrong, in fact. How could the English (& Welsh) Church separate from itself? When the "separation" (to use the infobox's term) occurred, the priests in the pulpits and the people in the pews were all the same priests and people - they wore the same vestments, they used the same plate, they followed the same practices. The change was institutional and corporate. The hierarchy had a shift of focus and changed its lines of reporting. This was clearly and unambiguously an organisational separation from the Roman Church. How could this be described as the English & Welsh Church "separating from the Catholic Church in England & Wales". It *was* the Catholic Church in England & Wales, corporately breaking from Rome. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 17:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The reasons for Separation from the Roman Catholic Church

I think the text in this article should be limited about the reasons for the creation of the Anglican Church after the reformation. Too much non logical scientifically sustainable stuff is in this article. Rather just note that the change took place and what the content in the church perspective meant.

The reason for the English reformation should be in a separate article especially because the basis is not religious but political. And could be referred to both from here and to the article about England/history.

The same way the English republic, Restoration (1660) and the Glorious Revolution should be separated church wise and politically in different articles with references to each other.

I disagree. A summary of the reason is essential. There is a long article about th Reformation but that does not mean that we should delete all of the info from this article. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Peter K Burian

Divorce from who?

The explanation of the need of divorce from queens of private reasons-views is just not logical and most of all can’t be anything but politically doped.

The divorce was rather from the Pope politically, than a divorce from any at the time politically useless wife (politically spent goods), Catherine of Aragon (useless because a pact/deal with Spain (about the control of the new world) was out of the agenda at that time).

International perspective

As a Swede there is a solid acceptance that the reformation was primarily political rather than religious and in Scandinavia Martin Luther came as a gift from heaven to kings establishing political power. Establishing political power in political hen houses heavily impacted by initiatives from the Pope in Rome and powerful independent bishops. The process of the creation of renaissance governing kings.

There are no logical and scientifically sustainable reasons to believe that England was different from any other countries of reformation?

The political issues, domestically

There were two political theatres in most countries experiencing the reformation domestically and in foreign politics.

Domestically most countries in the 14th-16th century were politically hen houses and the king wanted to establish a renaissance monarchy. The hen house had to go and the bishops controlled by Rome had to be put under governmental control. In Sweden a process where bishops appointments made by the government started already 50 years before the reformation. In fact Luther came as a gift formalising something already existing. The Stockholm Bloodbath was killing off the henhouse even more, but with the opposite effect for Christian II of Denmark making a clear way of power for Gustav I of Sweden (Denmark was never more able to really challenge the power of the governing of Sweden from that moment. The nationalized church was a key factor keeping the country united and episcopacy for the government to communicate with its subjects before literacy.)

In that perspective the brutality of Henry VIII of England must be seen as a part of a political process against the hen house supported by the pope. It was nothing personal in his behavior, only the political need was in his time and not for other kings.

The mail problem was the Pope controlled politically powerful independent bishops and that had to be terminated by a deal with the Pope (or let the Pope go).

The political issues, America

There was a race at the time to take politically control over the new world the continent America. The contenders were four, Spain, Portugal, France and England. France was already out due to lack of marine resources (came back as well as Holland in the 17th century).

The issue was if there would be a deal, like Spain did with Portugal aided by the Pope or if there would be war, about it? A war was a very risky and expensive business at the time. (It ended with war and England won it and the control of North America and international naval trade, the root of the British empire.)

At start the logical path was to make a deal acceptable for all parties, in best faith. So to establish good speaking terms Catherine of Aragon was enlisted as not a pawn but queen in the game, by marriage to the crown prince. He died and his brother took over the bride, because it was most of all a political issue, and nothing strange about that at the time.

There were a lot of activities trying to make the Pope positive to the English view, but in vain.

After pretty some turns, there was no deal with Spain about America and the Pope seeded with the Spanish (that was at the time, the same as the Austrians (who in fact physically controlled the Pope more or less)).

The Pope has to go

Having a war or conflict with Spain with the Pope on Spain’s side and the bishops representing the enemy would be a very bad idea? Thing is the bishops had to line up for England and the Pope had to go.

The Queen was useless not mainly because there were no princes but she represented the enemy, a spent resource that ended in nothing.

But most of all Henry needed an excuse of cutting the Pope and take over the bishops.

From here comes idea the idea of the issue (that this article states) was about the private issue of the king of divorce from the Catherine of Aragon. It, because it was the English government's official excuse of making reformation (a Pope free church of England), ditch the Pope.

But in fact the only reason was to eliminate the political power of the Pope and control the political power of the bishops. Turn the bishops to national civil servants with the king as the top manager. Use the episcopacy to control and communicate the subjects of the country in a far more efficient and personal way than before the reformation.

and take all of the Church wealth for the king's treasury. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Episcopacy is the key issue

Most countries of the reformation became Evangelical Lutheran but not the Anglican Church. The Lutherans supported the kings power (as the church did by the establishment of Christian kingdoms before, an identical pact). The Lutherans supported episcopacy that means governmental control of the church with the king as the top manager. The Lutherans supported were a perfect setup for a renaissance king and being the preferred solution in Northern Europe. The issue was not religion but political control and episcopacy is the key issue.

Why not an Evangelical Lutheran Anglican church

Most likely Henry was in mind true Catholic and did not see any reason (did not care) for any change in the internal work of the church. Henry mainly reformed the political aspects of who is controlling the Episcopacy. The monasteries were seen in a political perspective dens for political opposition and had to go in the process.

Secondly in the rally to please the Pope and get him on the English side, Henry published an article with the message “Only a fool could be Lutheran” so he couldn’t be a Lutheran himself when he really needed the Lutherans. The Lutherans would else have made England much more stable in the 16th century. But Henry would be “a fool” if he did. Sometimes political actions backfires?

The status of Catholics in England after the reformation

At the very start a Catholic were a true enemy of the state and the independence of England. However it is not easy to challenge a large part of the top society reluctant to reformation. Catholics were seen as spies or agents of the enemy and were in fact acting as such on several occasions, upholding a very bad reputation. The Irish were Catholics like the Poles (being friend with the enemies enemy-policy) in an attempt to keep local independence from "foreign" powers. It was parts of a political war.

In Sweden it took 70 years until the War against Sigismund and the parliament of Linköping 1600 to completely outlaw Catholics in the country (lasted to about 1850).

In England there was not a war excuse to eliminate Catholics in the country. It ended with the Glorious Revolution and the Act of Settlement 1701 to write it in stone, not outlaw Catholics but eliminate them from politics. There were 150 years of political sensitive twisting about Catholics in England. The stripes of Catholics as enemies the state and viewed as odd (illegal) popele were never worn out completely, anywhere where the reformation took over.

"Enemies of the state" are not a religious issue but a political.

The English reformation should have its own political article.

--Zzalpha (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

There is an article about the English Reformation Peter K Burian (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Church of England. 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/20131214051036/http://www.cuf.org.uk/about to http://www.cuf.org.uk/about
• Added archive https://archive.is/20140807162230/http://www.bristol.anglican.org/event/find-christmas-events-near-you/ to http://www.bristol.anglican.org/event/find-christmas-events-near-you/

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) 08:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Church of England. 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/20130325125108/http://www.churchinwales.org.uk/life/heritage/awi/part7.php to http://www.churchinwales.org.uk/life/heritage/awi/part7.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080702053341/http://www.parliament.uk/directories/house_of_lords_information_office/alphabetical_list_of_members.cfm to http://www.parliament.uk/directories/house_of_lords_information_office/alphabetical_list_of_members.cfm

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) 22:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Church of England. 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/20171023175427/https://churchofengland.org/media/4038454/2016statisticsformission.pdf to https://churchofengland.org/media/4038454/2016statisticsformission.pdf

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) 09:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Broken citation link

I do not know how to report this properly, but not only is the link in footnote 10 broken, but when you visit the pdf in archive.org it does NOT include the text that is cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsg946 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

This is fixed. Ltwin (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Please advise procedure for reverting vandalism

The most recent edit "the c of e is the supreme catholic church" clearly appears to be vandalism, please advise what to do Adrian816 (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

easy. go to History page of the article, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Church_of_England&action=history look at the last edit and click "rollback 1 edit" try it. Rjensen (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Reverted. A regular "undo" will also work if you don't have access to rollback. Huon (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Fixing the alternating use of the terms "Church of England" and "Anglican" in this article

Maybe it's because I am an autistic lawyer, but I am infuriated by the fact that there are repeated confusions on this page between

"Anglicanism", "Anglican" and "Church of England" and various authors seem to have not understood that the terms are not interchangeable.

Let's be clear about the definitions here.

Anglicanism is a "Western Christian tradition that evolved out of the practices, liturgy and identity of the Church of England" See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglicanism

The Anglican Communion is an unincorporated grouping of churches who subscribe to Anglicanism. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Communion

Anglican therefore refers either to something which follows Anglicanism or alternatively a member church of the Anglican Communion but it should not be used as a term for The Church of England exclusively.

To be clear:

The Church of England is the established church in England. It's the term which is used in legislation, and is the correct name for the established state church of England which follows Anglicanism and which is an Anglican church forming part of the Anglican Communion See: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/9-10/76

So, examples of issues are as follows:

• Additionally, the church's own statistics reveal that 9.7 million people visit an Anglican church every year and 1 million students are educated at Anglican schools (which number 4,700).

Both of these should correctly say Church of England rather Anglican as the statistics used only relate to CofE churches in England (it does not include Churches which are not part of the CofE which may be part of the Anglican communion through links to other Anglican churches) and it certainly is not a statistic for churches across the entire Anglican communion (around the world). Just to be clear - the text in the statistics refer to Church of England not Anglican https://www.churchofengland.org/more/policy-and-thinking/research-and-statistics/key-areas-research#church-attendance-statistics

• In May 2018, the Diocese of London consecrated Dame Sarah Mullally as the first woman to serve as the Bishop of London.[47] Bishop Sarah Mullally occupies the third most senior position in the Anglican church .[48]

This is seriously concerning. Given that churches in the Anglican Communion don't have an order of precedence (at least as far as I have found) saying the Anglican church suggests that she holds the 3rd most senior position in the Anglican Communion, which simply isn't the case. Whilst within the Church of England she is the 3rd most senior by precedence (after the ABC and ABY) it's simply erroneous to say Anglican here, and to be clear, the reference in the BBC article states "Bishop Mullally now holds the third most senior position in the Church of England" so whoever decided to write it differently was erroneously quoting here.

• The personal files of all Anglican clergy since the 1950s are being audited in an effort to ensure no cover-up. Welby emphasised repeatedly that no cover-up would be acceptable.[131]

Now the term "all Anglican clergy" is used in the Guardian article, but it does not seem to be Welby's quote https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/27/justin-welby-1950s-personnel-files-clergy-child-abuse-investigation-confessional-confidentiality I have also checked https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11190890/Justin-Welby-I-broke-down-in-tears-at-horror-of-Church-child-abuse.html which does not show that quote Welby however could not have ordered the checking all Anglican clergy - only those in England, thus correctly, the term "Church of England" should be used.

It should be noted if one looks at the "independent enquiry on child sex abuse" https://www.iicsa.org.uk/investigations/investigation-into-failings-by-the-anglican-church?tab=scope which uses the term Anglican to refer to the Church of England and the Church of Wales (collectively) plus other Anglican churches operating in the UK for their investigation, correctly.

Elvisbrandenburgkremmen (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the big deal. In an article on the Church of England, it is perfectly correct to use "Anglican" to describe a member of the CofE, as long as this usage is explained early on in the article. "Anglican" is derived from the Latin name for the Church of England, Ecclesia Anglicana. There may be instances when it is more appropriate to specify CofE to avoid confusion or conflation with other Anglican churches but that can be addressed on a case by case basis. Ltwin (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, as Ltwin says (above) there is no issue here. It is quite correct to use "Anglican", as the Church of England is the Anglican church in England. The term "Anglican" does not need to be restricted purely to generic and/or universal references to all of Anglicanism; it is also a commonly used local term for the national or regional manifestation of Anglicanism. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 02:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Right so for the examples which I have given do you believe that the term "Anglican" has been used accurately or inaccurately? I'm not suggesting removing all references to Anglican, just the ones where it is inappropriate. Errors here spread elsewhere, and as I've pointed out, the quotes which have been given are broadly inaccurate. If I were to go to the page for Barristers (in the UK) and begin using the term Lawyers, and claim that barristers are lawyers so it's not restricted etc etc then ... you get my point. Simply put, which out of the examples I've given ought be corrected to CofE.

Elvisbrandenburgkremmen (talk) 02:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The only instance I see that could benefit from being changed is the sentence, "Bishop Sarah Mullally occupies the third most senior position in the Anglican church .[48]" Anglican church being changed to Church of England. However, even here the context is clear that "Anglican church" is a synonym for the Church of England. Ltwin (talk) 03:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any need for changes. It is all perfectly clear as it stands. I can see the point about "3rd most senior position in", and don't object to it being changed, though I don't really think it is necessary. The article is about the CofE, and it is perfectly clear that it means "3rd most senior position in the Anglican Church in England". The context removes any possible ambiguity. At my church I see the words "Church of England" on posters, but I've never heard anyone using them - when we talk about ourselves, we call ourselves "the Anglican Church". I don't see this as an issue. Chris Golds (talk) 11:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The article is entitled "Church of England". That is the subject. The subject is not "Anglicanism". The corrections proposed by Elvisbrandenburgkremmen are in every case correct. I am having difficulty coming to terms with the fact that four contributors seem reluctant to have a change made to a term that is more precise, leaves no room for doubt and which is absolutely correct. Can someone please explain or justify the reluctance? Why are you not saying "Thank you for pointing this out" and changing it to the suggested, accurate, wording? What is the big deal? Amandajm (talk) 13:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with Jonathunder's changes, but I also don't see a problem with identifying people, churches or other institutions affiliated with the Church of England as Anglican since the word means "relating to or denoting the Church of England or any Church in communion with it." Unless the context would require further specification, Anglican makes just as much sense as writing the church's full name. Ltwin (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Amandajm is correct. Let's fix this. Jonathunder (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Amandajm & Jonathunder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Easily_confused_terms I will return to this point and note the wiki manual of style. Someone ought not have to determine whether it's 'Anglican' as in within the remit of the entire Anglican communion, or Anglican as in within the remit of the Church in England which is part of the Anglican communion. This article should not require an thorough understanding of the makeup of the Anglican communion and the CofE to determine the scope of terms.

Elvisbrandenburgkremmen (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Right. Editors of this page may be able to figure out when "Anglican" means C of E and when it means Anglican, but ideally we write for a general audience with no special knowledge of the subject. Jonathunder (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The page is correctly titled "Church of England," and any pronouns and nouns following the antecedent, the proper noun, Church of England, are clearly understood to be references to the Church of England, an Anglican church. There is no issue with referring to the Church of England as an Anglican church, or to its congregations (little 'c' churches) as Anglican. It does not make sense to avoid referring to the churches as Anglican when a) CofE congregations refer to themselves as Anglican churches and b) when the article is clear that this refers to England as the territory, except where otherwise noted. The original creator of this thread even acknowledges, correctly, that the Church of England is an Anglican church within the Anglican Communion. I do not see a problem with either clarifying where some editors believe the clarification will be helpful or with using the term 'Anglican' to describe the church as that is also wholly accurate.SeminarianJohn (talk) 09:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Canada?

How about Canada? MaynardClark (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

What about Canada? The Anglican Church of Canada has its own article. Ltwin (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no obvious connection with Canada here. What is the issue? Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 02:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Category

Should this article have the Category:Independent Catholic denominations? (Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite (talk) 00:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC))

I don't think so. The Church of England may have a current of anglo-catholicism, but I wouldn't go as far as to call it an Independant Catholic denomination like the Old Catholics in the Netherlands for instance. The Church of England is still a broadly protestant church and to call it Independant Catholic simply wouldn't make sense. Nordic Lutherans Churches also have a "high church" current among them, yet I didn't see them included in the Independant Catholic category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.229.210.81 (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Undue emphasis on controversies

The article as it stands appears to be heavily weighted towards highlighting controversy and giving it undue weight. For instance we have a whole section dedicated to sexual abuse, a not particularly notorious topic for the Anglican Church. I mean, in an article that is supposed to be a broad overview of the Church of England, do we need a massive block paragraph dedicated to the rantings of such a neutral source as Keith Porteous Wood of the National Secular Society?

In comparison, the article on the BBC does not have a sex abuse section, despite Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall (presenter) and Gary Glitter, for example. Nor does the Liberal Democrats (UK) article, despite Cyril Smith. There also appears to be too much focus on homosexuality and women clerics. While these latter two are significant topics and should be discussed in the context of contemporary divides it has caused within the Church, it currently has far too much emphasis. If somebody not knowing what the Church of England was came to this article, they would be under the impression that it is mostly about homosexuality and child abuse?? Alasdair Mac Colla's Ghost (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Protestantism

I don't understand why the Church of England is not classified as "protestant" but simply as "anglican" in the classification section. It doesn't make sense because while its orientation is definitely anglican, its classification should be indicated as protestant, just like in the article about the Church of Sweden, its classification is "protestant" and its orientation "lutheran". That's why I decided to change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.229.210.81 (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Anglicanism is clearly a special case, & should not be changed willy-nilly without sufficient citations. Otherwise, it would be original research.

It seems to me that the C of E tries for a path between Catholicism & Protestantism. As the Anglicanism article states, The degree of distinction between Protestant and Catholic tendencies within the Anglican tradition is routinely a matter of debate both within specific Anglican churches and throughout the Anglican Communion. Please also refer to the Apostolic succession article sections Churches claiming apostolic succession & Teachings.

Neither should we discount the attempts at rapprochement between Anglicans & Roman Catholics, such as the Anglican–Roman Catholic International Commission. I do not think that there is anything like that with Anti-Papist Protestants.

Finally, there is WP:EDITCONSENSUS to consider. The orientation was changed from Mainline (Protestant) to Anglicanism in September 2011. I think that a longstanding wording of nearly a decade deserves consensus here on the talk page before changing it. Peaceray (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, both the C of E & Episcopalians are considered Anglican, so the former would be subsets of the latter. Peaceray (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I consider that Anglicanism may well be considered as part of Protestantism. While it is true that it calls itself "a middle way between Catholicism and Protestantism", which may be a valid claim, much of its doctrine aligns with that of other Protestant streams. The Church of England's complete turn to Protestantism came during the reigns of Edward VI and Elizabeth I, both half-siblings and children of Henry VIII. Edward's succession, in particular, was managed by the English Reformers, and it was his right hand man, Thomas Cranmer, who advised him on the reforms required to complete the Reformation in England. It was Elizabeth, on the other hand, who restored and consolidated Protestantism in the church, through the Elizabethan Religious Establishment.

Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertogomez17 (talk • contribs)

The problem here is typified by your opening words, "I consider that....". A Wikipedia article is not a place for your personal opinions. The two things that matter here are the available sources and the community consensus - both of which disagree with your private view. The community has discussed this issue extensively, and consensus has been reached (see previous discussion on this talk page). As for the sources, note that the CofE does not self-identify as protestant, and does not define itself as protestant. The word protestant is not used in its canons and formularies. In its own on-line "history of" web page it notes that it incorporates both "a large amount of continuity with the Church of the Patristic and Medieval periods" and some "protestant insights in its theology", but it avoids using labels of itself; the only one it quotes on its official site is the definition of being "catholic and reformed". Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 00:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Having read through this discussion, I must has I am amazed at the historical revisionism going on. The Church of England is considered Protestant in law! When the Queen became monarch, she had to swear to uphold the "Protestant reformed religion by law established". Hence why we also have the Law of Succession which was created to ensure that only a Protestant could succeed as monarch as they would be the supreme governor of the Church of England. As somebody with a degree in theology, and as somebody who has worked for the Church of England, even the most Catholic minded person would still affirm it is classified as Protestant. It seems that "Protestant" and "Catholic" are not being understood within their proper context. Protestant Churches are those Churches that arose as a result of the reformation. Those churches took on different theologies and polities, such as the Calvinists with Presbyterian systems of polity whilst the Lutherans adhered to lutheran theology and retained the episcopal polity (as did the Church of England). Protestant is therefore an umbrella classification, not a theology in and of itself. As for "Catholic", ALL protestant churches affirm that they are Catholic. Catholic simply means part of the universal church in the original Greek "Catholicos". Nowhere does Catholic mean Roman or have anything to do with liturgical preferences. Protestant and Catholic are not mutually exclusive terms. To suggest they are is to say that only the Roman Catholic Church gets to decide what is and is not Catholic, something the reformers were vocal against.

The Oxford movement keeps getting brought up as an excuse to no longer use the word Protestant in reference to the Church of Englands classification. This is a nonsense. The Oxford movement did not seek to get rid of the Church of Englands protestant heritage, it merely sought to include it's catholic heritage which was getting ignored. The Oxford movement did not change anything about the Church of Englands legal status as a protestant church. It's also annoying how the Oxford movement is used as an excuse to not call the Church of England Protestant but it completely ignores the evangelical revival that preceded the Oxford movement and has had an arguably higher influence on the Church of England. Lutherans also have a Catholic tradition, but they do not deny that they are a Protestant Church. The Church of England is no different in this regard. As for the "via media", it was not used as a term to mean a middle way between Protestant and Roman Catholicism. It was used as a way to draw on the catholic heritage (different from Roman Catholic heritage) and its protestant evangelical heritage. It was invoked to ensure that neither emphasis led to extremes i.e too much Catholic heritage led to ritualism and too much evangelicalism led to fundamentalism and too much broad church led to liberalism. It was a way of avoiding extremes, not trying to assert itself as a special non-roman, non-protestant Church. This is nothing but historical illiteracy. Anglicanism's diversity is a characteristic, not an attempt to deny it's Protestant status. As we see in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, the conclusions made are at their centre a protestant interpretation of Anglicanism and indeed a protestant interpretation on catholicity. The 39 articles were also re-affirmed as a doctrinal standard (which are also still binding on all Church of England clergy).

Wikipedia is supposed to be about facts, not mere conjecture. Protestant is the legal and historic classification of the Church of England and Anglican is the orientation, it is a type of Protestantism. I therefore propose that the classification of the Church of England is from henceforth labelled "Protestant" in reference to it's legal status (which is more important than other peoples feelings and thoughts) and the orientation as "Anglican" as this is the brand of Protestantism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.180.152.255 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

109.180.152.255, please read WP:CONSENSUS & WP:EDITCONSENSUS. These policies do not mean you get your way in what edits go into an article by merely expressing your opinion on a talk page. The | main_classification = [[Anglican]] has been that way for a decade. You need good reasons, not good reasoning, to change it.

Please post on this talk page verification from reliable sources supporting your statements. Otherwise, you are just offering original research. I for one, will consider any further attempts by you to edit your view into the article without verification from reliable sources, & without you obtaining consensus, as edit warring.

I am not unreasonable. Prove your point & get consensus is the way to making changes. But first you need to get agreement from a number of experienced editors, many who know a lot more than I do about the Church of England. Peaceray (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

We have long-held consensus on this point, and the IP editor here cannot simply stamp over that. (And with the greatest of respect to him/her, in reference to the side comments, he/she may like to know that there are many of us here who also work for the Church of England, and many of us here who also have theology degrees - neither is a qualification to trump Wikipedia protocols.) Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 12:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Who would have thought that legal facts counted for nothing on Wikipedia. It's not at all surprising that educational institutions tell people to avoid Wikipedia if they want the truth of a subject. Isn't it strange how no other Anglican page has this same issue with classification, despite the fact that other provinces of the Anglican communion often are more on the Catholic end. If the law is not evidence enough for the almighty editors of Wikipedia, nothing will be. Utter jokers. Dpj545 (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dpj545: You have offered no verification from reliable sources for your statements. If you are interested in reconciling differences between related articles, the place to take it up is at the appropriate WikiProject, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anglicanism. Peaceray (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe that we need to initiate a greater consensus on everything that has been established here, both on the one side and on the other. The problem is that it doesn't seem to be as active as I thought it would be, to tell the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robgg70 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, it's true that the legal status of the Church of England and Anglican Church as a whole is nominally "Protestant". I appreciate that. But by the same token, Anglican Church is legally not a hierarchy but namely "Communion". That means historical experiences and official or inofficial decisions of the See of Canterbury can't be applied as compulsory for Anglican Church, even including Church of England as a whole. Historic English Reformation also can't be single criterion for the classification of Anglican Church. I didn't mean to deny Protestant identity or its legal status of Church of England. But the mere classification as "Protestantism" alone can't lexically reflect the diversity of Anglican Church. Moreover, since the worldwide ecumenical movement, in which Church of England has participated vigorous ly, the Church of England and Anglican Church as a whole have been in full commuinion with significant churches and dioceses, which aren't related to or have nothing to do with the English Reformation. They totally have millions of members. Especially Old Catholic Church of Utrecht Union, Philippines Independent Catholic Church, some Indian Churches from Oriental Orthodox heritage. Now, full communion does not simply mean friendly dialogue or cooperation or respect. Full communion means, they can be considered and accepted as equal with any church members, even with Church of England within the Communion. --람브로스 (talk) 05:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

You are wrongly conflating the Church of England with the Anglican Communion and the Anglican Church as a whole. The Church of England is considerably more Protestant in identity that various other parts of the Anglican communion. By acknowledging, historically and legally, that the Church of England is a Protestant church we are not saying that other provinces of the Anglican communion view things differently and that is their perogative. The definitions of the Church of England cannot just be ignored because of the wider communion. We are also in communion with various Lutheran (therefore Protestant) churches through the poorvoo communion, so I am not sure what point you are trying to make by highlightly communion with Old Catholics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.180.152.255 (talk) 07:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree, the Protestant nature of the Church of England is further reaffirmed in the Act of Settlement enacted and in force since 1701, which has regulated the succession to the British throne ever since and requires heirs to the throne to be incorporated Protestants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertogomez17 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. The Protestant nature of the Church of England is rooted in law. I am absolutely astounded that this seemingly counts for nothing on Wikipedia. The Anglican Communion Wikipedia page itself is classified as 'Protestant' but mentioned that there are varying strands within it. I see no reason why the Church of England article, at the very least, could adopt this approach.

|Classification = Protestant (With various theological identities, ranging from Anglo-Catholicism to Evangelicalism)

|Orientation = Anglican

|Polity = Episcopal

|Theology = Anglican doctrine

|Scripture = Holy Bible

This would bring the Church of England in line with the other churches of the Anglican communion whilst maintaining both an accurate account of the legal and historic status of the Church of England and the acknowledgement of various theological identities within the Church of England.

Would this be an acceptable compromise?

I think that description is correct. The only thing I would see better stated is to mention the theological diversity that exists in its orientation as a Protestant (Anglican) denomination. I hope this discussion does not end here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertogomez17 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that'll do, and we can get to the common ground. But wikipedia isn't just about agree or disagree. Let's see more.--람브로스 (talk) 08:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Please see my point here exactly. I didn't deny the legal definition and didn't even mean to discuss it. What I've seen as problamatic is the exclusive usage of the term 'Protestant'. And you mentioned about other pages of other Anglican churches and dioceses, but their pages also have had long history of classification revisions. I don't want to argue about that, because it hasn't been my point. I've just mention the fact only in order to remind you that the exclusive usage of term 'Protestant' is controversial in the other parts as well.

Now I again emphasize here, Anglican Communion including the Church of England isn't a hierarchy, but Communion. Even if the Church of England has its offical declarations, everyone doesn't need to strictly adhere to them within the Church of England as one of the Anglican Communion. Unlike Roman Catholic, the Church of England as an offical institution has no such an authority over all churches within its realm, let alone the other parts of the Communion. The reason why I mentioned Old Catholic and Philippine Church, Indian St.Thomas Church is just to remind you that there has been massive diversity, including non-protestants, within the Communion, they have equal rights as with the Church of England and they can also interact one another horizontally in various ways.

As you mentioned about the Porvoo Communion and therefore Protestant identity, why isn't logical that non-Protestant identity also can exist within the Communion, through various Churches having Latin Catholic or even Oriental Orthodox background. I want to say it's also a matter of respect for various christians, including non-protestants and various cultural backgrounds within the Communion.

Oh, one more point (though not directly related to the discussion but important). The acceptance of the 39 Articles is controversial among many parts of the Communion. Thank you.--람브로스 (talk) 08:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand. I wasn't trying to say that what is binding on the Church of England is binding on the rest of the communion. This is why I was confused that this line of reasoning came up.

The term protestant isn't meant to be exclusive, nor am I intending to deny the identity of those with a more Catholic identity. My point is that Anglo-Catholicism is included in the term Protestant as it is still born out of a tradition of the reformation.

I think it would be good to make the changes suggested, whilst also making a note that there are varying identities within Anglicanism. This way we are being inclusive of the legal status of the Church of England and also the nuance that exists within its diversity.

As for the 39 articles, they may controversial in parts of the communion, however every priest ordained in the church of England is required by law to assent to them. Dpj545 (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The correct terminology is "catholic and reformed". Reformed is not exactly the same thing as Protestant. I think perhaps on the Simple English 'pedia that it might be summarised as "Protestant"; but here we aim for a more careful use of language. [5] DBD 20:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The Church of England considers itself "Catholic" on the basis that it considers itself part of the universal Church that Jesus Christ founded, in the same way that many other denominations within Protestantism consider themselves part of it. The Lutheran Church considers itself to be the "true Catholic faith" according to the Augsburg Confession and not for that reason its character as a Protestant denomination is reduced or rendered non-existent. This is not a theological orientation, but a notion that exists in many other denominations, which is acceptable and deserves respect, but is very different from a theological orientation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertogomez17 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with AlbertGomez17 on this. Catholic, in Anglican terms, is used to denote being part of the universal church. Almost all Protestant denominations, who use the creeds, call themselves catholic in this way. For DBD to suggest that "reformed" doesn't imply Protestant is to have a very basic understanding that lacks nuance. But if we are to go by the basic understanding, for the Church of England to be reformed means that it reformed itself in the wake of the protestant reformation, and is therefore a protestant church body. The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral was created to define Anglican identity (which is still upheld to this day). The first point being "The Holy Scriptures, as containing all things necessary to salvation", which is a Protestant doctrine and the third point being "The dominical sacraments of baptism and Holy Communion" which is also a Protestant teaching on the sacraments. As stated above, "Reformed" and "Catholic" is not an orientation.

Dear, if not all, a number of Anglo-Catholics haven't found their faiths and beliefs' root in the Protestant tradition and not seen themselves as Protestants, although they share with Anglican traditions, values, and legacy. Similarly, though not relatively noticed, even some of 'Evangelical Catholics' from high church Lutheranism interpret their 'Catholic' identity as similar to those kinds of Anglo-Catholics. So although I can understand and agree to the broader meaning of the term 'Catholicism', it should also be noted that there are significantly different tendency for the interpretation of Catholicism, both in Anglo-Catholics and Evangelical Catholic Lutherans. Their understanding of Catholicism is quite different from the broader term you mentioned. Well, but that's okay. It's not a main point here. I just want to emphasize that we should be more preudent and careful when classifying, defining, discussing terms, especially in this sensitive and delicate issue.--람브로스 (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Library and archive

Hey, before I started adding it in I wanted to see if wikipedia has a section on the CoE's library and archives, particularly the one in London as its main archive. Jamzze (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)