Talk:Church of England

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Major Parish Churches etc[edit]

I'm not an expert on the CofE. Looking at Doncaster Minster I started to wonder about the Major Churches Network: the minster is listed in the {{Major Churches Network}} template but there seems no reliable source which confirms the membership of that network. See Talk:Major Churches Network for discussion: please contribute there.

But I then found a listing of the churches designated "Major Parish Church", all 312 of them, in the Church Heritage Record, along with some other interesting "types" such as Festival Church. I've added a section to this article, expanding "Online Directory" to "Online Directories". It may be that there is some more appropriate place for this information: if so, of course please move the content (using {{copied}} to retain attribution), with appropriate navigation to make it easy to find. PamD 09:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Schism of Global South Fellowship[edit]

I feel it is too soon to report a schism of the Global South and to give it prominence in the lede. Disregarding the writers of headlines in the sources, we have only a dissenting statement by a number of prelates. The ABC source says "The move brings a schism in the communion closer" and that nothing has formally changed. -- Wire723 (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at the specific language of the GSFA’s statement (, it seems quite clear that they are declaring themselves to be separate from the Church of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury. The CoE’s response is that nothing can change without the meeting of their organizing committees, but a communion is only as strong as the recognition of it from both sides, and the GSFA’s statement is the head of 10 of the 42 constitute churches rejecting the communion. JedBartlet1776 19:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JedBartlet1776 (talkcontribs)
Removal of the "schism" subsection by another editor 4 days ago has not been contested. I removed the similar paragraph from the intro in line with the principle that the intro is a summary of the rest of the article. -- Wire723 (talk) 09:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Church of England is not Protestant[edit]

The church of England does not consider itself Protestant. The Church claims to be both Catholic and Reformed. Not Protestant. With high, middle and low, Anglican churches.

The church of England is not Roman Catholic. Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican churches are different, but they are not Protestant. Although the protestant reformation did play a big part in the Anglican separation from Rome, the Anglican church (C of E) is catholic in that it views itself as the "unbroken continuation of the early apostolic and later medieval "universal church", rather than as a "new formation".

I am an Anglican nun. SophiaWrose (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SophiaWrose: Hi, I have corrected it. Please put this page on your Watchlist. As I have thousands on mine, this is one that slipped by me. We have had a lot of disruptive editing changing it to Protestant. Peaceray (talk) 00:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noting that orientation as Anglican is a long standing value, dating from at least 2011 Peaceray (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As an Anglican Nun, you no doubt follow the more Anglo-catholic tradition, which is an 19th century innovation and does not represent historic/classical Anglicanism. As such, most of the Church of England would reject your branch theory that sees Anglicanism as a church distinct from other Protestants. Our use of the word Catholic is not the same way that Roman Catholics or Orthodox use it. For one, Catholic is in their names whereas it is not in ours, so this is disingenuous.
The Church of England is a Protestant church in law. The King swore an oath just over a week ago to uphold the ‘Protestant Reformed religion’.
The church of england has roots in the pre-reformation church, but its current form was brought into being during the English reformation. It is in communion with other Protestant churches, as well as the Old Catholic Churches which are not considered Protestant due to their split being at a different time and under different circumstances.
Furthermore, the Church of England is more Protestant in practice than many other national jurisdictions.
There was a new consensus on here not long ago that agreed that the Church of England was Protestant.
Anglican is NOT a classification, it is an orientation. Protestant is the correct classification for both theological and historical accuracy and it should be changed back.
I am an Anglican Priest in the Church of England. Deanpaul545 (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The main article's section on 'Doctrine and practice' contains a fair amount of information about the reasons the CofE has elements of Protestantism, and other elements as well. Given that, labelling it in the Infobox as simply 'Protestant' could look simplistic even though it undoubtedly has much more in common with Protestant churches than with the Roman Catholic church.Sbishop (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 – This has been discussed at length before at Talk:Church of England/Archive 1#Protestantism. Anyone joining in this discussion should also read that, & we should take that discussion into account here. Peaceray (talk) 05:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry but the Church of England is protestant by law established. Recently King Charles III had to swear on the Bible that he was a "faithful Protestant" and to maintain "the Protestant Reformed Church". The Church of England is protestant and no amount of Anglo-catholic revisionism can change that. 2A01:E0A:57D:E490:1160:CEB9:2E65:6BE5 (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We need to come to a citation-based consensus instead of people just changing it to what their opinion & personal knowledge dictates. Please provide verification from reliable sources. If SophiaWrose did, then I see no reason why Deanpaul545 & 2A01:E0A:57D:E490:1160:CEB9:2E65:6BE5 should not cite sources as well.
Also, identifying yourself as a nun or a priest does not count for much here, because, as the saying goes, "on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog". Verification is the valid currency here. Peaceray (talk) 04:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's some sources about the Protestant nature of the Church of England
Citation : "maintain “the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law” (ie, the Church of England)" 2A01:E0A:57D:E490:1160:CEB9:2E65:6BE5 (talk) 11:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are definitely historians we could cite saying that the Church of England was historically Protestant in its theology and its self-identification. The CofE's identity becomes more contested when we look at how Anglicans see themselves today. The influence of the Oxford Movement and Anglo-Catholicism is strong, and many Anglicans would not identify as Protestants today.Ltwin (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I get that but I think that for a Wikipedia article what is more important are the facts and not how people self-identify. The law says that the English Church is Protestant, and I think that's what matters the most. I think the good compromise was found in having its classification as Protestant with a note indicating that there are various theological orientations such as Anglo-Catholic, Broad Church and Evangelical/Calvinist. 2A01:E0A:57D:E490:E498:AA9D:A689:EAC1 (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia however requires secondary sources. You can't cite the coronation oath and say "that proves it." Wikipedia relies on reliable published secondary sources. Ltwin (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Number of congregations/worshippers[edit]

Re the recent revert of 'less than 1 million' under the 'congregations' field - the editor who inserted this meant to say that there were fewer than 1 million worshippers rather than congregatiosn in the sense of worship groups. He or she has earlier tried to isnert this number under a non-existent 'worshippers' field in the infobox, which I reverted. So the figure is plausible, not being meant to be the same as the number of churches; but there is nowhere to put it (and it is unsourced although the article sourced figures suggets it isn't unrealistic). Sbishop (talk) 10:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see, so the "under 1 million" is the active members, a counterpoint to the 26 million baptised people listed as members in the infobox. I suggest to drop the 26 million from the infobox as not particularly relevant, and replace with the 1.1 million from the 2017 reference, but annotated "(2017, attending at least once a month)". -- Wire723 (talk) 11:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would seem the best compromise, yes. Sbishop (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Occurrence of prayers for same-sex couples[edit]

In this diff, @Pbritti reverted text describing one of the first usages of the prayers of love and faith.

Hello, you say "Unencyclopedic; the November action sufficiently captures the change".

The key fact here is that at least one blessing actually took place. There has been much confusion over whether permission had been given and when it might happen, so it is WP:DUE to include this occurrence. AndyGordon (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AndyGordon: As this was "amongst the first", not the first, this is unencyclopedic. This blessing occurring only the month after such blessings were authorized does not automatically grant it encyclopedic merit to the Church of England as a whole. If you can find a reference to when the first blessing occurred, that may be different. Otherwise, this development is sufficiently covered by the preceding sentence that clearly states that the trial blessings are authorized as of November. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear @Mbritti, in terms of policy, why do you say it's not encyclopedic? The BBC is reporting this blessing as a significant moment, and for NPOV we should include it. If a more comprehensive account of the services occurring on Sunday comes to light we can update. AndyGordon (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's the NPOV rationale? Also, if we inserted every COE story published by the BBC to this article, it would balloon in a manner deprecated by RECENTISM. This isn't the first time a notable trial liturgy/blessing has been approved, and these are generally best addressed by explaining why the rites were approved/altered and mention of the date the changes entered effect. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I spent a little more time on this and discover that the fact of the first blessing of same-sex couples by CoE on 17 December has been reported by multiple reliable sources.
So the NPOV rationale is from WP:DUE, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." In this case, the viewpoint is that Sunday 17th was the first occurrence of prayers for same-sex couples. We only have LGBTQ News reporting the decision in November but five RS reporting the actual first occurrence.
Moreover, the Independent and others sources say the final decision by House of Bishop was the previous Tuesday. So the November decision was not the final authorization.
Still, we should reflect the decision by multiple independent RS to report on the significance of this past Sunday. AndyGordon (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, the most that would be due here is a sentence to the effect of "The first such blessings began in December." Even still, see NOTNEWS. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pbritti thank you for the discussion. AndyGordon (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AndyGordon: Same to you. That last addition seems like a good compromise. If more coverage crosses my eyes, I'll be sure to let you know. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]