Talk:Anglicanism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeAnglicanism was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 4, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
August 4, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Trouble archiving links on the article[edit]

Hello. I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page. This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.

This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link. Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.

In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive these pages.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anglicanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nothing[edit]

Understandably, there is nothing about the way Anglicanism was imposed by force from the 16th century to the 19th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.161.186 (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protestantism was imposed by force in the whole of north-western Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.161.186 (talk) 13:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Roman Catholicism was imposed by force in many parts of Europe too. Dabbler (talk) 03:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Islam was imposed by force all over North Africa, the Middle East, and some other parts of the world too, I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.162 (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anglicanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Geocities has closed so this item probably needs a new reference


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Anglicanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anglicanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about the lead section / terminology.[edit]

Hi, Before jumping in and removing some lines of text I am wondering if someone could help me with the following: whether a.) the lead section is too long (I think it is) and b.) whether its good form to repeat definitions in the lead section which are also covered in the terminology section? It struck me as odd, and unnecessary while reading the article.ronazTalk! 12:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. No. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. No. Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST:re}} (Talk) 13:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Much too long; Much of the second para, plus the whole of the third and fourth paras have migrated to the lead from the section on Anglican Identity - and should be put back there. TomHennell (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because of the complexity of the subject the lead section may well need to be as long as it is.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. Yes. Johnbod (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personal ordinariates[edit]

User:Chicbyaccident added (in bold) "Some churches that are not part of the Anglican Communion also consider themselves Anglican, including those that are part of the Continuing Anglican movement and the Anglican realignment, as well as personal ordinariates.", giving a reference of [1]. I don't think that the personal ordinariates consider themselves Anglican, and I can't see where the source could be read to say they do. The first sentence of the history section there is "There have always been converts to the Catholic Church from Anglicanism." - 'from' would seem to me to suggest 'no longer'. It talks about Anglican Use, and the "Anglican patrimony"; but, again, these are very different from being an Anglican. Our own page on the personal ordinariates is pretty explicit:

"Anglican ordinariates" is often used by newspapers, such as the Church of England Newspaper and the Canadian Catholic Register. It is also often used by communities belonging to the ordinariates. The name does not imply that the members of an ordinariate are still Anglicans. While those who have been Anglicans "bring with them, into the full communion of the Catholic Church in all its diversity and richness of liturgical rites and traditions, aspects of their own Anglican patrimony and culture which are consonant with the Catholic Faith", they are "Catholics of the Latin Rite, within the full communion of the Catholic Church ... no longer part of any other communion".

TSP (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, as the quoted source says, they are not part of the Anglican Communion. That is right. But that is another article than that on Anglicans in a more general sense, of which "Anglican patrimony and culture" is retained in the personal ordinariate despite part of the Catholic Church. By definition, if the converts didn't wish to retain the "Anglican patrimony and culture", they would not have joined the personal ordinariate, but a regular Catholic diocese. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wishing to retain "Anglican patrimony and culture" is different to "consider[ing] themselves Anglican". The sentence is specifically talking about the latter; and I think all sources are pretty clear that does not apply to the personal ordinariates. Our own article on Anglican use clearly refers throughout to "former Anglicans", and, as I have quoted, our personal ordinariate article has a specific paragraph to ward off the misconception that they could be considered Anglican.
Groups which do not identify as Anglican but consciously seek to retain some aspects of Anglican culture are not relevant enough for inclusion in the lead, I think, though could have a mention elsewhere in the article. TSP (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, these groups have consciously chosen to leave the Anglican Communion, while still retaining some parts of Anglican liturgy and ritual. As such they should be treated like Methodists etc. as people who have broken the link with Anglicanism while still retaining some aspects of their historic ceremonies. Dabbler (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protestant[edit]

@Johnsoniensis: There seems to be a debate again about the categorisation of Anglicanism along with Anglican denominations as Protestant - something that I thought was already cleared, according to established consensus in both article content and categorisation over the board since a long time? Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If consensus has been established I will observe it.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Catholic Church naming conventions RfC[edit]

There is currently an RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Catholic_Church)#RfC:_should_this_page_be_made_a_naming_convention that may be of interest. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 23:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anglicanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Episcopal needs to redirect here[edit]

The page Episcopal should redirect here too, as many people are mistakenly described as "Episcopal" instead of "Episcopalian".

Moved Plagiarized Text[edit]

I found this source, Church Schism & Corruption (9781409221869), everything on the page under social activism was directly plagiarized from it. Does someone have time to paraphrase this and move it back onto the main page?

Working conditions and Christian socialism "Lord Shaftesbury, a devout evangelical, campaigned to improve the conditions in factories, in mines, for chimney sweeps, and for the education of the very poor. For years he was chairman of the Ragged School Board. Frederick Denison Maurice was a leading figure advocating reform, founding so-called "producer's co-operatives" and the Working Men's College. His work was instrumental in the establishment of the Christian socialist movement, although he himself was not in any real sense a socialist but, "a Tory paternalist with the unusual desire to theories his acceptance of the traditional obligation to help the poor", influenced Anglo-Catholics such as Charles Gore, who wrote that, "the principle of the incarnation is denied unless the Christian spirit can be allowed to concern itself with everything that interests and touches human life." Anglican focus on labour issues culminated in the work of William Temple in the 1930s and 1940s."

Pacifism A question of whether or not Christianity is a pacifist religion has remained a matter of debate for Anglicans. In 1937, the Anglican Pacifist Fellowship emerged as a distinct reform organisation, seeking to make pacifism a clearly defined part of Anglican theology. The group rapidly gained popularity amongst Anglican intellectuals, including Vera Brittain, Evelyn Underhill, and the former British political leader George Lansbury. Furthermore, Dick Sheppard, who during the 1930s was one of Britain's most famous Anglican priests due to his landmark sermon broadcasts for BBC Radio, founded the Peace Pledge Union a secular pacifist organisation for the non-religious that gained considerable support throughout the 1930s.

Whilst never actively endorsed by Anglican churches, many Anglicans unofficially have adopted the Augustinian "Just War" doctrine. The Anglican Pacifist Fellowship remain highly active throughout the Anglican world. It rejects this doctrine of "just war" and seeks to reform the Church by reintroducing the pacifism inherent in the beliefs of many of the earliest Christians and present in their interpretation of Christ's Sermon on the Mount. The principles of the Anglican Pacifist Fellowship are often formulated as a statement of belief that "Jesus' teaching is incompatible with the waging of war ... that a Christian church should never support or justify war ... [and] that our Christian witness should include opposing the waging or justifying of war."

Confusing the matter was the fact that the 37th Article of Religion in the Book of Common Prayer states that "it is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars." Therefore, the Lambeth Council in the modern era has sought to provide a clearer position by repudiating modern war and developed a statement that has been affirmed at each subsequent meeting of the Council.

This statement was strongly reasserted when "the 67th General Convention of the Episcopal Church reaffirms the statement made by the Anglican Bishops assembled at Lambeth in 1978 and adopted by the 66th General Convention of the Episcopal Church in 1979, calling "Christian people everywhere ... to engage themselves in non-violent action for justice and peace and to support others so engaged, recognising that such action will be controversial and may be personally very costly... this General Convention, in obedience to this call, urges all members of this Church to support by prayer and by such other means as they deem appropriate, those who engaged in such non-violent action, and particularly those who suffer for conscience' sake as a result; and be it further Resolved, that this General Convention calls upon all members of this Church seriously to consider the implications for their own lives of this call to resist war and work for peace for their own lives." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aschuet1 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I restored the text--it is original to Wikipedia and the "source" [ Church Schism & Corruption 2010] copied it from Wikipedia--where it appeared years earlier. -- the "source" is a self-published fringe case Rjensen (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Religious[edit]

What is real region I want to know please help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.64.0.24 (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open up a geography book. Dimadick (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anglicanism&oldid=1125840340"