Talk:History of the Church of England/Archive 1

"The Church of England" or "The Church in England"?
I am unsure about using the phrase "Church of England" to describe the pre-Reformation Christian church in England. It seems a bit POV to emphasise national politico-religious continuity. From a Roman Catholic viewpoint, "the Church" prior to the Reformation was the RC church, and the "Church of England" was an institution created and established by the Tudors which appropriated the RC church's assets and usurped its function. On a related note, in the statement

who exactly did the agreeing? Was it the Archbishop of Canterbury? A synod of all bishops? jnestorius(talk) 15:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The C of E surrendered its legislative independence at the Convocation of Canterbury. There is an article on the Submission of the ClergyGlow worm64 13:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This article is written from Anglican point of view. I think having an article on the history of the Church of England encourages this. In my view the best solution would be to merge this article with the one on the history of Christianity in England. Alternatively, the section on the pre-reformation church should be reduced and those that refer to the 18th Century onwards expanded. It is very odd that an article on C of E history explains at some length about Augustine but has nothing on the Oxford Movement or ordination of women. At the least, the controversial nature of this view should be noted in a similar way that this is done in main article on the Church of England. Glow worm64 13:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that the correct title should be "The Church IN England"; this is the usual scholarly usage as evidenced by the the title of Moormans "History of the Church in England". The Church OF England is the church which came into being initially during the reign of Henry VIII and which developed into its present form over the following centuries. As this article speaks of the re-introduction of Christianity into England, it clearly relates to the whole history of the Christian church IN England.--APRCooper 00:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Anachronism. No such distinction was recognised at the time, so adopting it as a convention here would only lead to a false reification of the past which Anglicans could reasonably contest. 129.67.174.46 (talk) 11:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The C of E did not come into being before VIII, before that it was the Church IN England. The article has a nonsensical, dishonest, misleading lead (and I'm Anglican), based on pure semantics, not the balance of RS. Did the UK of GB and NI come into being X trillion years ago because the islands were first created then? A continuity of christianity is not synonymous with the same ecclesiastical body. Pincrete (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

My take on the starting date of the CofE is that we need to distinguish (1) the beginning of the Church of England as an institution (i.e. the dioceses, parishes, etc.) from (2) the beginning of Anglicanism as a distinct Christian tradition. I do not think this article will do the subject justice if it does not cover the history of the medieval church because that provides context for everything else that comes later. However, I think we can and should make use of other articles that already cover the medieval time period. We have articles on Christianity in Anglo-Saxon England and Religion in Medieval England that already cover the same time period (though they probably could use some work too). The relevant sections in this article can summarize what those sections should already be covering. Ltwin (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) The institutional history of the church dates to 597, because the Gregorian mission was tied to the creation of the Archbishop of Canterbury, etc. The Church of England as an institution (the dioceses, parishes, etc.) existed before the Reformation and continued to exist after the Reformation, albeit as an arm of the state.
 * 2) This thing we call Anglicanism only begins developing during the Reformation. Before that point, it was simply the local flavor of Catholicism.

James, Indulgence and other Matters
James did not attempt to 'reinstate' Catholicism, a form of words that seems to conjure up the spirit of Mary Tudor. His aim was to introduce official indulgence towards both Catholics and Protestant dissenters. It was this that the church opposed.

I've also edited out a perplexing and muddle-headed reference to Charles V 'withdrawing his protection' (from whom?) in 1570. He had been dead for twelve years, and thus beyond protecting, or denying protection, to anyone. Rcpaterson 00:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

History
I've added the text that built up at the Anglicanism article. I've tried to roughly make it fit. I know it needs more copy editing. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 06:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This had been my intention. Thank you. -- SECisek 17:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Reunion With Rome
I'm new to this so was unable to find how long the citation needed marker has been in place. From the related Mary I and History of English Reformation pages it seems that Mary's executions were for heresy and her brother's, father's and grandfather's were mostly for armed rebellion. No idea how many Elizabeth executed or why. Also Mary's executions were mostly in her last 3 years (100/year).

To me this does not have the ring of original research; it came from some source and that source should be cited. It is POV but in this case can and should stand if it can be cited to an acceptable historian. Sorry for being long-winded. Nitpyck (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Misleading intro
The intro glosses over the complicated history of the Church of England, in fact reads like yet another official dispatch from the propaganda arm of the Anglo-Catholic movement.. :) ...in assuming a simple narrative of unbroken historical continuity with the medieval church. Un-cited passages like the following (the first sentence) are particularly misleading: "The Church of England emphasizes continuity through apostolic succession and traditionally looks to these early events for its origins rather than to the changes brought about by the English Reformation." It is and always has been more complicated. Statement's like these read more more like a partisan badge than a honest effort to capture the church's history. And the structure of the whole entry implies that the major factors shaping the church's history is limited to separation/reunion with Rome, implying, of course, that the reformation of doctrine, liturgy and ecclesiology was of only marginal historical importance--that the Church of England is and always has been essentially and unambiguously Catholic minus the papacy and that this is what is meant by the via media (itself a term misleading in its simplicity). I have absolutely no religious investment in how the Church of England is characterized, am not an Anglican, and haven't been to church in more than a decade. My interest is historical only. The Reformation decisively and dramatically changed the Church of England, for better or worse--all serious historians agree here. Efforts to minimize and marginalize the importance of the Reformation speak to the preferences one (albeit formidable and influential) movement in contemporary Anglicanism. For two centuries all parishes in England were required to keep copies of Fox's Book of Martyrs on hand; and the stories of protestant martyrdom and Elizabeth's routing of "romish superstition, ceremony and papal tyranny" (to borrow the language of the day) served as a powerful myth of origin and an extremely important historical reference point for generations in England...and anyone who has read Linda Colley recognizes that, whatever its disagreements with dissenters and continental protestant churches, very few in the Church of England would have thought of it as anything other than resolutely and aggressively protestant.

Reference should really be made to the Oxford movement and the Tractarians, for is they, and the descendants in the Church today, who invest so much singular importance on the apostolic succession, and act as if almost nothing changed with the Reformation. It is but one source of reflection on Anglican history which should be identified as such and given context, not treated as the last objective word on Anglican history. Let's not forget that Newman left the Church because he finally decided it was "irredeemably" protestant. Not that he should have the last word either. The "historiography" of the Church of England needs to be placed in context.
 * Above section is due to 96.224.68.183 on July 6, 2010--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

18th century
"The Wesleyan reformation ended in schism with the birth of Methodism." is not an adequate summary of the situation. "Wesleyan reformation" ??--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 07:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"According to tradition"
Can "According to tradition" be more specific, e.g. with a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.198.158.118 (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please indicate which section includes this phrase.Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality of the introduction
The current introduction slavishly follows the CoE's viewpoint of its own history starting prior to 1534, which is considered its founding date by third parties. It even goes so far as to state that

before discussing the English Reformation at all, then goes back to a general discussion of early christianity in Britain. The introduction could do with a thorough rewrite to first establish the concensus among historians, then present the CeO's own ideas. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 12:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Made some progress to this end. --Zfish118 (talk)
 * I rewrote the lede completely; it was really bothering me. It seemed obsessed with the question of when the church actually began and was stuck on the Reformation with no reference to any other parts of CofE history. See the diff here. Ltwin (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)