Talk:List of archbishops of Canterbury/Archive 1

Archive 1

WP:FLC

This is a good list - is there anything that needs to be done before it is nominated at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Done it now :) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

It's now made it to featured status! jguk 11:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Ramsey vs Ramsay

How is the last name of Arthur Michael Ramsey spelled? After googling both versions it would seem that RAMSEY is correct based on the list of places using that spelling (leaving out the Wikipedia and mirrors entries) but there are severl sites that have RAMSAY. CambridgeBayWeather 07:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, the official website thinks it is "Arthur Michael Ramsey". -- ALoan (Talk) 09:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Duh! That'll teach me to play late at night when I should be sleeeping. CambridgeBayWeather 13:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

"Anglican" Terminology & Reformation

"Anglican" has rightly become a less-favored catch-all with no clear descriptive value. E.g., it lumps Laud w/ Grindal and Parker, etc., whereas Cranmer is "Roman Catholic." "Anglican" clearly cannot refer to even a broad consensus on theology and church policy. Why isn't there a break or special table for the period after Henry VIII's break with Rome, then the Marian era, and then everything after? Warham, Cranmer and Pole present the main problematic area. Might also mention when England was under interdict in the middle ages--when was that---under King John? Dan Knauss 00:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Current break confusing : NPOV?

I don't think the division into "Roman Catholic" and then "Anglican" archbishops is useful. Prior to the great schism in about 1050 "Roman Catholicism" didn't exist anyway per sae and between 1533 and 1570 it is misleading and includes prominent protestants as Roman Catholic. It is also not NPOV, since from an Anglican perspective prior to the schism they were still Anglican archbishops, just ones which happened to be in communion with Rome. When Perhaps "Pre-Schism" Archbishops is a better term? --BozMo talk 11:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"Catholic" and "Protestant" seems to get the job done. - Nunh-huh 22:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not about "getting the job done" - it is about proper usage. "Roman Catholic" reflects general usage and is needed in many pre-Reformation (Even-pre-1054 schism)discussions to differentiate between the Roman Catholic Church and other Churchs, commonly known as Catholic, who may or may not have been in union with the Holy See.

Marionite Catholics effected union with the Roman Catholic Church c. 1181. The Armenian Catholic Church entered into union with the Roman Catholic Church in 1195. (see Jonathon Riley-Smith's Atlas of the Crusades) The proper usage for both of these Churches whose split predated 1054, yet whose reunion with Rome was prior to the Reformation is:

The Armenian Catholic Church

Marionite Catholic

For clarity, Roman Catholic Church is proper usage. To argue other wise is to sacrafice NPOV. I will be happy to discuss this further, but given the above case, I am restoring "Roman Catholic". This will also make it clear that (AT THE VERY LEAST) from the time of the St. Augstine until the assent of Matthew Parker, it had been understood that the see of Canterbury was in Union with the ROMAN CATHOLIC Church. SECisek 02:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. The first attested use of the term "Roman Catholic" in English is 1581 - the term came into being as a term of disapprobation, being used as the designation employed in the legislative enactments of Protestant England. Before that time, no one had thought of such a term. The Archbishops of Canterbury before that period were Catholic, not "Roman Catholic". Using the term for the Church during that period is anachronistic and ahistorical - that is, it takes the Anglican POV and imposes it on a time before there were Anglicans and Roman Catholics. - Nunh-huh 03:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

For further perspective from the Catholic point of view, see [1] - Nunh-huh 03:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, sir, not nonsense: convention. This is not about imposing "Anglican POV" - this is about usage. This is not about history, this is not about theology, but this IS about conventional usage here on Wikipedia - usage for clarity. Here on Wikipedia the term Catholic has very well established meaningS (with an 's') including, but not limited to, the Roman "Catholic point of view" (your words) that you feel should be imposed on this article. New Advent is a great site. I refer to it often, but much of it has a Roman Catholic POV, that's fine - that is why that encyclopedia was produced. Wikipedia, however is different. Here we strive for clear, NPOV articles. I will correct this one more time with an appeal to general usage of the ambiguous Catholic versus the direct Roman Catholic. Click both these links. Ask yourself which one you think the link in this article should point to. I will be happy to continue this debate. Note the usage in the open paragraphs of this very article. Other thoughts?

SECisek 05:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course a list of Archbishops of Canterbury is about history! And we must use the terms correctly, rather than misleadingly.- Nunh-huh 22:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think an Anglican POV would like "Roman Catholic" (since that might imply it was non-Anglican then) OR Catholic" (since that might imply that it isn't Catholic today). An Anglican POV would prefer one single list without the § break, I imagine. Doops | talk 05:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks proper to me, Doops: exactly how the wiki process is supposed to work!

SECisek 05:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Both Anglicans and Roman Catholics can agree that the Archbishops prior to the split were Catholic. But to say that the difference is "communion with Rome" is to deliberately understate the fact that they were of different sects. In fact, if one adopted the language of the English legislation which established Anglicanism as the state church, the difference is between Catholics and Protestants. Since Anglicans nowadays would object to the designation, there's no harm in calling them "Anglicans" or even "Church of England", but to call Catholics "Roman Catholics" before the split is to put the cart before the horse. - Nunh-huh 22:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

On at least one edit YOU YOURSELF approved of this usage: [2]

What is more, "Roman Catholic" was used at the time when the article was raised to FA status:

[3]

Don't make this into an edit war if you don't have to. I have again restored the usage Roman Catholic.

You are the one continuing to make your changes despite the fact you have been informed they are contentious. I'm content to place an NPOV tag; perhaps you will become interested in discussing alternatives to your preferred version rather than imposing it by dint of repeated reversions. - Nunh-huh 23:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I thought "in communion with Rome" avoided the contentiousness nicely. I totally see why "Roman Catholic" is less-than-ideal, historically-speaking, and I totally see why "Catholic" is less-than-ideal since it seems by implication to say that modern Archbishops AREN'T Catholic, something they might dispute. Hence my proposal. Doops | talk 00:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right that what is suggested is part of the problem, but "in communion with Rome" suggests that that is the only difference between the two, which isn't the case. And it's not parallel, unless you propose "In communion with Rome" vs. "In communion with Canterbury"... :) I think what is needed is simply to name the two sects by their preferred, historical names, as the article did until about two days ago. - Nunh-huh 01:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

To difuse a little, I am sure you are acting in good faith. I am, too. This article was raised to FA status in 2005 and the Roman Catholic tag was there. If you look through the history since that time, there has been a "dint of repeated reversions" to change the POV that was considered good enough to get this article the coveted FA rating. You are just the latest person to pick this up and run with it. That said, I beleive the dispute proves that it is not fully acceptable as it stands.

I am quite intrested in discussing this. I felt that Doops' compromise (which was in use in this article at one time) makes it clear that the ABC was in union with Rome at one time and is not any more.

As I pointed out elsewhere, I think the tags are redundant at least and at worst misleading. Cranmer certainly was no mere heritic Roman Catholic during the reign of Edward VI, he was the Primate of the Church of England. Moving the tag up to include him ignores the fact that he was in union with Rome when he took the see and raises problems because of Cardinal Pole.

As the original title of this talk article points out the: "Current break (is) confusing". The paragraph above the list explains what the split was and when it occured. The notes on Cranmer and Pole make it quite clear where the break was. Perhaps the divsion titles SHOULD be removed and list should be restored to being just that - a list of ABCs from St. Augustine to Rowan Williams?

Remember, this is not a history of the ABC, but simply a list of them: to "deliberately understate the fact that they were of different sects" should not be a big issue in the list unless you are arguing the 1911 New Advent POV that the last ABC was Cardinal Pole[4]. That would be akin to suggesting that the last Stuart king of England was Henry IX - it maintains a certain POV, but it is POV that has no connection to the reality of the situation. There is no "Latin Archbishop of Canterbury" in residence (or titular for that matter). Even the Pope refers the Anglican ABC as the "archbishop of Canterbury" [5]

If you want to grind an ax about the Roman Catholic presence in England, I suggest you create an a list of Roman Catholic Primates in England which would include the undisputed ABCs, procede to Vicars Apostolic of England and the Vicars Apostolic of London District, concluding with Archbishops of Westminster.

Yes, I have just conviced myself that the headings should be removed.This article is not named "List of Roman Catholic and Anglican Archbishops of Canterbury" nor is it a place to argue what Catholic means and what it doesn't. The article is called "List of Archbishops of Canterbury" and it should be just that: a list of ABCs.

I have laid out my case here. I will not touch the article from it present state in the hope we will arive at a wiki-consensus. Other editors, what do you think? SECisek 02:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at point 2 on the declaration linked here: [6]

The VATICAN (how is that for further perspective from the Catholic point of view?) contrasts itself from the Anglicans by calling themselves "Roman Catholics". Is this argument going to continue? SECisek 02:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's see. You want to "defuse a little" but you also want to accuse me of "grinding an ax". Got it. In any case, the question is not what the Vatican calls itself today, but what the Archbishops of Canterbury were at the time they were such. The single list you propose would clearly endorse -- inappropriately -- the Anglican view that the Archbishops were in continuity over the Catholic view that they were not. If you think clarity would be enhanced by a tripartite division (Catholic, transitional, and Anglican), I think that is worth consideration. - Nunh-huh 02:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"in continuity"? I don't know that I have your meaning? In continuity with what? Can you explain further?

Rowan Williams is beyond any shadow of a doubt sitting in the chair of St. Augustine in Canterbury Cathedral. If by continuity you mean he is not in union with the Roman Catholic Church, nobody is trying to make it look like he is.

As for "the axe" comment, you admitted that you wanted to advance "a perspective from the Catholic point of view". Again, creating an article that lists Roman Catholic Primates would be a good addition to Wikipedia and a good place to explain the "perspective from the Catholic point of view". That place is not the List of Archbishops of Canterbury.

No personal offense has been intended in any of my posts and it is my hope none was recieved. If so, you have my regrets.

Including the Catholic point of view is not "advancing" it: it's a simple requirement of our NPOV standards. Systematically excluding it is a violation of those same standards. - Nunh-huh 02:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was granted FA status with the title Roman Catholic heading the Archbishops up to the time of Parker.

At the top of this very talk page:

The List of Archbishops of Canterbury is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute

The POV was deemed fine as it was. This change compromises the previous work by making the POV contentious when it was not considered so at the time that FA was granted.

I find your sudden intrest confusing, as you previously made a change that included the offensive usage "Roman Catholic" and stated that you were:

"substituting a non-contended point for a contentious one"[7]

Back to the idea of removing the headings: Again, "in continuity"? In continuity with what? Can you explain further? SECisek 03:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The history of the authorship of the article, playing gotcha, and misrepresenting prior edits aren't really to the point, are they? Edits are made to featured articles, they're not written in stone - as you probably realized when you recently made your changes to this one. As to continuity: Do you really not understand that the Anglican church views Rowan Williams as a successor of St. Augustine, and the Catholic church doesn't? The Catholic Encyclopedia clearly states their view, which is that the death of Cardinal Pole "brought to a close the line of Catholic archbishops." In fact, Catholics and Anglicans differ on an even more fundamental point, which is whether Rowan Williams is a priest! :) - Nunh-huh 03:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There are other articles where that debate takes place. Here, [8], for one. This IS a LIST - this is not the place for that. This is a list of men who have used the title Archbishop of Canterbury and were/are seated on the cathedra in Kent.

Is Rowan that man today? Yes. Recognition of this by the Vatican can be noted clearly in their consistant address of the ABC as such (ref supra). they may not see his ordination as legal - or even valid - but they do not deny that he is refered to as the ABC.

Citing a work from 1911 as a counter to Vatican documents from 1977 and since is not a strong refutation of this position. Even so, regnal list of Kings and Queens do not skip Edward VI, even though the Pope did not recognize him as king. They don't jump to Mary Stuart after Mary Tudor.

Nobody would dispute that Elizabeth I was Queen of England, even though St. Pope Pius V (declared) "her to be deprived of her pretended title to the aforesaid crown and of all lordship, dignity and privilege whatsoever."[9] So it is with Parker following Pole.

An article on Queen Elizabeth should mention that Rome did not recognize her reign, but it would not merit mention in a list of English Kings & Queens. There is a POV that numbers Mary Stuart (who never sat on the English throne) as Queen Mary II of England. This line of thinking leads [10]here. It is one POV, but it would be pure fantasy to state that Elizabeth did not follow her sister as queen. Again, so it is with Parker following Pole.

There are many points of view on this, but the article should maintain a neutral one.

The Roman Catholic heading was there when this article was determined by peer review to be "factually accurate & uncontroversial"

Th RC heading was added and settled during the FA review with an eye towards being uncontroversial:

Ah - good point. Added a lead (cribbed from Archbishop of Canterbury) and made the refs into refs. I've also split the table into Roman Catholic and Church of England. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC) Well done, support. Phoenix2 15:52, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

The issue was settled. Removing Roman Catholic from the list's title does nothing other then advance a POV. SECisek 04:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the issue is not settled; and even if it were, issues are not closed. Whether you like it or not, a list is not immune from NPOV requirements. I do not think your analogy about recognition of a head of state (by foreign powers) vs occupants of an ecclesiastical position (by the church in which that position purports to be) informative or pertinent. - Nunh-huh 05:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't sound like you are simply upset by the heading Roman Catholic above the ABCs who were in communion with Rome. It sounds like you would have the list reworked to a Roman POV.

Following Pole, the "ecclesiastical position" ceased to be in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. The "ecclesiastical position" did not cease to exist, are you suggesting - as in the Catholic Encyclopedia 1911 - that it did?

SECisek 05:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

How about less reading my mind? I'm not "upset", and I don't want "the list reworked to a Roman POV". I want the Catholic view included; you want it excluded. The easiest way to do that is to remove your addition of "Roman". - Nunh-huh 21:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This box is in use in Wiki. How about three divisions along these historic lines:

SECisek 06:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That gives no recognition to the fact that the archbishops belonged to different denominations. - Nunh-huh 21:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Recognition could be made clearer in the introduction.

Removing the word "Roman" from this list is nothing more then equivocation - it is a falacy. Like it or not, Catholic means more than one thing. You are presenting a variant of No true Scotsman:

Argument: "All bishops who are Catholics are in union with Rome." Reply: "But the Archbishop of Canterbury isn't in union with Rome, yet he is Catholic?" Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Catholic bishop would not be in union."

Using a word that means many things to mean what you want it to would be introducing a non-NPOV to the article.

"Roman" has to stay or the titles should reworked to represnt time periods like they are in many other lists on simmilar subjects.

Happy to continue this discussion. SECisek ~

The Roman Catholic Church vs. Catholic Church debate is a recurring issue, one which I daresay will never be settled to everyone's satisfaction. Whole pages of debate can be found archived at Talk:Roman Catholic Church, if you're feeling particularly masochistic. I regret to say that I pawned many hours in this debate, but I don't think anyone's opinion shifted. I concur with Secisek's position: The term Catholic means many things, just as the term Catholic Church (disambiguation) means many things, and on Anglican pages (and lists), one needs to be particularly clear about parsing when we are speaking of the Anglican Church as a Catholic Church and when we are speaking of the churches in communion with Rome. The template for the list, with its three subdivisions, seems fine, and no one can argue against the assertion that Reginald Pole was the last ABC in communion with Rome, as the article indicates. Indeed, as a point of interest, Canterbury never declared itself out of communion with Rome - it was the other way around. The Henrician acts of supremacy simply stated that foreign bishops had no jurisdiction in England, i.e., outside of their episcopal or provincial Sees. I will post these comments on the relevant talk page. fishhead64 23:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Reformation Capitalized?

Shouldn't Reformation be capitalized, as pre-Refomration and post-Reformation? It refers to the Protestant Reformation, does it not? InkQuill 02:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

More of a point of style then a question of usage. I would say capital, but I wouldn't make a case either way. The more I think about it, having the "Roman Catholic" and "Anglican" tags right next to the titles "pre-Reformation"" "and "post-Reformation" is redundant and not needed. Any other thoughts on this? SECisek 02:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

They're needed; the Archbishops are of different denominations, not a single denomination before and after the Reformation. - Nunh-huh 03:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I would assume that would be understood...given the post-reformation title and all.

SECisek 05:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't. Since there's no problem labeleing Anglicans as Anglicans, there should be no problem here. We'll just leave off the corresponding Catholic label. - Nunh-huh 21:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It is inconsistent with the practice established on the lists for other episcopal sees. What is more, it is inaccurate to place it where you have because the terms "ecclesia anglicana" and "Anglican Church" were in use from at least 1246, centruies before the break with Rome. Cranmer was archbishop when the split with Rome took place in the Church of England. How can anyone dispute that he was Anglican? Yet he is not listed with the Anglicans.

I don't want to be accused of trying to read your mind again, but are you trying to demonstrate that from the time of Parker the archbishop was not in union with the RCC? The list CLEARLY states that Pole was the "last archbishop in communion with Rome" - verbatium. I fail to see what the Anglican tag does other then mislead - see the previous paragraph. If by Anglican you mean after the Reformation that is already what the heading says.

Please join the wider debate of some of the issues you and I have explored here: Talk:Roman Catholic Church. I am sure you will have much to add. At the talk page for the Roman Catholic Church article, I was pleased to find out that much has already been established as convention here at Wikipedia and while the debate continues, it has thus far favored the usages here in this list.

Respectfully --SECisek 22:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, the "issues" can be discussed on the article of the talk page involved, and they don't currently involve anything regarding the terminology of "Catholic" vs "Roman Catholic". Where do you want to place the Anglican? - Nunh-huh 22:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as the headings go, we can't really add "Anglican" back in without restoring either "Catholic" or "Roman Catholic". Parallelism isn't everything; but to pass up such an obvious place for it seems like it would stick out. So I'm trying yet another compromise which I hope the two of you can agree on. Doops | talk 03:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

To say that Roman Doctrine does not recognize the the archbishop of Canterbury as such is wrong. I know what the 1911 Encyclopedia said almost a century ago, but mere months ago the Holy Father refered to the archbishop of Canterbury as such:

[11]

In the Papal Address to the Archbishop of Canterbury on 23 November, 2006 the Holy Father stated:

"It also reminds us of the much longer history of relations between the See of Rome and the See of Canterbury which began when Pope Gregory the Great sent Saint Augustine to the land of the Anglo-Saxons over 1400 years ago...Your visit to the Holy See coincides with the fortieth anniversary of the visit of the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Michael Ramsey, to Pope Paul VI...The visits of Archbishops of Canterbury to the Holy See have served to strengthen those relations and have played an important role in addressing the obstacles which keep us apart."

This is standard Roman protocol and has been for many years. What doctrine is the Holy Father breaking when he refers to Rowan Williams as the archbishop of Canterbury?

Again, Rome questions the validity and legality of ordinations since the time of Parker, but they recognize that there IS an archbishop of Canterbury and that man today is Rowan Williams.

The second and third sentances of this article articulate the Roman POV where it is stated:

The Archbishops of Canterbury were in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church until the English Reformation in the 16th century when, as a result of political situation, the church broke, first temporarily, then more permanently, with Rome. Since then, they have led the independent national church.

What more do you want it to say? If you want it to state that there has been no archbishop of Canterbury in the view of Rome since Pole, that is not so and evidence from numerous offical Vatican sources can be cited to the contrary. What is clear is that from the Roman POV the archbishop is not in union with the Holy See or the Holy Father. The article already says this and the view is represented in the second and third sentances of the article. I am intrested to hear your view on this and, like any good editor, I look forward to any suggestion that will end this impass without harming the FA status of this list. -- SECisek 21:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's quite clear what it needs to say, which is what it says after my edit: that in the Catholic point of view the latter archbishops were not successors of the former, and that in the Anglican point of view they are. To present it as you wish, as though there were universal agreement that they were, is to present Anglican doctrine as fact rather than opinion. That's not acceptable under NPOV. - Nunh-huh 21:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have cited current examples of H.H. Benedict XVI refering to Rowan Williams and previous holders as the "archbishop of Canterbury." This is a list of the acrhbishops of Canterbury. Who view are you advancing? Clearly it is not the Holy Father's or the Vatican's or the Roman Catholic Church's POV that you want to introduce into this list. -- SECisek 21:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Referring to someone as Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't mean you think that person is the successor of the prior archbishops. I fear you're misrepresenting the church's point of view. Rather than revert, I'll replace the NPOV warning, as you resist all attempts to acheive balance here. When we work out the proper way to phrase this, it can go. - Nunh-huh 21:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You wrote "Referring to someone as Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't mean you think that person is the successor of the prior archbishops." What does that mean? Particularly what does it mean for this list?

This is not a list of people declared to be successors of St. Augustine by the Pope, or the Russian Patriarch, or Billy Graham. It is a list of people who have held the title Archbishop of Canterbury. I have provided ample evidence that The Holy Father and the Roman Catholic Church does not dispute this entitlement of Rowan Williams - or previous occupants of the post.

The Roman POV is clear in the intro paragraphs, it is clear in the notes for Pole and for Cranmer. The article could be renamed "List of People Refered to by Rome as The Archbishop of Canterbury" and it would not need to be changed one bit as Rowan Williams is clearly refered to as such by Rome...but I think you will agree that is silly.

It is clearly stated that Rome and Canterbury are not in communion with each other. Nobody is going to be misled into thinking that the archbishop is a Roman Catholic. To once again point out that the archbishops of Canterbury after Pole have no authority in Rome's view is outside the scope of this list when you consider that the archbishop of Canterbury has no authority in the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, the Assyrian Church, or among Adventists, Anabaptists, Baptists, Congregationalists, Methodists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, and the Reformed churches. Is this list the place to voice all the conceptions of the archbishop? I think not. Clearly, this is a list of archbishops of Canterbury. The Roman view centers around validity and legality. Those two points are disputed, but Rome has long recognized that the defacto archbishop of Canterbury is not in union with the Roman Catholic Church. [[:Image:eames2.jpg|thumb|left|350px|The enthronement of Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury at Canterbury Cathedral. He is seated in the historic Chair of St Augustine]]

Should the list be retitled "List of De Facto Archbishops of Canterbury". Should we then set up a "List of De Jure Romae Archbishops"? This can get very silly if we let it.

It is what it is: a list of archbishops of Canterbury and the fact that Rome has disputed their validity and legality is mentioned already. To point it out in the middle of the list is foolish when one cosiders that the Roman disputation is no more worthy of mention then the fact that the Baptists and a zillion other sects also dispute Rowan Williams authority.

If by "successor" you mean the person elevated to the archbishopric while seated in the Cathedra Augstini, that is Rowan Williams. There is no denying he is sitting in St. Augustine's chair:

Indeed, even Rome concurs on this point. What more is needed? -- SECisek 22:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Characterizing two different denominations with different beliefs as merely not being "in communion" is a misrepresentation--there is far more separating the two sects than this--and presenting a continuous list is also a misrepresentation. And misstating Rome's view doesn't make it so. It is quite clearly of value to point out in mid-list exactly where the Catholic archbishops end and the Anglican ones begin. There is absolutely nothing objectionable in the statement "Here, according to Roman Catholic doctrine, the succession of archbishops ends. According to Anglican doctrine, the succession continues as follows:" and I find your zeal to exclude it... unusual. - Nunh-huh 22:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It has alredy been done. Pole is CLEARLY marked as the "Last Archbishop in Communion With Rome". If you want it to say he was the last Archbishop "period" it ain't gonna happen, 'cause it ain't so. How can it be that the Holy Father calls Williams the archbishop of Canterbury, but you can't. I made the Roman view on the sucession explicit in the intro. I sincerely hope we are getting close to a resolution. -- SECisek 23:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've followed the argument and SECisek points seem to be the most satisfying. I don't really understand the gist of Nunh-huh argument: especially, this last reply of Nunh-hu. To repeat the editor, "two different denominations with different beliefs as merely not being "in communion" is a misrepresentation--there is far more separating the two sects than this: this is a very odd statement as the Roman Catholic Church and Anglican Church are remarkably similar. Certainly the Roman Catholic Church recognizes in name the holder of the office of ABC. And, this is a list of ABCs. Yes, the Reformation happened and communion with Rome was broken but we don't need to say ""Here, according to Roman Catholic doctrine, the succession of archbishops ends." It is self-evident that the post-Reformation ABCs were not Roman Catholic - but the Roman Catholic Church does recognize ABCs right to the present...there are no pretenders to the throne. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I want to largely agree with Secisek, and I think the key issue here is the entire messiness of the Church of England's break with Rome. The Church of England split with Rome in 1534 without becoming doctrinally distinct in any way - it was a schism, not a heresy, and this remained largely the case until the death of Henry VIII. The idea of a distinct religious affiliation called "Anglican" is deeply anachronistic for the 16th century, and probably for most of the 17th as well. There was the Church of England, and there were bishops of the Church of England, but the idea of an explicit "Anglicanism," which was largely defined against "Dissenter" churches (Church vs. Chapel, and all that), really arises in the late 17th and 18th centuries. Calling Cranmer or Parker "Anglicans" is kind of odd, and I doubt most historians of the period would do so. And, again, we run up agCainst the roadblock of the attempted Marian restoration of Catholicism. If we use "Catholic" and "Anglican", we run up against the insuperable problem that either Cranmer must be a Catholic, or Pole must be an Anglican. john k 19:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

We've already moved beyond trying to agree on labels - it clearly isn't going to happen. At issue at present is noting the point at which "Here, according to Roman Catholic doctrine, the succession of archbishops ends. According to Anglican doctrine, the succession continues as follows:" This should be unproblematic, and avoids the tacit assertion of the Anglican point of view implicit in a continuous list without such a notation. - Nunh-huh 20:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What evidence do you have for the claim that "the succession of archbishops ends" with Pole. Pole was certainly the last Catholic archbishop, but I have yet to see any clear evidence that the Catholic Church holds as a matter of doctrine that the Archbishops from Parker to Williams are not Archbishops of Canterbury. Obviously, they don't consider them to be Catholic Archbishops of Canterbury, and they don't consider them to be proper bishops either, but that's a rather distinct issue. There's a continuous succession of archbishops of Canterbury from Augustine to Rowan Williams. There is no alternative succession of archbishops of Canterbury. The issue isn't like, say, Archbishop of Dublin, where there have been two alternate lines since the 16th century. Stating that Pole was the last Catholic archbishop would seem sufficient to me. We can strengthen the language from "last in communion with Rome," but we shouldn't claim that "the succession of archbishops ends" with Pole, even by the Catholic view, as it's not clear that this is the Catholic view. john k 20:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And I'll add that obviously Parker was Pole's successor. There were some irregularities, and his succession as archbishop was not recognized by Rome, but this is an example of a schism, not of some kind of institution of an entirely new episcopacy. It seems highly problematic to take the theoretical position of the Pope and put it ahead of the practical position of what is actually happening. We certainly don't do such a thing with the East-West schism, which, I think, is reasonably comparable to what happened in England between 1530 and 1560. john k 20:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Clumsy Infobox

Not every list is a potential Template for an Infobox. Look how clumsy a complete list of archbishops of Canterbury becomes when it is pointlessly repeated on each individual's page. A 'See also: List of Archbishops of Canterbury would serve just the same purpose. --Wetman 19:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. When this template was added, the succession box was removed, which leaves the strange situation where there can be boxes for all other offices such as Archbishop of York, but nothing for Canterbury. My preference would be to remove this infobox and replace with a standard succession box. JRawle (Talk) 21:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought about this and I think it should go. What do you all think, esp. in light of the new Archbshop box? A link would be fine. SECisek 01:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Retired

Comment moved from article: Archbishop Michael Ramsey passed away several years ago. The Rev. Canon Rick E Hatfield, Nashotah House Episcopal Theological Seminary, Class of 1980 canonrick (talk) 2006-06-01 01:53:01

Yes. Archbishop Cosmo Lang is also deceased. I don't think this list notes deaths unless the archbishop died in office. Do you think it should? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Until Randall Thomas Davidson, they always stayed in office until they died. The list isn't intended to give dates they died, it doesn't gives dates of birth either, it's just that for most of the archbishops the former is the same as the date they left office. So we can see how people might be confused. "Retired" could be taken as meaning "he is now retired", whereas it actually means "left office through retirement". Perhaps it wouldn't hurt to make it: "Translated from York; retired; died 1988" JRawle (Talk) 14:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I don't agree that there is a serious dispute about the neutrality of this List. SECisek has made several good points that have lead to a balanced article. This article is a List and not a critique. The ABC is today the head of the Anglican Communion and follows a long line of ABCs from the dark ages through the Reformaion to the present. The present Roman Catholic Church recognizes the ABC. ABCs did not just end at the Reformation...full stop...and another sort of ABC came out of the Reformation. The Anglican Communion asserts the apostolic succession of its bishops and the Roman Catholic Church since Vatican II is not completely blind to the existence of Anglican bishops or Anglican orders but recognizes them in name and sees some meaning in them. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible names for list divisions

Hi. In an effort to figure something out we can all live with, I'm going to try presenting a menu of possible options here, so we can all comment on them. Doops | talk 03:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• 1: Catholic / Anglican or Roman Catholic / Anglican
• 2: Pre-reformation / Post-reformation
• 3: Saxon to reformation / Reformation to present
• 4: one big list, undifferentiated

I'm sure we can all agree that 4 would annoy roman catholics and is, more importantly, not useful to readers. The third option is the same, I think-- it almost seems to imply that the division into two portions is arbitrary and we could use three or four or whatever number we felt like -- as though it's merely a division into historical periods rather than representative of a significant seismic shift.

Option one is simple and straightforward; but I don't see much of a way around the Catholic / Roman Catholic debate, which I'd summarize thus: "Roman Catholic" seems to be anachronistic; but "Catholic" alone seems dismissive of the current church's beliefs.

That's why option 2 is my preferred choice. It's clear and uncontroversial, I would think. Doops | talk 03:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd go with option 2. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 04:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

3 is in use on the lists for other sees and is ideal. 2 is unobjectionable and is what the article looked like before somebody came and stuck "Catholic" and "Anglican" tags next to the titles. 1 is misleading and 4 is not useful. 3 is my vote, but in the spirit of compromise 2 would be fine as well. -- SECisek 18:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Option one very strongly doesn't work, whether we say "Catholic" or "Roman Catholic". By that standard, either Cranmer is a Catholic, or Pole is an Anglican, both of which are absurd. 2 or 3 both seem fine. And of course the division is arbitrary - the Church of England separated from Rome in the middle of Warham's tenure, became explicitly protestant in the middle of Cranmer's, then returned to Catholicism under Pole before going back to protestantism with Parker. Any split in the list is bound to be somewhat arbitrary. Personally, I'd put the break between Warham and Cranmer, rather than between Pole and Parker, but either way there's no momentous "Reformation" which splits things very clearly. john k 18:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1