Talk:History of the Anglican Communion

Spin off
This article was spun off on July 22, 2005 from the Anglican Communion article. For edit history or talk page discussions prior to that date, please see that article's edit history. Doops | talk 20:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Original 1911-based text
''The only section of this article which has been substantially rewritten from the 1911 Britannica is the first §, "origins." For reference purposes, here is the original text from before the rewrite &mdash; derived from the 1911 source and amended by wikipedia editors through July 2005:''

The necessity for such a phrase as "Anglican Communion," first used in the 19th century, marked at once the immense development of the Anglican Church in modern times and the change which has taken place in the traditional conceptions of its character and sphere. For more than two centuries after the Reformation the history of Anglicanism is practically confined to its developments within the limits of the British Isles. Even in Ireland, where it was for over three centuries the established religion, and in Scotland, where it early gave way to the dominant Presbyterianism, its religious significance was long overshadowed by its political significance. To the native Irishman and the Scotsman, as indeed to most Englishmen, the Anglican Church was one of the main buttresses of the supremacy of the English crown and nation. When English churchmen passed beyond the seas, they carried with them their creed, but not their ecclesiastical organization. The churchmen of the colonies often had to make the best of the fact that their spiritual needs rested with the bishop of London who occasionally sent commissaries to visit them.

The change which has made it possible for Anglican churchmen to claim that their communion ranks with those of Rome and the Orthodox East as one of the three great historical divisions of the Catholic Church, was due, in the first instance, to the American revolution. The severance of the colonies from their allegiance to the crown brought the English bishops for the first time face to face with the idea of an Anglican Church which should have nothing to do either with the royal supremacy or with British nationality. When, on the conclusion of peace, the church-people of Connecticut sent Dr. Samuel Seabury to England, with a request to the Archbishop of Canterbury to consecrate him, Archbishop Moore refused. In the opinion of prelates and lawyers alike, an act of parliament was necessary before a bishop could be consecrated for a see abroad; to consecrate one for a foreign country seemed impossible, since, though the bestowal of the potestas ordinis would be valid, the crown, which, according to the law, was the source of the episcopal jurisdiction, could hardly issue the necessary mandate for the consecration of a bishop to a see outside the realm.

The Scottish bishops, however, being hampered by no such legal restrictions, were more amenable; and on November 14 1784 Seabury was consecrated by them to the see of Connecticut. In 1786, on the initiative of the archbishop, the legal difficulties in England were removed by the act for the consecration of bishops abroad; and, on being satisfied as to the orthodoxy of the church in America and the nature of certain liturgical changes in contemplation, the two English archbishops proceeded, on February 14 1787, to consecrate William White and Samuel Provoost to the sees of Pennsylvania and New York (see Episcopal Church in the United States of America).

This act had a significance beyond the fact that it established in the United States a flourishing church, which, while completely loyal to its own country, is bound by special ties to the religious life of England. It marked the emergence of the Church of England from what may be called the territorial principles of the Reformation.

Since the Church of England, whatever her attitude towards the traditional Catholic doctrines, never disputed the validity of Catholic orders whether Roman or Orthodox, nor the jurisdiction of Catholic bishops in foreign countries, the expansion of the Anglican Church has been in no sense conceived as a Protestant aggressive movement against Rome. Occasional exceptions, such as the consecration by Archbishop Plunket of Dublin of a bishop for the reformed church in Spain, raised so strong a protest as to prove the rule. In the main, then, the expansion of the Anglican Church has followed that of the British empire, or, as in America, of its daughter states; its claim, so far as rights of jurisdiction are concerned, is to be the Church of England and the English race, while recognizing its special duties towards the non-Christian populations subject to the empire or brought within the reach of its influence. As against the Church of Rome, with its system of rigid centralization, the Anglican Church represents the principle of regional autonomy, which it holds to be both more primitive and more catholic.

WikiProject Anglicanism
A new WikiProject focussing on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion has just been initiated: WikiProject Anglicanism. Our goal is to improve and expand Anglican-reltaed articles. If anyone (Anglican or non-Anglican) is interested, read over the project page and consider signing up. Cheers! Fishhead64 06:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Anglican Church in the colonies
There is a serious issue with what this paragraph is talking about; if I interpret it to refer purely to the COE, with Colonial Bishops, it makes some sense; if I interpret it as the Anglican Communion/Church, it makes NO sense, and is just plain bogus (especially in the first paragraph; there are at least ten churches in my Diocese that predate 1699, still in use, that either are still, or were until the American Revolution, Anglican). I've changed the title to "Anglican Church" from "The Church", but even that's not right. Even if I interpret it strictly as COE, then there are some issues; isn't the Anglican Church in Canada not part of COE now, but part of the Anglican Communion as the Anglican Church of Canada? For an article about HISTORY, this section seems to be having trouble keeping it straight. Can someone more authoritative than I please rewrite this to clear up some of the issues here? Bill Ward 06:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)