Talk:Anglican churches in the Americas

Unincorporated territories
Would Guam count as being as much a part of the Americas as Puerto Rico is? Does the Episcopal Church (or any other Anglican church) have a presence in non-Puerto Rican unincorporated territories?--Bhuck (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the difference here is that geographically Puerto Rico is part of the Americas, and Guam is out in the South Pacific. (Perhaps the non-American Episcopal Church jurisdictions should be dropped from the list on this page). As for Guam, the Episcopal Church in Micronesia is overseen by the Suffragan Bishop for Chaplaincies, presumably under the same canons that apply to the Convocation of American Churches in Europe (Canon I.15). Tb (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have more background information on the split and re-joining of Puerto Rico that could be added to Episcopal Diocese of Puerto Rico? That all seems rather mystifying to the uninitiated reader.--Bhuck (talk) 12:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I.15 is indeed what the Convocation in Europe is operating under, though we are also mentioned in I.9, which assigns us to Province II. When looking at the map on the website of the suffragan bishop for chaplaincies, I see there are also some assignments (presumably military in nature) within the territory of the U.S. and therefore not "in foreign lands".  I would suspect that I.15 might not apply to Province IX, either, though I don't know for sure.  Where do any military bishops (like the Suffragan Bishop for the Armed Forces) come in?  Maybe Chaplaincies are similar?--Bhuck (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If we treat Guam separately, maybe we need to mention that Anglicanism in Hawaii (which also has an interesting history of autonomy during the monarchy) is also, although a part of the Episcopal Church, not representative of Anglicanism in the Americas, but instead Anglicanism in the Pacific.--Bhuck (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Names of countries?
In a recent edit, an editor I have no difficulty with the third. The second seems to be an error to me, so I've put it back--the Church of South India is unquestionably a part of the Anglican Communion, and unquestionably has parishes in the United States, and does so under an agreement with the Episcopal Church. If there is a reason for dropping it, let's discuss it first. As for the first, I think the geographic designations are extremely helpful in this geographically based article. If this is to be more than a list, it is helpful to say who is operating where, because the names of the provinces are often not helpful (Belize, Virgin Islands, Honduras, etc), and many people may not even know what "Southern Cone" means. Tb (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * dropped the geographic locations of most of the entries
 * droppd the Church of South India
 * rearranged somewhat the list of non-Anglican Communion bodies.
 * Maybe the reason that editor dropped the names was because (s)he considered them redundant to the church names. In many cases, this is true--for example, that the Anglican Church of Canada operates in Canada is hardly a surprise.  Perhaps the compromise solution would be to add the countries back in in the cases where the country name is not part of the church name (such as West Indies, Central America, Southern Cone).--Bhuck (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Order of non-communion churches
The order of non-communion churches was made alphabetical because we don't have reliable verified membership numbers on them. I think it's incorrect to pick one (Reformed Episcopal Church) and stick it first, "per membership numbers", when the rest of the list is alphabetized, and certainly not ordered by membership numbers. Certainly, if we have reliable verified membership numbers on these groups, it would be best to order them that way, but we don't, and failing that, our uncited guesses about which is larger are not a good basis. Tb (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that alphabetical makes the most sense in part because we don't have figures for all the organizations and in part because it is easier to read the list and make a distinction between them when similar names are next to each other. It's just easier to notice that one word difference, i.e. "Anglican Catholic Church in America", "Anglican Church in America" and "Anglican Church in North America".  I just don't see the utility of listing the non-communion churches by size.  If people are concerned about consistency, I would suggest alphabetizing the communion churches as well. Since there has been no other comments after two months, I alphabetized the list.--Bruce Hall (talk) 10:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Anglican Use and Western Rite Orthodoxy, do we need a third category?
Anglican Use is clearly part of "Anglicanism in America" and so I added it in. I also think that churches in the Western Rite of the Antioch Orthodox Church celebrate in the Anglican tradition and so added those. I put both in the section on churches not in communion and added "parishes" to broaden the topic. Should a third category be created for parishes that are part of either Continuing Anglicanism or the Anglican Communion? (Forgot to sign my name to this earlier) --Bruce Hall (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Links to Anglican Use and the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate which I added were removed by Subdeacon with the comment "deleted listing for other churches which are not Anglican". I am not sure what he means by "Anglican". Clearly being in communion with Canterbury is not the definition. So what is? I say any church that comes out of the Anglican tradition and celebrates with a liturgy based upon the Book of Common Prayer should be included in a list called "Anglicanism in the Americas". Though they may not be strictly an "Angican" church, they are part of "Anglicanism" or the Anglican tradition. There is of course a distinction between "Anglicanism" used in this list's title and "Anglican Church". The former is broader and more inclusive than the latter since it uses the suffix "ism" which describes a movement or tradition whereas the phrase "Anglican Churches" would describe distinct institutions. Clearly neither Anglican Use or Antiochian Western Rite parishes are churches but they are part of the Anglican tradition. I have asked Subdeacon to participate in this discussion. --Bruce Hall (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Since it has been nearly a month and there has been no other comments or further discussion, I have added back in Anglican Use and the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate. --Bruce Hall (talk) 02:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologize for not being on the ball here. The page here was created, and functions as, a list of churches which are Anglican, and in the Americas, as a way of avoiding controversy about, for example, the Anglican Church in North America, which represents a small fraction of North American anglicans.  But it is rather like List of Christian Denominations in this respect: it's a list of churches, not a list of ever group or smaller organization that has some connection to Anglicanism.  The issue is, for me, that the existence of a smattering of Anglican Use parishes in the RCC in the United States is not a church, nor is the Antiochian diocese: those are, unquestionably, part of the RCC and Antiochian churches.  I regret that the title is confusing.  Tb (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we need to consider these separately. Anglican Use is described as purely a liturgical practice, and there isn't any sort of official organization or other such thing associated with it.  It's not really parallel to anything else on the page.  By contrast, Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate is at least a coherent ecclesiastical structure of some kind.  Though even then, it's really quite like Anglican Use, except that all the congregations happen to be in a single diocese, though they do not form a diocese.  I think neither belongs here.  Tb (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, and what are the grounds for describing Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate as Anglican at all? Tb (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What is Anglicanism is a huge question with no good or clear answer and unfortunately we have to address that. Fortunately, Wikipedia is not a theological text and is inclusive in general. It prefers to include things than leave things out, with appropriate qualifications. Since the page is called "Anglicanism in the Americas" and endeavors to be a comprehensive list, I think that all parishes should be included that are Anglican in liturgy, worship, culture, feel, history, etc., that can in any way be described by the vague term "anglican".  Afterall, what's the harm?


 * How is another question entirely. I suggest a third category, a catch-all category, that includes all those institutions that don't fall under either the Anglican Communion or Continuing Anglican categories.   Under this I would include the Anglican Use article.  Though there isn't a single institution that encompasses all Anglican Use parishes, there are distinct institutions that are Anglican Use.  There are Anglican Use parishes.  There may soon be a separate body of some sort that is in union with Rome.  Adding a link to the Wikipedia article would allow us to include these parishes.


 * I included the Western Rite because I read that some such parishes "use a liturgy based on the Anglican Book of Common Prayer." That I think means that they are part of Anglicanism, i.e. the Anglican historical and liturgical tradition.  However, I admit that my knowledge of the Rite is limited to what I read.


 * In short, I think that we should include all parishes and other groupings that are part of the Anglican tradition. To restrict this list only to the Anglican Communion and the Continuing churches is too limiting for a page entitled "Anglicanism in America" and does not fit with Wikipedia.  We should create a third category that includes Anglican Use and possible the Western Rite.  Alternatively, we could rename the page something like "Anglican denominations in the Americas", but I don't think that is necessary.  There is no need to exclude parts of the Anglican tradition just because they are neither Communion or Continuing, not in Wikipedia anyway. --Bruce Hall (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The Antiochian Western Rite doesn't even claim to be Anglican. I think we can make that a sine qua non.  And the Anglican Use isn't an "institution", as you yourself note.  As for guesses about the future, we'll document those appropriately when they happen.  We don't need to add Anglican Use now because we might later want to add something different.  (Nor is this page limited to the Anglican Communion and the Continuing Churches; it includes, for example, the REC.)  Your standards for inclusion are so loose that they would include all the methodist and presbyterian churches too, and heck, the holiness churches, and...hey, *anyone* with *any* connection to England!  Being "based on the Anglican Book of Common Prayer" does not mean "part of the Anglican historical and liturgical tradition", and *especially* not when falling so far outside Anglicanism they are, in fact, incorporated as parts of explicitly non-Anglican.  If the Roman Catholic Church is Anglican, then sure, we can add it.  But failing that, we shouldn't add parts of it.  The page was created specifically as a list of Anglicanish jurisdictions in the Americas.  Perhaps the right thing is to rename it in accord with its original intention.  Tb (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The name was changed and so there is no need to discuss any of these points further. --Bruce Hall (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

missing
Missing from the non communion list is the so-called Church of England (Cayman Islands).
 * I am not familiar with such and therefore don't feel comfortable adding it. Go ahead and add it and add a ink to a Wikipedia page.  Is it really not in communion with Canterbury? --Bruce Hall (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)