Talk:Anglicanism/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Tagging - via media

I have removed a whole series of tags relating to Anglicanism as a Via Media between Catholic and Protestant traditions. There is a lot of material in this article that needs in-line citation, but the issue of the via media is fully discussed (and references cited) in the section on theories of Anglican identity. TomHennell (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with via media being dated to the period of the Commonwealth (mid 17th c) shouldn't it date to the Oxford Movement (mid 19th c)? Nitpyck (talk) 08:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well the first person to use the term was Richard Hooker, to what extent it remained an active idea between then and the Oxford Movement might be debateable, but it was certainly in existence. David Underdown (talk) 10:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah ok but (and notice I did choose the name nitpyck) The sentence reads - "By the mid 17th century the Church of England (and associated episcopal churches in Ireland and in England's American colonies) came to be seen as comprising a distinct Christian tradition with theologies, structures and forms of worship representing a middle ground, or via media..." and through the 17th c COE was clearly considered Protestant since you had to be one to become king or queen, and the ruler was the head of the church. Also at that time the COE was the church in the American colonies and when that changed after the American Revolution (late 18th c)its new name included the word Protestant. Also I'm pretty sure in the 16th and 17th centuries the Spanish would still have lumped the COE in with the rest of the Protestants and had not yet come to see them as a distinct Christan tradition. Nitpyck (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

good points nitpyck. The idea of Anglicanism as a via media does go back to Hooker, and is explicit in George Herbert and Lancelot Andrewes. But the Restoration changed matters, and from the late 17th century to the early 19th century, I doubt whether many Anglicans would have thought in these terms. Parliamentary legislation of the 18th century refers to the "Protestant Episcopal Church" (i.e. Church of England); and the "Protestant Presbyterian Church" (i.e. Church of Scotland) as counterparts; but this assumed equivalence itself would not have been acceptable to many Anglicans (and indeed Presbyterians). The section on Anglican identity does go into the various ways in which the term "via media" was understood in the 19th century. Maybe the header paragraph should be adjusted to be more consistent (and to avoid the impression that Anglicanism had a consistent understanding on these matters from the mid 17th century onwards). Perhaps:

"For a period in the mid 17th century the Church of England (and associated episcopal churches in Ireland and in England's American colonies) was presented by some Anglican divines as comprising a distinct Christian tradition with theologies, structures and forms of worship representing a middle ground, or via media, between Reformed Protestantism and Roman Catholicism; a perspective that came to be highly influential in later theories of Anglican identity" TomHennell (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I like it- Nitpyck (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Focus of Unity

The article has identified the Archbishop of Canterbury as the "focus of unity" for some time, but a recent anonymous editor, and then a regular editor, think it shouldn't say that. The "focus of unity" language is long-standing, and refers specifically to the Archbishop, as distinguished from the other "instruments of unity" (Lambeth Conference, ACC, and primates' meeting). I would like to hear the reasons against repeating the normative use of these Angilcan organizations here before the text is changed. Tb (talk) 05:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The term Focus of Unity referring solely to the Archbishop of Canterbury is a completely new one to me. I have never heard it used in that specific sense. Now I am not a member of any inner circles and I am sure that it is used but for how long and in what context? Perhaps it should be referenced. Dabbler (talk) 10:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It is in the windsor report, certainly. More to the point, I would suggest that it hasn't ever been used to refer to anything but the ABC--distinguish it carefully from "intrument of unity", which has referred to the "big four". Tb (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is too focused on the Anglican Communion. Much of it should be merged there and this article should be completely rewritten to something more along the leaner lines of Catholicism Orthodox Christianity. Thoughts? -- Secisek (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but then we get into the thorny "how anglican can you be without the anglican communion" question, and golly, that can of worms i'm not eager to open. Tb (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And what about King henry VIII?

I was taught in school that the Anglican church was essentially founded by King Henry VIII so that he could change the rules and be able to divorce his wife. However, the article does not even mention this. Was I taught wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.35.207.238 (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

He's mor erelevant to the Church of England specifically than the wider concept of Anglicanism. David Underdown (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted an edit making reference to Henry VIII, it seems that an editor had missed this discussion on the talk page. There is a separate article on the History of the Church of England. This page relates primarily to the common identity and traditions, and range of diverse opinions and practices, in an association of autonomous churches that may once have had allegiance to the British Crown, but now mostly do not. TomHennell (talk) 23:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"The earliest Anglican formularies corresponded closely to those of contemporary Reformed Protestantism;"

Must be wrong, the earliest Anglican formularies were during the millenium when the Anglican church was in full communion with Rome, surely? It means the earliest post schism Anglican formularies doesn't it? --BozMo talk 18:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Even then it's not true; the schism occurred under Henry VIII; the earliest formularies written after that were the Litany, which did not correspond closely to Reformed ones; and the 1549 prayer book (the next thing) was far too conservative for those interested in greater Reformation. Tb (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

perhaps "formularies" is wrong - the reference is to the Articles of Religion, Book of Common Prayer and Ordinal - specfically the 42 Articles of 1553 and 39 Articles of 1563/1571; and the 1559 and 1662 BCP with their ordinals. These are regarded as the 'historic formularies' of the Church of England for the purposes of Canon Law and the declarations required of English clergy at their induction. Maybe it is too specifically an English term, and a better might be suggested. Henry offered the Bishop's book, the Ten Articles and the Six Articles - but these are clearly not yet distinctively Anglican in nature; and hence don't count as Anglican formularies, either in law, or for the purposes of Wikipedia (I would submit). But that is my opinion, maybe you could offer a correction or clarification? TomHennell (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I've made a change that I think helps considerably. What I think you're missing is that there were certainly formularies before 1550, they were just different. And the idea that we should only look to what is "distinctively Anglican" would produce the odd result that the Nicene Creed or the list of canonical books are not Anglican formularies. It was the new formularies which had Reformed influence, not the "oldest" formularies. But even then, the 1549 prayer book is surely one of the "earliest", well before the current "historic" books of 1559 and 1662, and 1549 belies the theory that the "earliest" had more Reformed influence than later ones. Tb (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I have made a small further change. The point being that formulations and liturgies that were securely acceptable within mainstream Reformed Protestantism in 1550, had come to become regarded as unacceptable to many godly protestants by 1600. Over the decades, the boundaries between what was adiaphora and what was essential shifted in Geneva; and the expectation was that the reformed churches elsewhere in Europe would follow the lead. But Elizabeth refused to shift, so by the early 17th century (e.g. in Donne and Herbert) Anglicanism is clearly distinguishable from Calvinism; to a degree that had not been the case in 1550. TomHennell (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both, much improved to my limited knowledge. --BozMo talk 20:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Percentages

The article identifies: high church, broad church, low church, Continuing Anglicans, and Anglo-Catholics. How many belong to each group? Where are they most found? I mention this in part since the Anglo-Catholic end of the spectrum seem to dominate Anglican WP articles. How many Anglicans deny their Protestant roots? Nitpyck (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps 50 years ago, that might have been possible (or at least possible within England and Wales, and at the parish level). If you went into an English parish church, you could commonly detect a 'party' affiliation; which hymn book did they use?, Church Times or Church of England Newspaper?, what services were on the notice-board (and at what times)?, how did the rector term himself? (However even then, if you had asked the parishioners themselves whether they had a particular churchmanship, they would most likely have denied it, saying that the tradition of their particular parish was simply 'normal' for the Church of England.) Now clear party affilitation is no longer the case for the majority of parishes, partly as liturgical reform has jumbled-up the practices of various traditions who are consequently much more used to variation and experimentation; partly becuase previously rival parishes (and publications) have merged to save costs; but also because the sorts of issues that are currently divisive, most often cut across the old liturgy-based distictions. TomHennell (talk) 09:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Your question, Nitpyck, has rather a large thumb on the scale. We might as well ask how many Anglicans deny their Catholic roots? To think that Anglicanism was invented in the sixteenth century is already to prejudge such questions. The strong number of Anglo-Catholics tends to be an American phenomenon, in my opinion. Tb (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thumb or not, to say it didn't start with Henry VIII seems Anglo-Catholic. But how is it spread in Africa which I believe (not know) is where most Anglicans now live? Are the African churches high or low or is that distinction no longer useful? This is all second hand to me since my family was last COE when Pennsylvania added a Test Act and banned prayers for the King.Nitpyck (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There was much continuity with the earlier English church (Dioceses were reorganised, and new ones created, but much of the senior clergy remained the same, abbeys were dissolved, but some were raised to the status of cathedrals, at Peterborough for instance the last abbot became the first bishop), and under Henry the church retained a largely catholic identity. It was under Edward that a more Protestant character appeared, due to those who dominated his governemtn (edward was under age). Of course under Mary the pendulum swung (violently) back the other way, and Elizabeth's position attemoted to reach a compromise. To some extent that broke down under Charles I, and of course under the Commonwealtha presbyterian polity was adopted, but with the Restoration returned the bishops. High Church and Low Church had slightly different connotations then, and what we would now recognise as Anglo-Catholicism emerged in the 19th century (along with more evangelical groups such as the Clapham Set).

As to Africa, it often depends which missionary society was most active in a given region, and who set up the theological colleges and so on. As can be seen from the make up of GAFCON, Nigeria and Uganda have strong Evangelical leadership. David Underdown (talk) 09:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Protestants? NPOV dispute

There seems to be a peculiar anti-reality bias in the current form of this article. While many, many Anglicans (at least, Americans) consider themselves Protestant, this is not adequately addressed, but given only as an aside in the 'doctrinal issues' section.

Looking at the archives, this is *very* clearly a result of modern revisionism. As recently as Archive 2, under the heading "Other Protestants" we find lines like

• But you are correct in that the line should be removed. Other protestants do maintain the episcopate: Methodists, some Baptists, Pentacostals, for example.

going uncontended. Italics are mine. Then in Archive 3 we get a lengthy theological debate over the status of the church.

If in 2006 nobody found it the *least* bit odd that people should refer to Anglicans as Protestants, doesn't it deserve a clearer mention? Note that a section with a number of replies is entitled "Other Protestants", with nobody responding to the effect that 'Anglicans are not Protestants'.

If, in fact, it is truthful that the majority of Anglican churches consider themselves not to be Protestant churches, by all means that should be stated. But to utterly wipe out the actual history is totally anti-wikipedia.

Firstly, there ought to be some statement near the top about the fact that up until very recently (2006?) Anglicans were considered a Protestant church, at least by most humans aware of the church's existence.

Secondly, there ought to be a mention of Henry VIII. Even if his effect on the religion was not as great as thought (and taught) by many, it's misinformation not to include him. How can one educate if one doesn't clear up common misperceptions?

As it stands now, unlike the overwhelming majority of wikipedia articles, there's no clearly-delineated early section summarizing and explaining the history and origins of the movement. Note under Elizabeth I:

• One of her first moves as queen was to support the establishment of an English Protestant church, of which she became the Supreme Governor.

The Duke of Monmouth was supported for the throne for his Protestantism. William of Orange married into the family partly because they wanted a Protestant.

Under James II:

• Charles II opposed the conversion, ordering that James's daughters, Mary and Anne, be raised as Protestants.

There's lots of evidence that the majority of England, and the majority of English monarchs, at least at one point considered the Church of England a Protestant church. How is this not mentioned?

151.204.140.143 (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think most of these are already discussed in Church of England and History of the Church of England where they belong. This is why I pointed out (below) that this is the page for Anglicanism, not for the Church of England. Tb (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

some good points there - though I think most of them could be met by a judicious expansion of the discussion of just this issue in the "Doctrinal Issues" section. The article could also benefit from pruning of the some terminology - for instance in the opening where Protestantism is presented as a tradition distinct from Anglicanism.

However, I think your basic thesis is flawed. In general, the awareness of the Church of England as "Anglican" from the mid 19th century onwards, superceded any understanding of itself as 'Protestant'. It is certainly true that early 18th century parliamentarians adopted a device by which the faith of the country was identified as "The Protestant Religion" of which the Monarch must be a faithful adherent, adn which found concrete expression in the etablished "Protestant Episcopal Church" in England, and the "Protestant Presbyterian Church" in Scotland. But however congenial this might be, it was always a fudge; contrived to allow the Church of England to acknowledge as King a man (George 1st) who was a Lutheran. Scots Presbyterians never regarded members of the Church of England as their co-religionists, nor did they accept the authority of the King in Parliament in matters spiritual. In effect the 18th century Church of England adopted a counterpart approach; they could not acknowledge the spiritual authority of a parliament that was partially Presbyterian, so the convocations of York and Canterbury ceased to meet: as they had no one to pass any resolutions to for statutory debate. So the 18th century understanding of the Church of England as Protestant was a dead letter; in effect the modern such understanding dates only back to the Evangelical Movement of the early 19th century; and it is precisely this understanding that later 'Anglicans' saw themselves as replacing. Perhaps I need to expand the "Identity" section, though it should not become a potted history of the C of E. TomHennell (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That is slightly more realistic, but frankly not much. The Church of England was quite certain it was Protestant between the mid-Elizabethan period and the mid 19th century; what "device" parliamentarians are supposed to have "adopted" in the "early 18th century" I can't imagine - the Succession to the Crown Act 1707 merely used concepts that had been standard for generations. That Anglicans also knew they were not Presbyterians is no argument against this. Johnbod (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

What was new (and effectively a fudge) in this period, was the broad concept of a continuing Protestant religion; i.e. a common religious identity amongst (most of) the churches that derived from the 16th century Reformation - and which might therefore embrace a wide range of non-Catholic belief. The fudge arose out of the failure of "Comprehension"; the aspiration that the Church of England might redefine its formulae and liturgy in such a way as to allow non-Catholic non-Anglicans to participate in its worship. But the aspiration proved impossible in practice; with the consequent creation in England of the distinct worshipping communities of Anglicanism and Dissent; the fudge allowed that both would continue legally. In continental Europe such a fudge had already been adopted int the Netherlands; but otherwise almost all non-Catholic churches were celarly either Lutheran or Reformed, and as such, mutually rejected any suggestion that they shared a common religion. A similar , and equally absolute, mutual rejection would separate Scots presbyterians from English Anglicans (although both churches were clearly 'Reformed' in origin and doctrine). So the Parliamentary concept of a "Protestant Religion" remained a legal fiction with no spiritual application at all. The modern concept of Protestantism as a continuing religious identity is essentially an American development; Diarmaid MacCulloch detects it first in mid-18th century Pennsylvania. What forced a change across the rest of the Anglican tradition was primarily the experience of Mission. Church of England missionaries of the 18th century tried to maintain the principle that the converts of Dissenters should never be considered as Christians until they became Anglicans; but by the end of the century this ideal had broken down. So by the 19th century, we do find an awareness of a common Protestant identity in many places, but the contents of that identity were far from uniform; Anglicans, Methodists and Presbyterians probably, but the status of Baptists and Quakers in this supposed common tradition would remain far less clear. TomHennell (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that this article is not Church of England but Anglicanism. The development of "Anglicanism" as a specific thing even independent of the specifics of the Church of England is intimately tied with the increasing influence of Anglo-Catholic theology. One might see this as "modern revisionism", but only if one thinks the 16th century is the official "starting point" of Anglicanism. That is itself already to prejudge the question; we can find as many theological (and English Constitutional!) points articulating strongly that the reformed Church of England was also continuous with the ancient Church of England and not any kind of new thing. (Consider the official ordinal numbers on bishops, who controls the ancient Cathedrals even after official toleration of Roman Catholics, etc.) Moreover, the word "Protestant" changes its meaning over time, and is often used by those who are ignorant of the details of Anglican history or theology. Tb (talk) 17:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. You'll be bringing Celtic Christianity in next. This isn't so much revisionist as reviving 17th antiquarianism. Johnbod (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't make out what on earth you're talking about now. Perhaps you could address what I said rather than your incorrect predictions of what I might say in the future? Tb (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, if the 19th century branch theory, and 21st century via-media-ism is "reviving 17th [century] antiquarianism", then the idea that Anglicans have always unproblematically called themselves "protestant" since 15xx (we never get much specificity on just when) must be false. It can't simultaneously be true that it's revisionist, and 17th century, and unheard-of-before-now. As it is, the article seems to spend a fair about of time trying to explain the point; insisting that we must find a trivial answer, and put it first, in order to tell people what they expect to hear, is wrong. We don't need to give the "simplistic answer closest to the truth", we can just explain the truth in all its gory detail. If we are speaking about contemporary Anglicanism, it is indeed controversial to say that it is simply protestant full-stop, but I am all in favor of fuller explanations of the complexity of the topic. The article already has a pretty full explanation, but where it needs more, by all means let's add more. At this point, it gets complaints that its discussion is too hard, as if the goal of the article is to simplify reality to be easy to understand. Tb (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You're tying yourself in knots here, but frankly I can't be bothered with more more of this. Just look at the page frankly, and ask yourself if it in any way explains why the vast majority of Anglicans for most of the periods since the Reformation, and a very considerable number today, thought or think of themselves as Protestant. I and other visitors to this cosy corner clearly don't think it does. Johnbod (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's imagine someone who wonders why that's true, and so they start reading. And they get to the third paragraph of the lead, which explains that the formularies corresponded closely to those of contemporary Reformed Protestantism, identifies the first important difference, namely, that the retention in Anglicanism of many traditional liturgical forms and of the episcopate was already seen as unacceptable by those promoting the most developed Protestant principles, and that by the 17th century, the Church of England and associated episcopal churches...were presented by some...as comprising a distinct Christian tradition, with theologies, structures and forms of worship representing a middle ground, or via media, between Reformed Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. The relevance of this time is of course that it is when Anglicanism (as an international phenomenon, distinct from the Church of England itself) began in earnest. So, if they are wondering why so many Anglicans have considered themselves Protestant, there it is. For the reader who goes on, we find interesting discussion of Newman, Maurice, and Sykes on ecclesiology. And, we find the discussion of "both Catholic and Reformed" in the section on Doctrine, a large discussion on churchmanship, an explanation that the sacramental practice of the church can be traced to its identity as both Catholic and a church of the Reformation. I think that if someone read the whole article wondering why "the vast majority of Anglicans...thought or think of themselves as Protestant", they would have to have skipped over all those sections. Tb (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

These are exactly the problem sections, which carefully avoid ever actually stating the self-identification of Anglicanism as part of Protestantism (and carefully avoid mentioning Lutheranism for that matter). The article falsely gives the impression that doctrinal & organizational compromises and "middle ways" meant that Anglicanism thought of itself as outside Protestantism (here called "Reformed"). It didn't. Johnbod (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought the question was "why do so many Anglicans consider themselves Protestant", for which you seem to allow only the answer, "because Anglicans really are all Protestant". What is interesting is whether actual Anglican churches might say that. Here the story seems far less clear, no? I mean, can you point us to the examples? For example, it's really easy to find where the PCUSA identifies itself as Protestant. It should be easy to find where the Church of England website says so. Of course, what it says is both Catholic and Reformed, which is the language you find so objectionable. My view is that the church is both to the extent that it draws from both, and neither to the extent that either is read to exclude the other, but this is only my view, and the article tries to stick with what is actually officially said. Tb (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I realize this is a long thread, but please recall this is concerned with Anglican self-identity mostly in the past. If they had had a website at any point between the reign of Elizabeth and - well that's an interesting question, but much much later anyway - the question would be beyond doubt I imagine. Do we really need to go into the evidence for who was included in the term Protestant over that period?? Johnbod (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Cf. Baptist successionism. Anglo-Catholic accounts of Anglicanism are often similar (see here). Srnec (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is actually not mostly about the past; it is about the present. Its purpose is not the History of Anglicanism, but Anglicanism, focusing principally on the present, just as does Rome, Japan, or Boston. Tb (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Another wiggle! The lead, and top half of the article, which is mostly what we are concerned with here, are actually rather more about the past, and most statements in the second part of the article have no time period attached to them. Johnbod (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, ok? The original complaint was that the question of Protestantism is mentioned "only as an aside in the 'doctrinal issues' section." This isn't true. The original complaint was not about "the past", but argues that the present of the church is unquestionably Protestant, speaking ironically as if only in 2006 (when particular edits were made to this article) did objection to that label arise. The original complaint was incorrect; the term "Protestant" has been objected to at various times for various reasons by various Anglicans, going back some time, considerably before 2006. I can't tell which is your objection now: is it that there should be a plain statement "Anglicanism is part of Protestantism" somewhere in the lead, or is it that the complex question of Anglicanism's relation to Protestantism is not sufficiently discussed, or is it that it is discussed, but incorrectly? Tb (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The last of these, as already explained. Johnbod (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be saying, if I understand it, that the article leads to a different conclusion than an honest look at the self-presentation of Anglican churches would suggest. If we take a look at [1], we find almost no discussion of "Protestant", not even "Catholic and Reformed" language, but instead, a discussion of the Lambeth quadrilateral, a historical survey which says, "Anglicans trace their Christian roots back to the early Church, and their specifically Anglican identity to the post-Reformation expansion of the Church of England and other Episcopal or Anglican Churches." That is the full discussion of the topic for the Church of England's public presentation of what Anglicanism is. And the "post-Reformation expansion" is explicitly the 17th century spread to North America, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, and then the later spread by missionaries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. And then the Church of England's self-presentation moves on to the present-day Anglican Communion, theological method, sacraments, and connectionalism. The Church of England does not think it notable. The Episcopal Church's website is characteristically harder to navigate, but at [2] we get a definition of "Anglicanism", where the relevant bit says, "Anglicanism reflects the balance and compromise of the via media of the Elizabethan settlement between Protestant and Catholic principles", but does not say at all that the church is Protestant. At [3], we read, "Anglicans are categorized as Protestants by many Roman Catholics, Protestants, and some Anglicans," and, "some Anglicans are ambivalent about being categorized as Protestants because of the importance of the catholic tradition in Anglicanism", followed with a brief discussion of the branch theory. Perhaps you are looking at other present-day official documents; can you give some links to them? Tb (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The wikipedia article on Protestantism itself is vastly different to the presentation here. "The separation of the Church of England (then including the Church in Wales) and Church of Ireland from Rome under King Henry VIII did not take a Protestant form. However by the efforts of Thomas Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury and Thomas Cromwell, both with Lutheran sympathies[18], the Churches assumed a Protestant character, and under King Edward VI the Churches became openly Protestant, adopting Calvinist doctrines in the Forty-Two Articles, restored under Queen Elizabeth I. Thereafter the defence of Protestantism in Britain and Ireland became a major political issue, culminating in the deposition of King James II & VII and the settlement of the Crown in the line of Princess Sophia and "the heirs of her body being Protestant". In the nineteenth century some of the Tractarians proposed that the Church of England and the other Anglican churches are not Protestant, but a middle path between Rome and Protestantism (via media). This assertion was attacked by, amongst others, the Church Association.[19]

If that is accurate, then the opening paragraph is struggling to achieve a NPOV when it seperates Anglicanism from Protestantism. The average, non-expert reader is very likely to be led astray. All these technical in-house discussion are really missing the point. The article should simply state that Anglicanism is an heir of the Protestant Reformation, and that subsequent interpretations of Anglicanism have defined themselves as via-media.Sbmackay (talk) 02:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The other article covers the ground well, and that is what is missing here. I'm not sure you last sentence is sufficiently clear, though; we have enough of that sort of vagueness here already - what does a school student make of "heir of the Protestant Reformation"? Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm placed a NPOV tag on the article. This discussion more than warrants it.Sbmackay (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't care much about the tag but the article on Protestantism is about the protestant history not about the nature of the Anglican Communion though. For example it is all very well to say that "Thomas Cranmer reformed the Church of England" but Cranmer was executed by Mary I who completely reintegrated the Church of England with Rome, in which state it remained well after Cranmer was pushing up the daisies. So from the point of view of the article on the status of the Anglican Communion Cranmer has virtually no relevance. It is the Elizabethan settlement which is widely talked of as the start of the "via media", which contained strong doctrinal element of both Catholic and Protestant traditions and one could certainly argue that the changes under Cranmer (through which bishops survived) are not terribly relevant to that question. And of course between 1559 when the Elizabethan settement took place and 1572 when the churches split, communion existed with Rome. --BozMo talk 20:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking around there are reasonable references to the origins of the via media generally being attributed to Elizabeth here, which could be brought into this article if there is a lack of adequate sourcing. --BozMo talk 22:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That article doesn't attribute via media to Elizabeth. It says 'At the time it was believed to have established a Protestant church', but that her preferences made it 'possible'. This article still has an Anglo-Catholic bias as far as I can see.Sbmackay (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Your right, via media cann't be attributed to Elizabeth, she was establishing a Protestant Episcopal Church. Her reforms and 'settlement' kept it from becoming a puritan church (despite Cromwell) and made room for the more 'reformed' (nearly an English sub-rite of the Latin rite) churchmanhsip of Charles I & II. I don't see where you're getting an 'anglo-catholic' biase reading from though.... Bo (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The Elizabethan settlement was widely considered to be a protestant settlement at the time. This was not particularly disputed until the Oxford Movement. And, of course, the leading figures in the Oxford Movement for the most part concluded that the Church of England was, in fact, inalterably protestant, which is why they all defected to Rome. This and other articles on Anglicanism has and has had an overwhelming Anglo-Catholic bias. The second sentence in this article is already proclaiming that bias when it sets up Anglicanism as one of the four major branches of christianity, separate from "protestantism". The via media is also a red herring. The original conception of the via media was that it was a middle way between Roman Catholicism and Calvinist Presbyterianism, not between Roman Catholicism and "Protestantism," seeing as everyone thought of the CoE as being protestant at the time. This is why the characters in the Tale of the Tub are named Peter, Martin, and Jack - the Church of England there is being represented by Martin Luther (whose theology, it's worth noting, was actually more conservative than that of the Church of England). The treatment of Anglicanism in wikipedia is embarrassingly biased towards Anglo-Catholic positions, and deeply ahistorical. john k (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Apostolic Succession

Editor Sbmackay has recently made a number of changes to the article, which are intended to correct an inaccurate summary of the Anglican practice of the Apostolic Succession. I feel these edits are not an improvement(and are not supported by the references cited). In particular, it is indisputable (in my view ); that all Anglican churches practice the apostolic succession in the consecration of bishops and the ordination of priests; that this distinguishes Anglcan churches from most other denominations originating in the Protestant Reformation - to the extent that many such churches (e.g. the Church of Scotland) have in the past held that this invaldiates any claim of the Anglican communion to be Protestant at all; and that this universal practice is based on a distinctive doctrine of church authority that is particularly characteristic of Anglcanism. The edits point out that the Anglican understanding of the apostolic succssion is not identical with that of Roman Catholcicism (but that is not a surprising point, as the Roman church has specifically ruled this to be the case). All this proves is that the two traditions differ as to how the apostolic succession is to be understood, not that anglicanism does not regard tha apostlic succession as an essential element in church authority. Nor does the undoubted fact that the Dioces of Sydney taks a rather different position on this from the rest of the Anglican communion, invaldiate the general point. But what do other editors think? TomHennell (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Restored the article to condition before sbmackay's POV rampage.

The Sydney position points out that even those most removed from anglo-catholicism still consider the episcopate to be historic and in the apostolic succession. Bo (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I was a little enthusiastic, sorry about that.

Firstly, all of the 'unreferenced' tags added were valid and shouldn't be removed.

Second, I agree that the reference to Richard Hookers view does not necessarily represent the English Reformers as a whole, although I believe that the statement was true. The distinction here is really important, and needs to be included in the discussion. In keeping with their views of the sufficiency of scripture (evident in the Articles), the English Reformers didn't retain succession because it is an essential part of Catholicity, but because the office of bishop is found in the New Testament. They didn't think succession was essential to true 'Catholic' ministry, but believed the successors of the apostles were those who held their doctrine. They recognised the ministry of those who didn't hold to succession. They, and many Anglicans today, interpret the 'historic episcopate' simply as the continuing order of Bishops/Priests/Deacons, rather than a strict view of tactarian succession. Even if it's practiced, you can't equate succession (which is a much narrower interpretation of this practice) with holding it as 'foundational' to Anglican identity. The fact is that many provinces don't hold that the 'historic episcopate' means apostolic sucession, and I haven't seen anything referenced to substantiate that claim (hence my alteration of the opening of the article). To achieve NPOV on this article the definition of 'historic episcopate' must be left open.

Thirdly, on SydAngs - I don't think Bo has read my comments above (under Catholicism) yet, where I pointed out the misunderstanding of the article linked to. I think the article basically proves my point that parts of the Anglican church interpret 'historic epicopate' in a way other than apostolic succession, along with English Reformers. Sbmackay (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Some interesting points there Sbmackay; however:

- it isn't good Wikpedia practice to place 'unreferenced' tags into an article without doing something further about it; if you feel that an interpretative statement requires a reference to support it, then you should supply one youself. It may be that the references you find support a different interpretation (or a rephrased interpretation), then you should raise the matter on this discussion page. Many editors regard multiple scattering of citation tags as hostile.

- the historic circumstances by which the apostolic succession came to be preserved in the Church of England at the Elizebethan settlement remain unclear (David Edwards discusses the point at some length). Most likely the queen and her reformed divines were originally primarily interested in maintaining undisputed legal succession - i.e. ensuring that the bishops and priests of the English church had undisputed title to the secular and spiritual rights and interests of their religioius corporations. But by the end of Elizabeth's reign the explicit issue of whether the consecration of Arhbishop Parker had validly transmitted the apostolic succession had become very much a live controversy between Anglican and Catholic apologists. Hooker has to be read in this context, but also Lancelot Andrewes and other proponents of a 'high' episcopal ecclesiology. What is undisputed, so far as I am aware, is that Anglican committment to the absolute neccessity of the apostolic succession in conferring valid orders has never and nowhere subsequently wavered; and consequently the foundation narrative of almost all Anglican churches can only be understood in these terms (the United States and Canada being the most obvious examples). I do not then see any objection to understnding apostolic succession as 'foundational' to Anglican churches (other than the the exceptional instance of C of E).

- I am not equipped to enter into andy debate about the Diocese of Sydney. However, saying "it is done in Sydney" is not the same as "It is done in parts of the Anglican church". TomHennell (talk) 09:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

In response:

- I have searched for references for some of the more disputable claims, but am yet to find anything. The fact is that many sections of the article have many disputable unreferenced claims. Many sections have no references at all. The verifiability policy is clear that any material that is challenged, or likely to be challenged should be referenced. The amount of debate on this page is evidence enough that at least some citation tags are warranted. And this needs to be assessed on the basis of the objective quality of the article, rather than the implied motivations of the person placing tags.

- "committment to the absolute neccessity of the apostolic succession in conferring valid orders has never and nowhere subsequently wavered". This is the particular claim that I have yet to see any verification of. The reason it seems so unlikely to me is that it would make it impossible to be Protestant! And yet the Anglican church has historically been remarkably Protestant. I have a feeling there is quite a bit of Nth American bias in this article. For example, under 'specific Anglican beliefs': "Following the passing of the 1604 Canons, all Anglican clergy had to formally subscribe to the Articles. Today, however, the articles are no longer binding, but are seen as a historical document that has played a significant role in the shaping of Anglican identity. Now, that is true of North America, but by no means the whole Communion. I come from NZ and all clergy there still promise to uphold the Articles. And that's just one little Antipodean tip of the iceberg! Sbmackay (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Sbmackay, I think you will find the proceedings of the Lambeth Conferences helpful on these matters - especially 1948 (in respect of the absolute necessity of the apostolic succession in conferring valid priestly orders); and 1968 (on the apostolic succession again, and on the 39 articles). Much of the discussion in these occasions focussed around the Church of South India, the Old Catholic church, and the status of Florence Li Tim-Oi. There is an very wide degree of variation in practice and doctrine across the Anglican communion, but no Anglican church accepts as valid, priestly orders that have not been episcopally conferred in accordance with the apostolic succession. This is so exceptional a position amongst churches of the Reformation tradition, that it has to be stated unequivocally in the article. As you point out, many Anglican's consider themselves to be Protestant, but many (perhaps most) Protestants do not, for exactly this reason. As to the matter of Nth American bias, I would agree with you - and would welcome clarification of matters that are stated as being more widely applicable than is actually the case. TomHennell (talk) 12:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I have managed to track down Bishop John Pearson's classic statement of Anglican belief with reference to the apostolic succession;

"Christ said to His Apostles, As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you. As He had from the Father a command to teach the people, and to depute ministers who were needed for this duty and furnished with the necessary authority, so likewise the Apostles had the same office and command, with the same power of choosing ministers, and so on in a continuous succession to the end of the world. Accordingly, an Apostle is an extraordinary Bishop, and a Bishop an ordinary Apostle ; and thus the Episcopate was founded by Christ in the persons of the Apostles, and, as existing in the persons of their successors, it is derived from the Apostles.

It is arguable that Pearson's statement was over-claiming even in the Restoration church; but his general position is the basis for most discussions at an official level over the past 100 years. The basic elements of the doctrine comprise these three assertions; that valid priestly and episcopal orders cqn only be conferred through consecration by bishops themselves validly consecrated in line of succession from the apostolic chuch; that this consecration embodies Christ's final charge to his followers to go out into all the world and make disciples of the nations; and that the handing on of this charge from the apostles to the episcopate also involved a handing on of some aspects of apostolic authority. It is my contention that the first of Pearson's assertion is indeed universally characteristic of modern day Anglicanism in all its forms. Pearson's second assertion is now probably only acccepted in a more indirect form. The third is perhaps the most controversial, in that Pearson explicitly rejects the Catholic doctine of bishops as being successors to the full range of apostolic authority. But if episcopal authority is a substantially limited form of apostolic authority, then the qustion is begged; which apostolic authority is extraordinary and 'personal' and hence dies with them; and which is continued in the ordinary office of a bishop. TomHennell (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Church of England itself no longer requires direct subscription to the 39 Atricles, clergy now swear to "uphold the historic formularies of the Church of England" or somethign along those lines. David Underdown (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

...which includes the 39 articles. Clearly. Indirect/direct, they're still required to swear to uphold them. Likewise Australia:

"The Anglican Church of Australia, being an Apostolic Church, receives and retains the Catholic Faith, which is grounded in Holy Scripture and expressed in the Creed, and within its own history, in the Thirty-nine Articles, in the Book of Common Prayer and in the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons."

I really don't have a stamina for these Lambeth-like conversations, but I may come back to this at some stage.Sbmackay (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but if you look at why the change was made, you'll see that the clear intent was to "downgrade" the importance of the articles. David Underdown (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well maybe the article should say that then? Sure there may be subtleties to the oath, but as it stands the article is simply not accurate. 'In the CofE clergy must swear to uphold the historic formularies, which includes the 39 articles'.

Another example of dubious claims - "it is a canonical requirement to use fermented wine for the Communion". That may be a Lambeth declaration, and it may be true of Nth America, but that's not equivalent to canonical law everywhere. Sbmackay (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the wording. If you can offer actual citations for your doubts, then the general pattern will have to do. Likewise, if you can offer an example of a province where it is not a canonical requirement to use wine, complete with citation, then we can change it to something like "in most provinces" or some such. Tb (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've foudn the book I was thinking of (I think it was TomHennell who dug it out once before), Aspects of anglican Identity by Colin Podmore. It's not completely availble in Google books but Chapter 4, which covers the position of the 39 Articles, and the declaration of assent which CofE clergy are now required to make is available in full. As I recall from my mother's ordination as deacon a couple of year's ago, the Church in Wales position is similar. David Underdown (talk) 10:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Use of this Article in a published book

A 2008 version of this article has been published as a book Church Schism & Corruption by Achim Nkosi Maseko, and is now available on Google Books and lulu publishers. The same author has a blog where the link to his published book is given as christianunitycampaign.blogspot.com. Also on the 'Causes' page of facebook the same author, Achim Nkosi Maseko has provided a link to the same book. Apparently, the book in question has been republished into six seperate books from Book 1 to Book 6. All these books are downloadable for free from internet

A 'Press Release' from the author himself (found here) says:

Very astounding, original, factual and revealing. Great work with extensive research combined with profound outlay of facts. This book will surely change the Christian world landscape as it provides never-been-seen facts about the evil practices in the whole Christendom.

Sbmackay (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Catholics not in communion with Rome

The category defined itself as follows:

A list of professed Catholic groups, or persons, who identify themselves with Roman Catholicism (at least as it was since the Council of Trent) and who were (or have been) officially censured as excommunicate by Rome.

Anglicanism obviously does not fit within this definition, as it does not identify itself with post-Tridentine Catholicism. john k (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Although Anglicanism generally understands itself as a reformed Catholic tradition its Catholicism is generally ( but not always ) pre-Tridentine in character. The category probably requires a different definition. Afterwriting (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Any definition that includes Anglicanism would also have to include a whole ton of churches that are not normally seen or described as Catholic - at the very least, the Eastern Orthodox and the Scandinavian Lutheran churches, but probably also all the other Lutheran and Reformed denominations, and maybe to all Nicene denominations. The current definition is the one which was created five years ago when the category was created, and has never been disputed until now. Anglicanism doesn't belong. john k (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Catholic

There has been a long discussion at Catholic Church about the name of the article and the "Roman" has been removed. Given that Catholic is also the common name the use of Roman in the lede is unnecessary. I realise that the anglo-catholic group has a position here but I think it is enough that the "half way" concept is there (despite the 39 articles). In general we need a lot more citations in the article to support some of the positions taken. --Snowded ^TALK 09:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

the idea of the Catholic Church means something else within Anglicanism, and the (Roman) Catholic Church itself recognises this see Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission. We need to be absolutely clear which usage is intended at any given point in the article. The mediation on the article name agreed that it was entirely about the name fo the article, and not usage elswhere, and that other articles should not have Roman added or removed without discussion. David Underdown (talk) 09:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, the other article intentionally states that it is *also" known as the "Roman Catholic Church" - so it has not been removed as a name of that church. Secondly, as mentioned above, the mediation on that article's name agreed that the use of the name of "Catholic Church" *only* applied to that particular article and was not to used as a reason for altering other articles. This agreement, however, has been blatantly ignored by some editors involved in that mediation ( including, incredibly, the so-called "mediator" ). My own view is that in articles about other churches is that it is usually more appropriate to use "Roman Catholic Church" and that is generally already the case in such articles. Afterwriting (talk) 10:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I realise that some people are unhappy with that mediation but thats life on wikipedia. Also common name applies here, People normally use "Catholic" unless they are making a religious point. In the context of the sentence it is very clear what it means, there is no ambiguity so the common name, and the article name should be used. Its Wiki-lawyering to say the name change does not extend, although any disputed change needs discussion. --Snowded ^TALK 10:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Quite - there is a distinction here, Catholicism with regards to Anglicanism has a particular meaning, and it is not Roman Catholicism, and while it may appear clear to you in one place, it is confusing to use terms in different ways within the same article. You have not addressed the fact that the official dialogue between the two Churches has always included Roman its name for these very reasons. The issue of Anglicans regarding themselves as "Catholic and Reformed" (or sometimes "Catholic, but Reformed"), is an essential part of the Anglican identity as it is today, see http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/history/ and http://www.ireland.anglican.org/index.php?do=about - that is thewhole point of the idea of the via media, between Protestant and Roman Catholic, yes, and in this instance the difference between the Anglican understanding of Catholicity and that of the Roman Catholic Church is vital, take the "Roman out and it destroys the meaning entirely. David Underdown (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well there is also a difference between the Orthodox understanding of Catholicism and that of Rome. The argument that "Roman" has been used in official dialogue is more convincing, but would be better not in a primary source. My understanding is that "Catholic but Reformed" is an important part of the identity of a part of the Anglican communion but not all of it, or lease not without the large "C" becoming a small "c". --Snowded ^TALK 11:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Then your understanding is incorrect. This is a mainstream definition of Anglicanism and is not just that of a a "part". And arguments about "C" and "c" use are essentially meaningless except in the minds of those who want to falsely assert that "Catholic" only validly refers to Roman Catholicism. Afterwriting (talk) 11:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If its a mainstream definition you should have no difficulty in finding a third party source (not a self-description) which confirms it. You should also stop making assumptions about the motives of other editors and address the content issue as well as showing some respect for WP:BRD --Snowded ^TALK 12:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"Catholic and Reformed"

The term "Catholic and Reformed" has long been used as a self-description within Anglicanism. Just because one editor is not familiar with this is no excuse to simply remove it. If you want a reference then add a citation required tag - but don't simply remove it at the first opportunity. Afterwriting (talk) 11:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm fully entitled to remove newly inserted material per WP:BRD. You also need a third party source, self=description is more problematic. --Snowded ^TALK 11:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Then on this basis you won't object if I begin removing all references in articles about the Roman Catholic Church which come from official Roman Catholic sources as they aren't "third party" either. The reason why the Roman Catholic Church is usually called the "Catholic Church" is on the basis of its "self-definition". Others don't accept this definition. Afterwriting (talk) 12:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If new text is inserted on any article then another editor can revert it and request discussion. Your source has been challenged and you need to discuss it. You also need to address the issue on this page. The name of Catholic Church has been determined by wikipedia process, you may not like that and you can also challenge it as nothing is fixed. In the meantime you need to come up with a third party reference to support a statement that Anglicanism is both Catholic & Reformed, and you need to address the points I made above in response to another editor. --Snowded ^TALK 12:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed - which you obviously haven't - I actually started this discussion. So you can stop the crap about my "need to discuss it". Your arguments so far demonstrate your highly biased POV. If you do a Google search on "Catholic and Reformed" + "Anglican" you can find numerous articles which support this claim about Anglican self-definition. So stop your disruptive edit warring and insisting on your prejudiced understanding of what "Catholic" means. Afterwriting (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

A discussion means reaching agreement, not simply making a statement here and then reinserting your opinion before agreement is reached. --Snowded ^TALK 14:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

How "third-party" does something have to be? http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eM8-AAAAIAAJ&q=%22catholic+and+reformed%22&dq=%22catholic+and+reformed%22&hl=en&ei=5RmSTLHYHpSmOKO3tMsH&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAQ is published by SPCK, which is of course an Anglican Missionary society. As Anglicanus says, hos much of the Catholic Church article depends on publications of the church, or of theologians who belong to it? Try also [4] [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] or jsut browse these Google book results to see what a commonplace it is. David Underdown (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

And you seem to be missing the point that this is a matter of self-identity, it was Anglicanism understands itself to be, for which surely the most authoritative source are statements of the Church itself of its position, just as the Catechism etc are used to show how the (Roman) Catholic Church describes itself. David Underdown (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not challenging the phrase is in use, and is favored by some but the nature of the two words "Catholic" and "Reformed" is (as stated in the body of the article) not agreed between Churches within the communion or within groups within those Churches. Something supported several of the references above support. Its not just that phrase but a large part of the text which comes before it which leaves the wrong impression. Reading the whole thing again (as relief from my "abusive and bullying behaviour") it seems to me that a lot of material in the lede needs to be in the main body and the lede itself drastically shortened. Such an action would allow the wider context of the phrase to be properly explained and the lede in turn to summarise the article rather than introduce new material. Oh, and I am not missing the point on self-identity, the point is that third party sources are more reliable and would normally be found to support primary assertions --Snowded ^TALK 14:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Different parts of Anglicanism may understand the precise meaning of the phrase differently, but I'd been interested to see any evidence of that aspect being rejected entirely (though if the Sydney Anglicans did I wouldn't be entirely surprised, they are certainly much keener on the Reformed aspect). All I am asking is that the same standards be applied to this page as they have been to the catholic Church page, wehre the self-identity is larlgely expressed in terms of official documents and/or recognised theologians. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and I'm afraid I odn't personally own a huge theological library. I'd not dispute that this article is weak on sourcing overall, there's been no particualr push to tidy it up, and I don't feel I have the resources to embark on it. But it is fundamental to an understanding of Anglicanism that its understanding of Catholicism is not co-terminus with Roman Catholicism, which is a term used by the Catholic Church as has been repeatedly demostrated, and in particular in its own dialogue with Anglicanism. I think at this point we would all benefit from input from others if possible, rather than the three of us going round and round. David Underdown (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well at the moment two of us are discussing and a third is throwing out insults; but it does need some more editors involved. I'm not opposed to using authoritative Anglican sources, but that is not the same thing as a web site. I have a reasonable theological library but not much on the history of the Church which is what is needed here. I am pretty sure that there has been a previous debate elsewhere on Wikipedia which established that Anglicanism is a Protestant religion so this article is already at variance with agreed text elsewhere. In effect we should be saying that the Anglican Church is a part of the Protestant tradition, but has maintained aspects of catholic belief and practice (as did the Lutherans) and then reference the Anglo-Catholic movement of the 19thC. Its also clear that there are different claims from within the Anglo-catholic wing and increasingly more strident claims to contrary from the evangelical wings, although those are as much against liberals as they are against Anglo-Catholics. At the moment the article is (as you say) very badly referenced and also (my opinion) orientated towards the Anglo-Catholic perspective. That relates to the content and the lede. --Snowded ^TALK 14:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You are the one constantly "throwing out insults" and continuing to make blatantly hypocritical comments at every opportunity. I have already asked you to cease this but you continue to persist in your uncivil behaviour. It is an established principle for articles that an entity's own self-understanding should be respected - *not* the biased assessment of others. In this case it is the mainstream view within Anglicanism that it is both Catholic and Reformed. This is *not* just the view within Anglo-Catholicism and you and other editors persist in the nonsense that this is only an Anglo-Catholic view and assess what Anglicanism means by "Catholicism" by reference to Anglo-Catholic and Roman Catholic understandings of the term. Whatever Roman Catholics or others may think of Anglicanism's "Catholicism" or "Protestantism" is essentially irrelevant. The simple fact is that Anglicanism generally defines itself as being "Catholic and Reformed". It also does *not* generally define itself as "Protestant" but if you want to find references that support that description then you can find them - as you can also find just as many references which decsribe Anglicanism as a "Catholic" tradition. Afterwriting (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You must be using some new definition of "insult" which is unfamiliar to me, perhaps you would point me to the specific language which concerns you? Your own is pretty self-evident. You might also want to spend some time reading the actual arguments rather than engaging in intemperate responses and edit summaries. Your language and your edit warring without engagement place you on the verge of behaviour which would justify a formal complaint. Please restrain yourself--Snowded ^TALK 15:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As I've already said on my talk page, your capacity for blatantly dishonest and hypocritical comments is quite amazing. Your own persistent uncivil and bullying behaviour has already put you well over the verge of what justifies a formal complaint. So - once again - please restrain yourself. Afterwriting (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You've said several things, but you have failed to give an example, parroting statements back may seem clever to you, but its not a way of avoiding a request to justify your comments. --Snowded ^TALK 16:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well as the rest of the talk page shows, you are not the first to express the opinion that the presentation might favour Anglo-Catholic views. At times it would have been uncontroversial to describe Anglicanism as being purely Protestant, but I'm not sure it's an accurate description of where it stands today, and you will probably find almost as many shades of opinion as there are Anglicans. David Underdown (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Happy to agree that there are many shades of opinion. I doubt by the way that anything is purely Protestant, any dissenting group will have various degrees of dissent. The point is that they dissent/schism whatever. The general debate on classification was here that that placed Anglicanism within the Protestant tradition based on sources so we probably need to go that way here. That then makes it easier to point to the Anglo-Catholic tradition (for which I have much respect having been a part of it many years ago in The Church in Wales). --Snowded ^TALK 14:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Snowded's suggestions seem reasonable here, but of course I've always found the Anglo-Catholic bias of Anglicanism articles problematic. In terms of use of "Catholic" by Anglicans, I would doubt that any Anglicans would explicitly reject that. But low church Anglicans presumably view "Catholic" in the same sense that all other protestants do: "one Holy Catholic Church" - that the church is universal. The particular Anglo-Catholic sense of the term - that it refers to the apostolic succession of bishops - is, so far as I know, wholly idiosyncratic. "Catholic" should not be used in that sense in wikipedia without considerable explanation and context, and only when it can be explained that this is an Anglo-Catholic concept. john k (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It is *not* just an "Anglo-Catholic" concept at all - it has been Anglicanism's constant self-understanding since the English Reformation that it is both a "Catholic" and a "Reformed" church tradition. The notion that this is somehow an Anglo-Catholic understanding is false - both historically and theologically. Afterwriting (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure of that. I think the phrase doesn't really come into play until the 18thC (open to seeing a citation that says otherwise). I don't think you would see it in Cranmer and his followers, look at his support of Melanchthon. This needs some third party sources badly --Snowded ^TALK 16:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall some of this conception going back to Laud. But Laud is not a particular hero of low church Anglicans, as far as I know. Laud also was a failure - his vision of the CoE was defeated, latitudinarians owned the eighteenth century, and the Oxford Movement, while drawing on Laudian ideas, was a new beast that emerged in the nineteenth century. At any rate, I did not say that the idea that the Church of England is "Catholic" is purely Anglo-Catholic. I said that the meaning of Catholic as "apostolic succession of bishops" is purely Anglo-Catholic. Cranmer and Parker would have viewed themselves as "Catholic," but in the same sense that Luther and Calvin did - as believers in a single universal church of all believers, going back to the time of the early church fathers. john k (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Which makes the point that the main body of the article needs to provide a richer context to the evolving use of language here. I need to hunt down some histories. --Snowded ^TALK 16:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, I don't actually see a huge use of sources in that discussion - and whether it's really fair to claim consensus on the small number of editors involved in that discussion. David Underdown (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to go back over it in detail, but there was (and this from memory) a clear and authoritative history article that made the division. --Snowded ^TALK 15:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

From a preliminary reading of the above, plus the article and the source in question, I would say that this is something that needs additional sourcing. Clearly the C of E is a valuable source about itself and can be cited; but it would also be useful to have one or two additional "views" or "ways of seeing" this, with other quality sources. As a former C of E member, I also frequently heard the phrase "both Catholic and Reformed", but equally I suspect there are many quality sources that will describe anglicanism as being essentially Protestant in nature and also distinct from Catholicism. So it needs to be approached with some care and a "one source" view isn't quite up to the mark. I don't think the cite tag was quite right there though, it's more a case of ensuring NPOV across the whole introduction including that statement. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The cite tag was an alternative to edit waring, I assumed other editors would respect WP:BRD and didn't want to go past 2RR, not perfect but better than a revert battle. In practice I think we need to tag the whole article or at least the lede then get to work on some properly sourced material. As you say single sources, especially those which are "internal" are not really good enough.--Snowded ^TALK 17:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Moving forwards

I added two tags to the article: the need for a general clean up and also the complete lack of citations in many sections There are some immediate issues that need to be resolved, for example the contradiction in the lede with Christianity over the major divisions of Christianity. There are various ways of dealing with that, one of which is not to make any such claim but simply talk about its origins (at which point Catholic and Reformed makes sense with a 17C ref). I pinged an old contact on the SCM Press (I was briefly a director back in the 70s/80s) and have a couple of books en route and when I get them will attempt some changes. Best overall to discuss what needs to be done first however. Comments? --Snowded ^TALK 08:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to note, that I plan to do some work on this over Christmas now I have the text books at home. --Snowded ^TALK 08:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Principal traditions

The lede phrase "Anglicanism forms one of the principal traditions of Christianity" is at odds with the much better sourced statements at Christianity which correctly (given the 39 articles) place it in the Protestant tradition all be it with some qualifications as nothing is neat and tidy in this area. I suggest we change this to say something along the lines of Anglicanism is within the Protestant tradition, but had retained some beliefs and practices from Catholicism or something similar. --Snowded ^TALK 08:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the lede is unsatisfactory; but categorising Anglcanism as "within the Protestant tradition", is (in my view) something that can only be done by robbing the term 'Protestant' of its positive character. Protestants (in a simplified catetgorisation) must believe in justifcation by faith, the priesthood of all believers, and the sole authority of scripture. Anglicans may claim to hold all three doctrines; but most Protestants would consider the Anglican doctrines of the apostolic succession of episcopacy, the liberal interpretqtion of scripture, and of the authority of the ecumenical councils and creeds, to be incompatible with a strict applicaiton of these three doctrines. Anglicans often describe themselves as 'both Protestant and Catholic'; but it is plain that neither strict Catholics, nor strict Protestans would accept them as co-religionists without strong reservations. In my view, it is much better to describe Anglicanism as "originating within the traditon of Reformed Protestantism". The idea that all Christianity could be divided into Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox camps, is fundamentally a construct of late 19th century Euro-centric Orientalism, and should be abandoned as lacking any real content in the current context. TomHennell (talk) 10:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree its problematic and I understand the Protestant position here and the conflict in the Anglican Church between traditional and liberal, protestant and anglo-catholic further illustrates it. Not so sure I agree with you on the "construct" argument. We do have the two great schisms although the Protestant one is messy and extended. Whatever it is clear that they are not one of the major divisions. I like your idea of originating within the traditon of Reformed Protestantism" however. If no one else contributes I'll try and edit along those lines--Snowded ^TALK 11:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I assume you meant to say three great schisms: Chalcedonian/Mononphysite; Greek/Latin; Catholic/Reformed. Strictly, you might add a fourth; Trinitarian/non-Trinitarian. My point is that the label 'Protestant' has no constant understanding in this schema; in the sixteenth century it broadly denoted Lutheranism, i.e. those Trinitarian reformed traditions that did not acknowledge the leadership of Geneva. In the 17th century - in the context of the Thirty Years War - it came to mean something like 'Reformed and Lutheran together'. In the early 18th century the UK parlaiment adopted a definition broadly equivalent to "Established reformed non-Catholic Christianity" (but this really was a construct, since neither of the two specificqally churches so designated would acknowledge the validity of the other). In the nineteenth century it came to mean something like 'Western non-Catholic Christianity' - under the influence of the American Revolution, and of the missionary movement. The problem with all of these lables is that they are essentially negative; protetants are varioiusly those who are not; Calvinists, Catholics, Anabaptists; as the designation of the 'other' changes, so the content of 'Protestantism' changes. I think it is better to identify Anglicanism by how it is constituted now, rather than according to historical sub-divisions and schisms. TomHennell (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Anglicanism does not generally identify itself as being a 'Protestant' tradition so it is therefore entirely incorrect for others to claim that it is. Also, the Roman Catholic Church itself usually makes a clear distinction between Anglicanism and Protestantism. Anglicanism's understanding of itself is expressed in the phrase 'Catholic and Reformed' which is already in the article. This is also sometimes expressed as 'Catholic but not Roman, Reformed but not Protestant'. The 39 Articles do not have anywhere near the kind of doctrinal authority within Anglicanism that many in other traditions imagine they do. Regardless of how the articles are interpreted they have very limited authority are not definitive of what constitutes Anglican doctrine. There is no valid reason, therefore, to define Anglicanism as 'Protestant' and doing so is ignorant. Anglicanus (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There is of course a difference between how Anglicanism chooses to define itself, and how it is defined by reliable third party sources. Those on Christianity appear to place it as Protestant. I've heard both sides of the 39 articles argument by the way and accept that you represent one perspective. My real problem however is not to bracket Anglicanism into a Protestant group, but I do think it is not sustainable for it to be claimed as a 4th major tradition. I am happy with Tom's suggestion that we just define it within its historical context and current constitution. --Snowded ^TALK 14:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Then that is your POV. And you certainly seem determined from these and previous comments to insist that Anglicanism be defined as 'Protestant' despite the fact that Anglicanism generally understands itself to be distinct from that tradition. As a distinct tradition it cannot be correctly classified as being within the 'Protestant' tradition. Also, as the numbers of Anglicans worldwide, I believe, place its membership third after the Roman Catholic and Orthodox traditions - and before any Protestant traditions - this would make it a major tradition within Christianity as the article correctly states. Anglicanus (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

At the moment we have a weak source here (and I would like to see the actual text) to support your position. The stronger sources on the Christianity article do not support a statement that it is a major tradition. Maybe you could deal with that content issue rather attempting somewhat lamely to distract with personal comments (your user name of course has no implied POV of any type). Tom's suggestion is a neat way of avoiding any conflict here and you have failed to comment on that. Maybe you would? --Snowded ^TALK 09:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I can live with the recent edits as a compromise even though I don't necessarily agree with the reasoning behind them. My principal objection is with your insistence that Anglicanism should be defined as Protestant. That is clearly a POV - which you are entitled to have but not to insist on - which is in conflict with how Anglicanism is usually described, at least in academic circles. How it is understood or described on the 'popular' level may be another matter. I am an academic theologian and, in my world at least, most Roman Catholic Catholic and Protestant theologians I know would not describe the Anglican tradition as Protestant and clearly see it as a being a largely distinct tradition formed from aspects of both Western Catholic and Reformed theology and ecclesiology. In fact it is the Protestant theologians I know who are the most definite in saying that Anglicanism isn't a Protestant tradition. As long as you refrain from insisting on your point of view that is then we can avoid conflict on this issue. Anglicanus (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware that I am insisting on anything, neither have I expressed a particular POV but rather referenced the sources on Christianity which classify it as protestant. Also the Anglican references I have found don't see it as a distinct tradition, but rather as a collection of traditions. Individual opinions, including professional status are not really what Wikipedia is about. Its all about the reliable sources. If I reference a classification on another article you should not assume a POV for myself, or for that matter any other editor. --Snowded ^TALK 13:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not just 'assuming' a POV on your part. You certainly do have a very definite POV on this issue - as well as, it seems, an attitude that your POV is the only possibly acceptable one. This comes across very clearly in your previous comments on this issue and your intention to rewrite the article to reflect them. Your appeal to the references in the article on Christianity is especially weak and unconvincing. As you should be well aware, reliable sources can be found to support all sorts of positions and viewpoints on complex issues. When there is significant disagreement about the facts or interpretation of an issue these should be addressed in a balanced and NPOV manner. You, however, seem to want to dismiss any viewpoints or reliable sources that conflict with your apparently entrenched opinions. This seems evident from your attempts above to reject the numerous reliable sources which define Anglicanism as 'Catholic and Reformed'. So I do not consider your claims that you are not insisting on anything or have not expressed a particular POV to be credible. Your own comments contradict this and the appeal to selective sources that support particular opinions is not how Wikipedia articles are meant to be developed. Anglicanus (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You don't like disagreement do you? Maybe you confuse disagreement with dismissal? Consistency between articles is a valid concern and the authorities used on the Christianity article are more substantial than those which were used here. Calling this"weak and unconvincing" may give you personal satisfaction but it does not deal with the content issue raised. If you think they are selective sources then I suggest you go to that article and challenge them. As to Catholic and Reformed, my point stands that this is an internal description not a third party one. I've taken that off line to research it and will return to it at some stage in the future. That is called responsible editing. Name calling and broad brush accusations represents a failure to follow WP:AGF and are hardly worthy of your claimed profession. --Snowded ^TALK 21:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

In fairness to Anglicanus here, the Christianity article is not at all satisfactory in its general categorisation of the traditions of Christianity, and the references it contains are not to leading authorities in the subject. Furthermore, the text of that article is not consistent with the illustrative tree diagrams that supplement it (allthough, if anything, the diagrams are even less satisfactory). Wikipedia is not at its best in very general articles (few encyclopedias are). More authoritative works of reference (such as the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church) state explicitly that the degree to which Anglicanism may be considered Protestant continues to be strongly disputed.

I think the diagram is dire, if you want to propose its deletion you will have my full support. I'm also happy to agree that many protestants dispute that the Anglican Church is Protestant, and ditto for Catholics. Maybe its more accurate to say that it has facets of the major divisions. The SCM study guide (to take one source) avoids the whole issue by simply describing each faction and makes no pretense to say that they are integrated in any way. --Snowded ^TALK 21:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Snowded here, that Anglacanism (notwithstanding the total headcount of its constituent churches) cannot be considered a distinct 'major' tradition within Christianity overall. I think the section on Anglican identity within the article explains why. Some Anglicans, especially those who are Evangelical in theological orientation, certainly do see themselves as within a common 'Protestantism'; other Anglicans see themselves as essentially 'Catholic' (but currently separated from Rome); others (perhaps a majority in England at least) would deny that there is any distinctive Anglican identity, over and above the underlying shared identity of all Christians. The most recent trends in Anglican ecclesiology (Booty and Sykes) reject these 'easy' reach-me-down identities, since they imply counterpart identities for Protestnatism and Catholicism that neither of these major traditions would accept. These theorists would say that Anglicanism is indeed distinct - and would identify that distinction in terms of an understnading of prescribed liturgy, the systematic public reading of scripture, and an apostollic ministry; all within an explicit structure of canon law. This has certainly been found to be a way by which a wide variety of Christians have been able mutually to re-examine, develop and share their stories of faith - though whether it capable of surviving some current challenges is still moot. What it isn't is either Catholicism (as traditionally defined in terms of communion with Rome), or Protestantism (as it has developed since the 19th century). Paradoxically perhaps, it is close to an application of the principle: 'semper reformanda' as found in the reformed theologies of Luther and Calvin. Alister Mcgrath proposes that this Protestanism of Reformed Method (as distinct from the standard understanding of Protestism as a defined Confession of Faith) should be seen as the true core of the Protestant Idea (but of course McGrath is an Anglican as well as a self-defined Protestant). In my view, if you are going to categorise Anglicanism within a tradition , it is as Reformed, not as Protestant or Catholic; but certainly not as a distinct tradition in its own right. TomHennell (talk) 10:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Two of the sources I have don't talk of it as a distinct tradition, but have separate chapters on Protestant and Anglo-Catholic, i.e. seeing Anglicanism as an organisational form that accommodates different traditions. --Snowded ^TALK 16:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'c like to add my voice to those who think we should not describe Anglicanism as a distinct branch of Christianity. john k (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)