Talk:Church of England/Archive 2

Go to Talk:Church of England/Archive 1

Prayer Book

"...are based on older Catholic tradition but have been moderately influenced by Reformation liturgical and doctrinal principles." I think this sentence in the intro paragraph misleadingly minimizes the influence of the Reformation on the Book of Common prayer, or at least gives the impression of only marginal impact. Perhaps something along the lines of "are both rooted in pre-Reformation liturgical tradition and incorporates protestant liturgical and doctrinal principles" is more accurate. (Mwd321 (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC))

"Worship and liturgy": perhaps this is unclear "The BCP remains the touchstone of all Anglican liturgy.": as later service books can include forms that would not have been in use in earlier times this is doubtful and the positon must vary within the Communion as a whole.----Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 05:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"Entering the latter 20th century worship has evolved into modern songs as well as hymn singing. Notably Tim Hughes of Holy Trinity Brompton and Graham Kendrick." Can this statement be sustained? IMHO new hymns and songs of praise have been continually introduced into liturgical worship over the centuries 01:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrahamSmith (talk • contribs)

Areas and Archdeaconries

I am somewhat obsessive on the subject of verifying what seems obvious. If a diocese is divided into areas, are the areas then subdivided into archdeaconries, and those into deaneries? J S Ayer (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe so, yes. Most dioceses are simply divided into archdeaconries, which are further divided into deaneries. In some dioceses the diocese is divided into Episcopal Areas which are then subdivided into archdeaconries, which are in turn subdivided into deaneries. (To complicate things further, rural deans in some dioceses are known as area deans, so 'area' could also refer to a deanery rather than an Episcopal Area.) There's probably no technical reason why an archdeaconry shouldn't span multiple Episcopal Areas, but I would think that this would normally be avoided.

There's no reason that each of these subdivisions has to necessarily be multiple - the Diocese of Sodor and Man, for example, is so small that it only consists of one archdeaconry. TSP (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Biased article?

Perhaps not. Why no discussion of how biased the media coverage of the Succession Rites was? It had nought to do with Roman Catholicism. One might be reminded of the similar oath to St. George in the Rites in the House of Commons which resulted in Benjamin Disraeli becoming Prime Minister. Perhaps the discussion of Jewish or dear goodness, Islamic individuals was deflected toward the good old Catholics? Did someone mention a divorce? Perhaps the Gilman lad or suchilke? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.122.39.254 (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of divorce. This is a church that was founded solely so that a king could get a divorce. Why is there no mention of it? Rmisiak (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think King Henry's divorce is part of the doctrine of the C of E, but I agree that a mention could be made in the historical origins section. Of course, that C of E was just a branch of the Roman Catholic Church that had split with Rome. It became a Protestant church later, didn't it? Dbfirs 17:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Which would be a POV problem. :) There is a great difficulty in writing an NPOV history of the Church of England about how to describe its continuity or lack of continuity with the medieval Church of England, and I'm not sure how best to solve it. Tb (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(later, having read the article properly ...) Henry's marriage breakup is mentioned, but it is called annulment, not divorce. The article also makes clear that the C of E was not founded solely for the King's divorce, in fact, it would be a biased view to say this wouldn't it? I think the article should be left as it is, without bias as far as is possible with such strong feelings on both sides. Dbfirs 17:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was being opaque. I agree with you that the description of Henry VIII is fine as is, and I also am happy with the article as it stands. Tb (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest, with some timidity, that after the word "Lollardy" in Paragraph 5 a phrase regarding the continuing tensions between church and state regarding the wealth of the church should be included. Even Shakespeare couldn't avoid a mention of the issue in "Henry V", although I do not offer his works as a source. Something like "and long running tensions resulting from the considerable comparative wealth of the Church in England enabling the Church in some circumstances to dictate secular policy." Drg40 (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

pre-597?

Quoting the current version of the history section, I learn that:

The earliest unquestioned historical evidence of an organized Christian church in England is found in the writings of such early Christian fathers as Tertullian and Origen in the first years of the 3rd century, although the first Christian communities probably were established some decades earlier. Three English bishops, including Restitutus, are known to have been present at the Council of Arles in 314. The Church of England traces its formal corporate history from the 597 Augustinian mission, stresses its continuity and identity with the primitive universal Western church, and notes the consolidation of its particular independent and national character in the post-Reformation events of Tudor England.

There is no source for the statement that the formal corporate history is traced from the 597 mission. Were the English bishops at the Council of Arles not part of the formal corporate history? If the historical evidence from the third century is unquestioned and shows an organized Christian church in England, then either this is a contradiction, or that organized Christian church was a different one from the one that converted to Catholicism (recently changed to that term from "Western Christianity", which in turn was a substitute for "Roman Catholicism").--Bhuck (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've always understood that there was no way to trace formal continuity between the late Roman Chrisitan community in Britannia in 312, and the new mission by Augustine in 597. The incoming Angls, Saxons etc put paid to that. From Augustine we can trace with some certainty through to the present day a line of Archbishops of Canterbury (which are numbered from Augustine, and indeed enthroned on the chair named for hinm). David Underdown (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of Infoboxes

I have added {{Infobox Christian denomination}} back in. Aside from the fact that the Church of England is a recognised Christian denomination, this infobox allows extra detail to be shown over and above {{Infobox Anglican Church‎}}. GrahamSmith (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it really makes sense to use it on the CofE article, which is only one part of the Anglican Communion. As has been discussed before, some of the sectoins in that infobox are rather simplistic anyway. Certainly the idea of "Mainline" Protestantism isn't one taht's commonly used in England (and would be disputed by Anglo-Catholic members of the church anyway). David Underdown (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"Church of England" is not a denomination, "Anglicanism" is a denomination. This is the Church of England page, which needs the Anglican church box (which is what it is), and not the Christian denomination box (which it isn't). Tb (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It is necessary to repudiate Tb's statement that "Church of England" is not a denomination. The Church of England is a denomination by:

 • historic schism: Following his break with Rome Henry VIII created the Church of England. In due course, Elizabeth I was lawfully made Supreme Governor of the Church of England and this succession has continued to the present day.

 • public recognition: "[people ask me] ...'What Church do you belong to?', meaning perhaps a local parish Church or perhaps a denomination, 'The Church of England' or 'The Methodist Church'."

 • common usage: The BBC's definitive article on the Church of England states: "On any one Sunday more than a million people attend Church of England services making it the largest Christian denomination in the country."

 • statute: The Church of England is a recognised denomination for legislative purposes. There are numerous instances of Statutory Instruments making orders for the designation of schools having a religious character where the Religious Denomination is stated to be "Church of England" (cf. Roman Catholic, Muslim), for example SI 2008 No. 3147 "The Designation of Schools having a Religious Character (England) (No. 2) Order 2008"

 • its own perception: "The Church of England has the largest following of any denomination or faith in Britain today." (my emphasis)

Likewise, as the introductory sentence to Wikipedia's article on the subject makes clear, Anglicanism is a tradition of Christian faith. It comprises many denominations that share much in common: that is surely why we refer to the the Anglican Communion? And now that we've finished counting the angels on that particular pinhead... <grin> GrahamSmith (talk) 06:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

References

The piont is that the Church of England is the English representation of the Anglican Communion, it makes more sense in the context of a global encyclopaedia to see the denomination as the Anglican Communion, rather than as one province within that Communion. We talk about the Anglican Communion rather than Anglicanism so as to be clear that we are excluding certain churches that claim to be in the Anglican tradition, but which are not part of the Communion. David Underdown (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

quoting David Underdown:
>"...rather than as one province within that Communion
Er, but the Church of England is not ONE province <grin> GrahamSmith (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Province is used in more than once sense, it contains two ecclesiastical provinces, York and Canterbury, but is a single province of the Anglican Communion. As is The Episcopal Church despite the fact it is made up of many more ecclesiastical provinces, the Anglican Church of Southern Africa etc etc.. David Underdown (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

In the standardized Anglican Communion infobox, the label "primate" is for the person who attends the Primates' Meeting and represents that church to the rest of the communion. It is not a reference to whatever individuals have that title internally. It is used, in that infobox, specifically in the sense of the generic Communion-wide model, without respect to the terminological differences within a given Province, and in the same way that it is used for both the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Episcopal Church in the US, neither of which have historically used the title internally. I'd ask the editor who has repeatedly added the Archbishop of York to the infobox, over the objections of now two editors to please desist. Tb (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"Church" or "church"

When - and why and by whom - was it apparently decided that this article should use "Church" instead of "church" when referring to the Church of England as a whole? It is not Wikipedia style to do this and most articles on other churches follow the Wikipedia style - the notable exception being some Roman Catholic articles which are edited by those who want to fanatically insist that "Church" specifically means Roman Catholicism. Please provide some explanation and rationale for this style in this article. Afterwriting (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a useful compromise when the word church can be used in some many different senses in one article, rather than write out Church of England in full everytime, Church is used as shorthand for the specific subject of the article. We do the same with Communion in the Anglican Communion article. David Underdown (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You haven't answered about who decided this style policy - who is the "we" you refer to? I assume you are not using it as a "royal we". Why should this particular article have its own style policy? As many words "can be used in some many different senses in one article" this argument seems rather weak. Afterwriting (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It was argued over long and hard for the same reasons at Roman Catholic Church, and so far as I remember became consensus there for braodly the reasons I've outlined here. At different times we can be talking about church buildings, other Anglican churches etc etc. Using the capital is just the most straight forward way of disambiguating. The usage on Anglican Communion was ceratinly discussed, maybe it hasn't been specifically here, but it seems a useful convention when church is effectively being used as a term of art. David Underdown (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It is fairly normal practice that Church with a big C refers to a denomination e.g. United Reformed Church, Church of England, Roman Catholic Church etc. But it is fairly normal practice that church with a small c refers to a congregation e.g. a church meeting, a church youth group etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.187.79 (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

~ That seems to make sense. A Church is an institution, and a church is a building. I suppose you would also therefore have Christian Churches and Christian churches. 90.193.97.18 (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Denomination Info Box II

This was discussed here and elsewhere 2 years ago and it was concluded that the "one size fits all" denomination info box was a bad fit for churches in the Anglican Communion - which already has their own boxs, anyway. See above. -- Secisek (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Not only in England

Unless I've missed it, the article doesn't make any reference to the fact that the Church of England has not been ( and still isn't ) confined to England itself. Here in Australia, for instance, the Anglican Church was for a long time an actual extension of the Church of England itself. There is also still today the C. of E. Diocese in Europe. Therefore the opening comments are not entirely correct. Afterwriting (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It's true so far as it goes, it is the established church in England, the Dicoese of Gibraltar in Europe forms a part of the Church of England, but not the established church (its Diocesan is not entitled to a seat in the Lords for example). Similarly Sodor and Man is not entitled to a seat in the Lrods, but does sit in some capacity in the House of Keys, the Channel Islands are also interesting, not part of the UK, in church terms they are an integral par of the Anglican Diocese of Portsmouth, and I'm really not sure of the consitutional position of the church there. There's the added complication that the boundary between the Church of England and Church in Wales doesn't follow the civil boundaries, so some Welsh parishes are still in the Church of England, and some English in CinW. Try and sumamrise that succinctly enough for the lead!

But in generla terms we problem ought to deal a little more with the historical aspects, thoguh clearly much would belong in History of the Church of England, and also in discussing the formation of the Anglican Communion. 15:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:National churches vs. Category:Church of England

Category:Church of England is itself a category within Category:National churches. — Robert Greer (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Moved section here

Somehow I don't think a prayer for the current economic crisis is such a major part of the CofE that it derserves an entire section dedicated to it. That said, I've moved the complete section here:

"The Prayer for the Current Financial Situation was launched in September 2008 to offer the opportunity for prayer and reflection during the credit crisis. The prayer notes that 'we live in disturbing days', with rising prices, increasing debts, job losses and collapsing banks, and calls God to be a 'a tower of strength amidst the shifting sands' of the economic turmoil. When the prayer was published by the Church of England on its official website, traffic to that section of the website increased by more than 25 percent.[23]" Ltwin (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Structure

"Province... under the jurisdiction of an archbishop, i.e. the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. Decision making within the province is the responsibility of the General Synod (see also above). A province is subdivided into dioceses."

Shouldn't it read like "under the jurisdiction of a metropolitan, the only two being the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. Decision making within the province is the responsibility of the General Synod (see also above). A province comprises dioceses." ? 118.90.15.97 (talk) 05:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely the term metropolitan in relation to those charged with episcopal oversight is in common usage only within the Eastern Orthodox Church, not churches that follow a catholic theology (such as the Church of England)? 09:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrahamSmith (talk • contribs)

It's certianly used fairly commonly in Roman Catholicism, the RC catehdral in Liverpool being often referred to as Liverpool Met (when the names Mersey Funnel and Paddy's Wigwam aren't used). It's less commonly used in CofE, but the full formal titles of Canterbury Cathedral and York Minster do include it I think. David Underdown (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Canterbury Cathedral is a "Metropolitical Church" :D I guess it is only a minor issue, however very strictly apeaking a province is not an area "under the jurisdiction of an archbishop" (that would be an archdiocese).

[I just saw the articles Archbishop of Canterbury and Archbishop of York, and those pages make clear the distinction.] 118.90.15.97 (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Disestablishment dates?

Any list somewhere?

According to the "A~Z of Barbadian Heritage" it says that Barbados was the last place in the British West Indies to "disestablish" the Church of England as the official state religion (in 1969)? Is there a list anywhere that actually lists those dates of disestablishment?

• Source: The A~Z of Barbados Heritage by (Sean) Carrington, (Henry) Fraser, (John) Gilmore, and (Addington) Forde on Pg. 8 "Anglicanism": (quote) Anglicanism was the state religion in England at the time of settlement of Barbados, and it was brought to the new colony as a matter of course. A Rev. Mr. Kentlane, who was in the island in 1628, is the first Anglican clergyman known to have been in Barbados. The island was divided into six parishes by 1630, and by 1637 there were six parish churches; by 1653 (if not a year or two earlier) all eleven parishes were in existence.

[ . . . ]

The church remained strongly identified with the oligarchy, when the church was disestablished and dis-endowed elsewhere in the British West Indies at the end of the 1860s, there was much debate as to whether Barbados should take the same course, but the (Barbados) House of Assembly refused to do so. Disestablishment did not finally take place until 1969, so that for about a century Barbados was the only place outside of Britain where Anglicanism enjoyed the privileges of a state church! in some ways it was even more of a state church than in England, for the bishop and clergy were paid directly out of general taxation, and the provision of much smaller government grants to some other denominations ('concurrent endowment') did not disguise the special position given to Anglicanism. [ . . . ] (/end quote)

CaribDigita (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC) thank you for listing to the real facts by maisie xx

Anglican Creeds

The external link to the C of E church law site doesn't mention which creeds are used for doctrine. My understanding was that the C of E regards the Nicene Creed (with Filioque?) as useful/binding and the Apostolic Creed as a useful summary at baptism 194.176.105.41 (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

"officially established"

The article begins by saying that the church is the "officially established" Christian church in England. Is the word "officially" actually necessary and isn't it somewhat redundant? One would assume that any established church would have to be "officially" given that status. Ltwin (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Mind the Gap

Interesting history section, but did nothing happen between 664 and 1534? A quiet 700 years by the look of it. If anyone can contribute material about the Norman church it would be interesting.Wikidwitch (talk) 12:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Scottish Epicopal Church

I have removed the comments about the Scottish Episcopal Church in the introduction for the reason that the original and essentially correct information is that the Church of England is the "Mother Church" of the Anglican Communion. This does not therefore mean that that the Church of England is directly the Mother Church of every church or province which is now part of the communion. Various parts of the Anglican Communion ( such as the Scottish church ) were more directly founded by the American church ( or some other member church ) - but that does not negate the fact the origins of these churches are still historically traced back to the Church of England even if less directly. It should also so mentioned that not all parts of the current Anglican Communion are historically "Anglican" churches as such and therefore their historical connection to the Church of England is even more indirect. Afterwriting (talk) 06:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the American Church was founded by the Scottish Episcopal Church, not the other way around (see Samuel Seabury (bishop)). The Scottish Episcopal Church actually has a quite different and distinct history from the CofE, and while there were many historical influences on it from England, to say it can be "traced back to the Church of England" is simply not correct. I think the term "mother church" is a pretty vague term. However, it is worth clarifying the relationship of the CofE to other parts of the UK and Ireland, as a reader may be confused by this complex history. A short explanation now puts the CofE in context without going into too much detail.Wikidwitch (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Spelling of "south-west" and "well-being"

I changed the spelling of "southwest" and "wellbeing" to "south-west" and "well-being" and was very surprised to discover that the change was reverted - twice.

The first time I was told that "southwest" and "wellbeing" are both acceptable and common; however, I don't agree that either is acceptable. To support this view, I note that both the SOED and the COD contain entries for "south-west" and "well-being", but don't record "southwest" and "wellbeing" even as alternative spellings. As the "Church of England" article is written in British English, surely these dictionaries are appropriate authorities.

The second time I was asked who says they are not acceptable and whether I own this article. As I mentioned earlier, the SOED and the COD say so. Furthermore, while I don't own this article, I do have the same editing rights as everyone else - including those who reverted my changes.

I know that this is a trifling matter, but I don't see why we shouldn't get it right, so I will make the changes again. If you decide to revert them please explain your reasoning here. 219.90.172.71 (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You are, of course, entitled to your opinions and preferences on these matters - but the fact remains that both "wellbeing" and "southwest" are in common use in British English - including British academic publications. In my experience "wellbeing" appears to actually now be the much more preferred British spelling style - especially since the trend in British English is to omit hyphens in most cases. Regardless of your personal preferences - and what the OED might say - both spellings are acceptable alternative spellings so I don't understand why you think that only one spelling is somehow more "correct" or more "British". I am pleased that you realise that other editors have rights to make changes as your edit comments came across as very arrogant and highminded (or should that be "high-minded"?). Anglicanus (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

When it comes to matters relating to the English language I'd rather accept the authority of the OED than your experience. I don't think that makes me high-minded. Were you being high-minded when you removed the hyphen from the article about Ruth Gledhill?

219.90.172.71 (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been able as yet to check the latest editions of the OED. However, it is the principal role of dictionaries to reflect the meanings of words and their spelling - not to dictate them.

The following recent articles are all published in The Independent, an established and quality British newspaper. They should know a few things about what is currently acceptable British English spellings with regards to your insistence of what is considered "incorrect" and "unacceptable" spelling. All these articles use the spellings in the article and also in the article's and/or webpage's headline:

1. "Wellbeing": http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-defends-wellbeing-measure-2143595.html

2. "Southwest": http://www.independent.co.uk/extras/indybest/outdoor-activity/the-50-best-festivals-1972523.html?action=Gallery&ino=48

3. "Longstanding": http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/the-iiosi-green-list-britains-top-100-environmentalists-958711.html?action=Gallery&ino=55

Anglicanus (talk) 09:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Early History and References

Hi there. Reading the article I see little reference to reliable sources. From the current text it looks like the Church of England was an established institution with it's cannons and dogmas, head(s) and history. Looking at the history section this does not show anything about it and has 0 references. Could you please help develop the article so we see if there was any such institution "Church of England" at the early period. The history of Christianity in Britain is 1 thing but putting it as history of the Church of England is totally another. Comentatorr (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

How can you distinguish the history of the Church of England from the history of the earliest Christianity in England? The earliest Christian communities in England evolve into the Catholic Church in England, then comes the English Reformation and the Catholic Church in England embraces reformed teaching and rejects papal authority, therefore we have the Church of England we know today. By all means, add sources. Ltwin (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Ditto, the above. Not clear what you're getting at Comentatorr. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 03:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Quoting another user "One of the big assumptions here I guess is that the Church of England=church in England, which is simply untrue. The Church of England CANNOT claim to be THE ONLY church in England..." Or quoting the original author "The history of Christianity in Britain is 1 thing but putting it as history of the Church of England is totally another". I think Comentatorr also has a good point when he says that this assumption is largely based upon the fact there are 0 references supporting, and even if references could be found, they would be regarding the Catholic Church in England, and not the Church of England (it is probably better to refer to it as the "Anglican Church" so you don't get confused between the Church of England, and the Christian community/church in England) Luther roxs (talk) 12:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Number of members

It seems odd to count church members by the number of baptized members, as this is not necessary--in fact almost certainly--not representative of those who actually self identify as Anglican. An increasing number of people in England have become secular or atheist, many of whom would have been baptized in the C of E. Their website (http://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/facts-stats.aspx) says that 1.7 mil go to church at least monthly, and almost 3 mil attend Christmas services. It seems doubtful then that 27 mil identify with the C of E but I'm having trouble finding stats that distinguish between Christians in national surveys and the church's own which aren't specific in this regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilkeel (talk • contribs) 18:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason why church members are counted by baptisms, and not identification as Anglican, is because previous authors have identified that doing so would materially misrepresent the attendee numbers. For instance, look at this National Church Life Survey (http://www.ncls.org.au/default.aspx?sitemapid=2261) which indicates that whereas 73% of Pentecostals and 74% of Church of Christ persons weekly attended church, only 5% of Anglicans attended church weekly. Therefore, although there were almost 20 times as many people censused as going to an Anglican church, there were only 1.25 times as many people going to a Anglican than Pentecostal church on a weekly basis 58.110.216.164 (talk) 09:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Showing that the census is inaccurate and not challenging his point at all.

All the same, if we're including attendance, it needs to be (well) sourced and the baptized numbers were wrong. See below. — LlywelynII 18:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Zionism/Restorationism - for or against?

Given its long and significant contribution to Restorationism, the sharp recent Anglican turn towards an official Anti-Zionist position has drawn strong criticism, I have referenced these comments.Cpsoper (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC) An editor has removed this section without adequate explanation, it has been restored. Cpsoper (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any NPOV references that state the C of E is anti-Zionist? It is common for Zionists to accuse those opposed to Israeli government policies of being anti-Zionist or even of being anti-Semitic. The Board of Deputies (presumably of British Jews) is hardly a neutral source. The formerly pro-Nazi Daily Mail is rarely a reliable source. Dabbler (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Both Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism are common, and the sources document them amply w.r.t. CoE. Neither the Board of Deputies nor the DM is prone to making such claims lightly. You have removed well-sourced claims. Please examine the evidence cited if you contest this. Cpsoper (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Mail article is a vitriolic and racist opinion piece by Melanie Phillips who is a strong supporter of Israel. It does not quote any independent and reliable sources. The Board of Deputies are, as I have already pointed out, hardly an independent and neutral source for facts. They reflect Israeli government opinion which is not even the same as Israeli opinion. Dabbler (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course Dabbler is absolutely correct to revert this silly edit. The EAPPI is an official programme of the World Council of Churches, a body representative of almost every mainstream Christian denomination in the world. There is nothing unusual about the CofE declaring support for such an organisation, neither is there anything unique about it. Nobody has found it odd or objectionable, other than the BoD, and that is why there are no reliable independent sources for an allegation of anti-Zionism or anti-semitism. The material is highly POV and inappropriate, doesn't belong in the article, and has been properly removed. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 00:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Your comments here speak volumes, the implied suggestion that the highly politicised WCC represents most Christians sums it up nicely. The lobbying character of EAPPI, and its involvement in BDS was referenced from its own literature. Nevertheless if you insist on excising accurate and well sourced criticism from wikipedia, your sin will find you out sooner or later. Cpsoper (talk) 09:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

"COE" redirect

I'd expect COE to redirect to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe or at least to point to a disambiguation page. C of E is more common than COE for the English Established Church, and COE is in widespread use. https://www.google.com/search?q=COE&ie=UTF-8 YusufAlBinVeryNaughty (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done A disambiguation page has been created, and yes, I agree with you, CoE is more synonymous with the Council of Europe 58.110.216.164 (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Disgraceful reason why the "Church" was started

I won't reiterate what I've already written on the Talk page for the Australian Anglican Church, but something needs to be said about why the church was started - i.e. for the sexual needs of King Henry the 8th to SHAG his brother's wife... 110.33.120.196 (talk) 09:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This statement is propaganda and garbage: dates its formal establishment principally to the mission to England by Saint Augustine of Canterbury in AD 597. What a load of RUBBISH!!! King Henry the 8th ESTABLISHED the church, and he was born 1491 and died -1547. How the Church of England can DARE to date back to 597 to one of the church fathers (St Augustine) is a matter of propaganda, and attempt to REWRITE history! As a result of Augustine's mission, the church was ESTABLISHED in England - there wasn't an ALREADY EXISTING church in England that came under the authority of the pope! That's sort of like if the Pentecostals were to say "we date back to to the Upper Room on the day of Pentecost". Yes you do... but so do the Catholics, Anglicans, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons.... 110.33.120.196 (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

One of the big assumptions here I guess is that the Church of England=church in England, which is simply untrue. The Church of England CANNOT claim to be THE ONLY church in England... 110.33.120.196 (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to study History of the Church of England a bit more. Your initial post is so completely wrong that it rather takes away the credibility of any further arguments that you make. Dabbler (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid User:110.33.120.196 you show a stunning ignorance of English Church history. As Dabbler correctly states, your initial statement is so far off the mark as to make anything else you say irrelevant. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 13:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Rather than using Argumentum ad hominem stating a generalized "ignorance" of English Church history, why don't you point out what is wrong with the statement "The Church of England was established because King Henry the 8th wanted to shag his brother's wife"

I think I'll let the article speak for itself: "Initially prompted by a dispute over the annulment of the marriage of King Henry VIII to Catherine of Aragon, the Church of England separated from the Roman Catholic Church in 1534 and became the established church by an Act of Parliament in the Act of Supremacy"

I rest my case :) 110.33.120.196 (talk) 10:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually - I won't "rest my case" just yet - this Introduction to the article hasn't made clear WHY this "initial prompting" happened. Yes, King Henry 8 wanted to annul the marriage to Catherine, but why.... Hmm..... Yes, you got it, he wanted to divorce Catherine so he could shag his brother's wife ;) ! Why not leave out the bleeding obvious truth that was pitted right throughout the English magazines when this story first broke out ;) ? Trying to rewrite history to suit a church whose pope is a woman (the Queen) - even though they don't ordain women??? 110.33.120.196 (talk) 11:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

OK Henry VIII wanted an annullment from Catherine of Aragon BECAUSE she was his brother's former wife and he had been given a papal dispensation to marry her after his brother died. It was the Pope's refusal to annul that marriage that prompted the initial split from Rome. Now do you understand why your comments seem so ludicrous? Dabbler (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There is not one single point of similarity between the position of the Pope in Roman catholicism and the Queen in the Church of England. As Supreme Governor she is essentially "chief lay member" and a figurehead, having no actual authority other than moral and ceremonial roles. There is no Pope in Anglicanism, which is actually one of the chief points of its existence, and even the chief ministerial role (Archbishop of Canterbury) is fundamentally different from Papacy. Also, the Church of England does ordain women. A full third of its ordained deacons and priests are female; it currently has no female bishops, but the legislation is in place for women to be ordained as bishops. Again, your ignorance of the facts is stunning. Your ignorance of Wikipedia is equally stunning if you think we're going to introduce the phrase "shag" into this article; it belongs in articles about carpets, not churches. Finally, go and read about the influences on the English Reformation, which begin about 200 years before Henry VIII was born. The monarchy was powerful in his day, but the English Reformation would have been impossible at the King's whim; it occurred because of the influences of the previous two centuries, and the King's marital affairs were nothing more than a trigger. Get yourself a copy of "The English Reformation" by A G Dickens (Fontana Press) which is an excellent one-volume survey of the topic, and was required reading before commencing Theology at Oxford in my day - which wasn't that long ago, so it probably still is. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 12:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you know what I meant... King Henry divorced his brother's wife Catherine (who as you mention he legitimately married because his brother had DIED... Although this "death" is nonetheless suspicious given King Henry's thirst for blood...), so he wanted this annulment from Catherine because he wanted to shag Anne Boleyn (who as I have referenced below, he confided as a complete slut in the bed)! And his basis? Yes, just like all the Anglicans who appeal to the law, he points to Leviticus and says his marriage to Catherine shouldn't have been allowed in the first place anyway, which (1) shows a ridiculously bad manipulation of the Torah to achieve his sexual means, (2) fails to understand what Christ did on the cross (i.e. fulfil the law); and (3) his own disregard for the Bible, as he ought to have read it first, and not waited until he broke the law and ask the pope to remedy it by annulling his marriage! This is a textbook example of the Spirit of the law vs. Word of the law. He never engaged in premarital sex but nonetheless used multiple marriages to shag a whole heap of women!

You also seem to have a revisionist, rosy view of King Henry. Let me provide a few references about the so called "founder" of your church (remember: he is like the equivalent of the Martin Luther of the Lutheran church, although his own disgusting behaviour is clear purpose for the Anglicans to try to wipe him out of their history, hence he is by no means celebrated as well as Martin Luther- usually the Anglicans try to point to a more wholesome figure like King James who was aptly far more ecumenical than this pathetic King Henry figure - PS this is also a good analogy as Luther was NOT the "very beginnings" of a Protestant revolt, but he was the but-for cause; the same can be said about the Charismatic Movement and Asuza St, Asuza St was a tipping point although general charismatic direction was slowly being built up). So here is how King Henry is described in literature:

• Largely remembered as a bully who executed his opponents (http://www.historyextra.com/feature/tudors/5-things-you-probably-didn’t-know-about-henry-viii)
• Oversaw he destruction of religious buildings and works of art (http://www.historyextra.com/feature/tudors/5-things-you-probably-didn’t-know-about-henry-viii)
• Killed off 2 of his 6 wives (http://www.historyextra.com/feature/tudors/5-things-you-probably-didn’t-know-about-henry-viii)
• England's most married monarch (http://www.historyextra.com/feature/tudors/5-things-you-probably-didn’t-know-about-henry-viii)
• As well as his six wives he had several mistresses and fathered at least one child by them (http://www.historyextra.com/feature/tudors/5-things-you-probably-didn’t-know-about-henry-viii)
• When he persuaded Anne Boleyn to become his mistress, he was shocked by the sexual knowledge she seemed to have, and later confided he believed her to be no virgin (http://www.historyextra.com/feature/tudors/5-things-you-probably-didn’t-know-about-henry-viii)
• Because Anne was pregnant with Henry's child by January 1533 (so again, he had PREmarital sex), a "secret wedding" was arranged for Jan 25, despite henry was NOT formally DIVORCED from Catherine (http://www.aboutfamouspeople.com/article1042.html)
• Although he claims to have been abstinent for six years (1526-1532) when Anne finally succumbed, Amy Licence reports that any suggestion of abstinence seems hard to believe. Amy indicates barely MONTHS after their marriage, Anne became pregnant (indicating premarital sex) - and Henry was already "seeking out other women"
• King Henry had a "lewd life." (http://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/books/348340/What-really-went-on-in-Henry-VIII-s-bedroom). (On another note, why would a Church have even as a SYMBOLIC figure head, a person, who engaged in a English royal mistress???)
• Suggested illegitimate children include Thomas Stucley, Richard Edwardes, and daughter named Ethelreda, ALL born in the late 1520's (http://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/books/348340/What-really-went-on-in-Henry-VIII-s-bedroom)
• When Anne failed to give him a son he "plumped" Jane Seymour instead (http://www.historyextra.com/feature/tudors/5-things-you-probably-didn’t-know-about-henry-viii)
• In order to free himself of Anne (so that he could marry Jane), he instructed Thomas Cromwell to devise a way of having her executed, by charging Anne with witchcraft, tacked on adultery, accused of having sex with 5 men in the household. However, the ONLY evidence gathered against her was from a muscian whose testimony was elicited under torture. So she was arrested... (http://www.aboutfamouspeople.com/article1042.html)
• During the later years of Henry’s reign, as he grew ever more paranoid and bad-tempered, the Tower of London was crowded with the terrified subjects who had been imprisoned at his order (http://www.historyextra.com/feature/tudors/5-things-you-probably-didn’t-know-about-henry-viii)
• One of the most brutal executions was that of the aged Margaret de la Pole, Countess of Salisbury. The 67-year-old countess was woken early on the morning of 27 May 1541 and told to prepare for death. Although initially composed, when Margaret was told to place her head on the block, her self-control deserted her and she tried to escape. Her captors were forced to pinion her to the block, where the amateur executioner hacked at the poor woman’s head and neck, eventually severing them after the eleventh blow. (http://www.historyextra.com/feature/tudors/5-things-you-probably-didn’t-know-about-henry-viii)

Do you now understand why the King Henry is one of the most hated figures of time? He is sexually perverse, a bully, a megalomaniac who murders others to get his way, a narcissist who brutally destroys his opponents, applies the rule of law at his own whim, manipulates the law for his own purposes, and in his later years, depicts traits of paranoid personality disorder. What is even worse is to his enemies, he paraded himself as doing everything in the "name of God", given now that he was the Head of the newfound church. I could not think of a better hydrocarbon to fuel the Richard Dawkins machine. Now what is even worse is this article about the foundation of the Anglican Church omits all of this, and includes none of it, instead depicting him as a mystical godlike figure who was nothing short of a goody two shoes!

You raise good points regarding the Queen being essentially useless, reduced only to a ceremonial figure (the same occurred in politics); and upcoming legislation for the acceptance of women as bishops in England - you need to understand that you have fellow brethren in Australia who are extremist literalist of the bible though! Touché for those good points though!

But I love the "name dropping" you did with "Theology at Oxford in my day" ;) Classic Anglican elitist behaviour, as a type of fallacious "argument from authority" I think you also failed to mention you didn't do a Theological degree at Oxford - you just studied an Arts degree and majored in Theology... Big different mate ;) 110.33.120.196 (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way, just a warning to other users about User:Timothy_Titus, if you look on his Wiki talk page, it states that he is a Freemason. How he can dare call himself a Anglican Christian is beyond me! Read this for a biblical perspective on Freemasonary cult: http://www.gotquestions.org/free-masonry.html 110.33.120.196 (talk) 03:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not welcome at Wikipedia. If you engage in such conduct in the future, your editing privileges may be suspended.

Not that you're wrong, but kindly sign your posts. — LlywelynII 18:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I figure it hearlier indicated King Henry VIII as the founder of the denomination. I suppose this has since changed. Does anybody know with which arguments? Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Acceptance of gay marriage, Clergy who are atheist, the Church being "out of touch"

YouGov in their poll for the Westminster Faith Debates has shown that 40% of Anglican clergy accept gay marriage. (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/10/26/four-in-ten-church-of-england-clergy-now-support-same-sex-marriage/)

The article also lists other polling results, including:

• 34% of clergy thought the Anglican Church had a negative impact on society because it discriminates against women and gay people
• 35% of clergy admitted the Church was "out of touch"
• 2% of Anglican clergy don't actually believe in God (how come atheists are being ordained?????)

I think that this all ought to be included in the article, if you disagree please feel free to write why you think it ought not to be included 110.33.120.196 (talk) 09:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we have a clear duty to not feed the Troll

This editor is not discussing the article but exhibiting his/her ignorance and prejudices and obviously cannot be reasoned with. Dabbler (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. A clear case of WP:DNFTT. There is also now personal attack which, if repeated, will require Administrator intervention. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 13:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Separatist movements spinning out of the Church of England

Because the Church of England has given off various spin off churches that are historically relevant, I think it is useful to update this article accordingly. Here is an example of a Church history timeline (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hvH0lq5aLno/T7UVKYY2ipI/AAAAAAAAAOU/h1YFl12forU/s400/divergence2.gif). As you can see, the Church of England that was established in 1534 with the Act of Supremacy, and from it has been various spin off churches:

• Quakers, who form part of the English Dissenters, capitalising the statement of King James (person who authorised the King James bible), "no bishop, no king", as the reversing Act of Uniformity 1662 required all clergy to be ordained as an Anglican, as well as use of all rites and ceremonies in the Book of Common Prayer, requirement to be Anglican to hold civil or military office, and to attend an English University. The main issue here was separation of church and state. This is particularly important because by the 19th century, it included Reformed Church (Presbyterians and Congregationalists), Baptists and Methodists (including The Salvation Army)
• Episcopalians, who although accepted the bishop organisational structure, rejected submission to the King of England
• Baptists, who also form part of the English Dissenters, only give baptism to professing believers, and not infant baptism (which is done in Anglican churches). Rather, Anglicans will conduct confirmation, They also differed in that they believed in autonomy of the local congregation, and not to be ruled by a central authority (or government as in the case of the Church of England)
• Methodists, which are an 18th century revival within the Church of England, and separated from the church following the death of John Wesley. It is distinct from the Church of England by its Arminianism, and placed emphasis on helping the poor and average person, missional spirit (establishment of hospitals, universities, orphanages, soup kitchens, schools), rich musical tradition

None of these are currently mentioned in the article, despite the Church of England is mentioned in their articles. Luther roxs (talk) 12:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

"Spin off" is not a technical term, but even so, it would be wrong to describe Quakers or Baptists as such. Both movements have entirely independent histories, and their foundation has more to do with continental influences arriving in England, than anything to do with the Church of England. Neither the Quakers nor the Baptists would trace their ancestry through the Church of England in anything other than a most tangental and distant fashion. (American) Epicopalians are part of the Anglican Communion, and have a common heritage with the Church of England and the Scottish Episcopal Church. Early church and chaplaincy foundations do trace their origins to England, but this is covered in the current article section 1.7 "Overseas development" and the main article referenced there. The formal foundation of American Episcopalianism came from the Scottish Episcopal Church, not the Church of England; in fact the Church of England refused to establish a church in the USA or to consecrate Bishops, which is why the Scottish Episcopal Church did so. I don't think there is any need for further mention in the article of any of these movements. I do agree that there should be more about the formation of Methodism, as that is the one movement that was genuinely a "spin off" from the Church of England. There is currently a mention of Wesley's hymn writing as being a new style in church music and worship, but there should be something about his subsequent formation of Methodist classes, and the process that led to this becoming a separate denomination. Similarly, the fact that the Church of England and the Methodist Church are currently in advanced talks about reuniting again, should be mentioned. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 12:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but as a fact of history, your statement accepting only John Wesley and Methodism as a "genuine spin off", and rejecting Baptists or Quakers as having spun off from the Church of England, is incorrect:

The earliest Baptist church can be traced back to 1609 in Amsterdon with John Smyth, who by 1606, a Fellow of Christ's College (Cambridge), broke ties with the Church of England. He was however, reared in the Church of England, first becoming a puritan English separatist, then a baptist Separatist. If you look at the page for puritan, you can see this reference being made too, "founded by John Calvin from the clergy shortly after the accession of Elizabeth I of England in 1558, as an activist movement within the Church of England". John Calvin's notability is recognised by the fact that he is a saint in the Church of England. The article continues, "After the Restoration of 1660 and the 1662 Uniformity Act, almost all Puritan clergy left the Church of England, some becoming nonconformist ministers". The article also needs to do a better job as distinguishing between the various English Dissenters, especially the Puritans Separatists (who thought the Church of England was so corrupt that true Christians should separate from it altogether), and the non-separating Puritans (who remained within the Church of England advocating further reforms)

The Quakers arose from the Legatine-Arians and other English Dissenters (Protestant) as a breakaway from the established Church of England, the founder George Fox himself was an English dissenter. By the way, if you disagree the Quakers broke from the Church of England, you should also redress that with the Quakers article which states in its Infobox that it "Separated from: Church of England"

These movements are particularly important, because they outline why there are differences of belief between the various different Christian denominations. It also explains how the Church of England eventually differs from the, particularly relating to the Holy Spirit (Charles Finney's Holiness Churches, Charles Mason's Church of God, Assemblies of God, Aimee Semple McPherson's Foursquare Church, Ken Gullickson and John Wimber's Vineyard Church), New Testament style leadership (James O'Kelly's Church of Christ, Billy Hybels' Willow Creek Church, Chuck Smith's Calvary Chapel), and missional focus (Phineas Bresee's Church of the Nazarene) Luther roxs (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course the earliest dissenters were formerly members of the Church of England, before establishing their protestant denominations (as you clearly and acurately demonstrate), but that is hardly "news". There was nothing else for them to have been, previously. The point is that they founded new movements, largely under continental protestant influences, and not something that was at all continuous with the Church of England. Indeed, it would have been a point of principle for many of them that they were starting a new movement, and not one that was continuous with their former Church of England life, from which they conspicuously resigned. The Wesleys are quite different, of course, and founded Methodism specifically as a movement within the Church of England. John Wesley resisted any split from the Church of England, and Charles Wesley positively opposed any such split. Methodism is a true "spin-off", tracing its roots directly back into the CofE. Baptists and Quakers are new movements, unrelated to the CofE beyond the former membership of their founding fathers. Thus Methodism should be given more prominence in this article, as you propose, but the other denominations are adequately covered in their own articles. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 02:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, well I think I have successfully convinced you of my point, if I understand your statement correctly: "the earliest dissenters were formerly members of the Church of England, before establishing their protestant denominations", so our disagreement is now over principle and not fact. I think what you are thinking when I say "spin off", is "continuous" movements, but I won't entirely concede to you just yet, because apart from Methodists, there's also the puritans which, quoting the article, was "founded by John Calvin from the clergy shortly after the accession of Elizabeth I of England in 1558, as an activist movement within the Church of England". I emphasise the words "within the Church of England", and not as a separatist movement. Like I mentioned earlier, there were non-separatist puritans, which is important to mention, because they are what has caused the Church of England to maintain relatively "mainstream" in terms of Protestant Christianity.

Nonetheless, I still maintain disagreement with you, that the English Dissenters (which is where all of the above said movements originate from) should be omitted from the article together, simply because, although their founding fathers were formerly members of the Church of England, they failed to start a movement continuous with the Church of England. As an example, the only reason why the Church of England can be said to be continuous with the Catholic Church in England, is because of the Acts of Supremacy and seizure of Catholic assets, which is akin to a forced continuation. Thus, I disagree that a dissenting continuation (by peace and not force) cannot be classified as such too.

Perhaps a more disconcerting outcome, is that if you omit the Separatist movements (hopefully this word will appease more than the aforementioned "spin-off") and the English Dissenters from discussion, the article will also fail to indicate why the Church of England's theology differs from many of the (1) charismatic/Pentecostal, (2) non-state and flat leadership models; and (3) and missional churches, which fall under the same denominational stream as the Church of England. They then otherwise simply become a glob of Protestant church in classification. Luther roxs (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that Joseph Smith was apparently interested in Methodism as a young man, perhaps by the same logic, we should add the Mormons as a separatist group from the Church of England? This article is about the Church of England, not groups that were founded by people who left the church because they decided that its theology and doctrines and practices were not in accordance with their beliefs and principles. Dabbler (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely right! Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 23:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

I made several edits to introduce a neutral point of view; presenting the COE view that it is continuous with early Christianity, while referring to the pre-reformation era as "Christianity" under the authority of the Pope, and emphasizing King Henry's declaration as head of the church in the 1500's. I also tentatively removed the divorce situation as perhaps unneeded in the lead. --Zfish118 (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Eh, ok, but be careful: we should present the COE claims but presenting it as anything other than dogma falls under POV since the act of reforming the church very pointedly discontinued it, for better or worse. Don't remove the divorce from the lead: it is the single most needful aspect of the entire page w/r/t the history of why this denomination exists. — LlywelynII 18:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree with your logic. Reforming an institution does not "pointedly discontinue" it. Did the reforms of Parliament over the centuries, for example, make the current Parliament in anyway not a continuation of the previous versions? Is the Catholic Church after Vatican 2 not the continuation of the previous Catholic church despite the reforms? How and where do you draw the line without making it a point of view?

Secondly, King Henry VIII never was divorced, all his marriages, except the last. were either annulled or ended because his wife died. Dabbler (talk) 18:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Reading above, I see why the original treatment might have been phrased in a POVy way. Still, there should be a balanced way to get the issue across. — LlywelynII 18:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Where is the source - said in the infobox - that the denomination was founded in 597 in purpose to create a national church "of England"? Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Since there is currently no information about the origins of the church neither in the infobox, neither in the leading section - which are the authouritative sources to be consulted on this issue, according to you, please? As for now, it only states that it "Separated from: Roman Catholic Church [sic*]". * An name that didn't really exist as such by then. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Lead source clarification

Does the "Dictionary of Saints" explicitly state that the Church of England's "formal establishment" began with the Augustine mission, as is claimed in the lead? --Zfish118 (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I have added a reference which does explicitly state that, I can't check the original one so I have left it with the clarification tag. It could be deleted if it does not support the statement. Dabbler (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Astounding Omission: Which Bible?

I came here looking for the identity (identies?) of the version of the Bible that the CoE uses. Nothing. I'm pretty sure it used to be King James Version, but can't be more specific, and don't know its recent history. If you don't find the omission of the scriptural basis of an entire religious sect (3rd largest Christian denomination if the entire Anglican Communion is counted) astounding, I think you must not understand. Here's a hint: "the Bible" is not a single work, whether translated into various languages or not. Especially when the link in this article is NOT to what appears to be "Christian scriptures" but to an article about the Bible as a group of texts of Judaism and the multitude of Christian (and pseudo-Christian) off-shoots. Needs heavy editing. It also seems to minimize the recent problems the Anglican Communion has had regarding the acceptance of 'new fangled' ideas about women's and homosexual's "place" in the church community.FWIW.Abitslow (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the CofE has an "official" version of the Bible. I think Anglicans go to the store and buy the translation they like best just like the rest of us. Happy editing. Ltwin (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It certainly isn't an "astounding omission". No mainstream denomination dictates which version/translation of the Bible its members must use. In the Church of England it is a requirement that all ordinands (clergy in training) learn New Testament Greek in order to study the NT in the original Greek versions (learning Hebrew for Old Testament study is optional). The officially commended and published Lectionaries (that is the printed volumes of Sunday readings set for each Sunday and Principal Festival throughout the year, on a three-year rolling basis) all use the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), so that is the closest to an "official" translation in the Church of England today, but it is certainly not mandatory, and any church may use any translation, as may any individual member. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 04:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)