Talk:List of Christian denominations/Archive 4

Defunct churches

An editor recently added some important historic, but defunct, churches. There were some before too. I think that we should consider dropping churches from the list which have gone out of existence for whatever reason; if necessary, a separate page could be created for them, but I think there is not really much demand for that either. I'm just nervous about the size of the page, and the tendency of it to grow unceasingly. Thoughts? Tb (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

merger

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus Tb (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Christian denomination should be merged/redirected here as this is the better article and they cover exactly the same subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I don't see anything uniquely beneficial by having separate articles when the material is the same. --^StormRider 16:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - The content of the articles is vastly different. One is a list article, aiming to be complete; the other is a historical discussion of the nature and evolution of Christian denominations in general. There is virtually no overlap in scope, nor in actual content. Tb (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

International Apostolic Fellowship

Recently an editor added International Apostolic Fellowship, but that page itself says it's not a denomination. Normally, self-presentation as "not a denomination" doesn't mean we don't list one here, but still, it seems not to be a denomination in more important ways. For example, it's a fellowship explicitly of clergy, not of members, which seems key to me. A congregation isn't part of it, but only a given clergy person. That is, if I have understood correctly, which I'm not at all sure I have. Tb (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The Topic of Mormonism and the Like

How should we adress the problem of the Church of the LDS and all the churches that broke from it? Can we make them a category entitled something like "Near-Christians" or "Debatable Christians"? On and by the way, thanks for following the alphabtizing trend! Kostantino888Z (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not the job of Wikipedia to decide who is and who is not a Christian. Many of the evangelicals who object to LDS would be shocked to discover that some other folks regard them (the evangelicals) as pseudo-Christians in a pseudo-Church. We list groups according to their self understanding. See the lead. Tb (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

While the status of Mormons as legitimate Christians is questioned by probably the majority of Christians, the lead nonetheless does define the status of a Christian community within this article on the basis of self-identification. In this context, the LDS churches should be considered as Christians. Deusveritasest (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Apostolic/Catholic

The opening sentence of this paragraph is misleading. It is the crux of this article. The church was never ONE to be separated into Greek and Eastern. St. Paul went to the west and established Christianity there. The details are given in the Bible. Some of the other disciples went to the east and established churches there. Neither the Acts of these disciples nor about these churches are mentioned in the Bible. (By the way, who selected the New Testament books of the Bible?) Churches in the east were established before it reached Rome. At that time no church was superior to another one; no disciple of Jesus was above another one. All were equal. There was no universal church during the days of the Apostles. So how can the opening sentence of this article be correct? Neduvelilmathew (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Church in this context is defined by full sharing of Sacred Mysteries. There was no lasting schism of any episcopal community before the Sassanid/Persian church broke with the Imperial church in the early 4th century. There is thus an understanding among many that Christendom at large was one harmonious communion before the schisms in the Middle East in the 4th century. Given this, it can be posited that there was one universal Church for the first 400 years of Christianity. Deusveritasest (talk) 03:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Organization of listings

I'm wondering if perhaps it would be more helpful to organize listings in the Apostolic section according to number of members? I.e. the Roman Catholic tradition being listed first, and then the Eastern Orthodox, and then Anglican, etc. I'm thinking that people on this article would probably be looking for the more popular churches more frequently than the less popular ones and thus to list the more popular ones first would save the most people the most amount of time. Deusveritasest (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent about this; alphabetical has a good basis, but so does numeric predominance. The difficulty is that it tends to be extremely difficult to apply in general, while alphabetical avoids both the problem of research and other stuff. There's no difficulty with population in the Apostolic section, but I'm worried about a ginormous can-o-worms for the other sections. Tb (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The older ordering, btw, went RC, Anglican, Orthodox; the idea being I suppose that this put the "Western" ones together, though that never quite made sense either because of the Eastern Catholic Churches, of course. I'm not much concerned with the order of those three in this section, though; I think either RC-Anglican-Orthodox or RC-Orthodox-Anglican make sense, and perhaps better sense than alphabetical. Tb (talk) 07:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I think I agree. I've made a change to go RC, all Orthodox, Anglican. That's not quite "by numbers", because it seems bizarre to me to separate the three main Orthodox categories. Moreover, I think this will defuse some of the "huh?" that people see, quite understandably, when Anglicanism is the first thing they see in that section. Tb (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Reformed, Presbyterian, and Congregationalist churches

I would recommend that these three groups be merged into one. I know that there is the subtle distinction in church governance. This doesn't appear to be all that fundamental though. And what the difference is between 1&2 and 1&3 I cannot tell. But the point is that churches of these traditions generally group together on an ecumenical level. Just looking at the World Communion of Reformed Churches, World Alliance of Reformed Churches, Reformed Ecumenical Council, International Conference of Reformed Churches, and World Reformed Fellowship articles should show evidence. As such, I think the denominational tradition should be one, while perhaps the reality of some being Presbyterian in governance and some being Congregationalist can be indicated in the header. Deusveritasest (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Reformed and Presbyterian can certainly be grouped together as Calvinist, but are all Congregationalist churches Calvinist? Certainly not all small-c congregationalist churches are (Baptists, Mennonites, and Amish have congregationalist polity but aren't Calvinist), but I'm not sure about big-C Congregationalist churches. +Angr 06:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Nontrinitarianism

Currently, the section List of Christian denominations#Bible Student Groups is under Protestantism rather than Nontrinitarianism; to my knowledge, that's wrong: they're nontrinitarians. LDS is also nontrinitarian, isn't it? Does Swedenborgianism really best served as a separate section? I hesitate to make these edits without comment from editors more familiar with these groups. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know much about the Bible Student Groups, but it sounds like they are not one homogeneous organization which can lead to classification problems. The issue is raised in the Latter Day Saint movement which has some denominations who are Trinitarian and some which are not. Bytebear (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Further, the LDS claim to be trinitarian; it is the rest of Christendom which says they are not. The goal here is to follow self-description as far as possible, and not to decide theological controversies. Tb (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen a self-identifying "Bible Student" group refer to itself as "Trinitarian" (or even "Protestant"). Nontrinitarianism is actually quite fundamental to the Bible Student movement, and a BSM group choosing to identify as Trinitarian would tend to sever perhaps the most significant of only four or five doctrinal consistencies across the Bible Student movement (see Template:Bible_Students). In parallel reasoning, BSM founder Charles Taze Russell several times contrasted his group with 'Catholicism and Protestantism'. The fact is that scholarly reference works simply do not group the Bible Student movement with Protestantism, but (typically) either with Nontrinitarianism or with Restorationism (or a silly catch-all like "New Groups"). Ironically, the overwhelmingly largest group in the BSM is Jehovah's Witnesses, and yet some editor keeps removing JWs from their proper group and nearly hiding them as a single unelaborated bullet point alongside "Doukhobors ("Spirit-Wrestlers")" and "Subbotniks" in "Other non-Trinitarians".

Again, the Bible Student movement is improperly grouped under Protestantism, currently.

"Restorationism" should probably be created at the same level as Catholicism and Protestantism, with "LDS Movement" and "BSM" immediately below. Ironically, LDS is currently elevated to the same level as all of Protestantism (rather than having the LDS movement as a subsection under Restorationism or Nontrinitarianism).

I'm happy to do this, but hope that issues can be resolved beforehand.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Several different issue here.

Restorationism

• I would like to distinguish a possible "Restorationist" category from the other issues. For a number of reasons, I'm hesitant about that as a category. For example, it makes the placement of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) a very hard placement.
• The Bible Student groups should certainly be moved to the Non-trinitarian section, where the Jehovah's Witnesses already are. As for the best arrangement of the non-trinitarian section, I don't have strong opinions on that score. If there are many Bible Student groups, then it would make sense to have a distinct subcategory under non-Trinitarian for that. The current placement of JW's under "other non-Trinitarian" does not identify them as like the Doukhobors or Subbotniks, except that they are non-Trinitarian, and don't fit in the other subcats there. I have no objection to a new sub-cat under non-trinitarians for Bible Student Groups.
• I'm not sure what you are saying is the "proper group" for JW's from which they are being removed.
• Many editors (and groups) think that non-Trinitarian groups are perhaps not properly even considered Christian at all. The current arrangement, with a distinct "non-Trinitarian" section is a compromise.
• The LDS have affinities to Restorationism, and came from the same time period and similar social forces, but are not actually Restorationist, and don't belong in that category.
• The LDS do not belong in the non-Trinitarian category, for the simple reason that under their own self-understanding they are not non-Trinitarian. Yes, their understanding of "trinitarian" is extremely different from the more mainstream one, but we should not take sides on that. It is enough to list them separately, which is a compromise. Tb (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've made a change along these lines: New subcat "Unitarian Restorationism", with a see also from the main Restorationism section. This parallels the treatment of Pentocostalism vs. Oneness Pentacostalism. I'm not wedded to the term "Unitarian Restorationism"; feel free to change it to something more suitable. I've moved all the Bible Student Groups down there. Moving LDS around is fraught with problems, because LDS think of themselves as Trinitarian (mostly), and other Christians (mostly) doubt that, so it is best not to take a stand on the point. By contrast, the BSGs are clearly non-Trinitarian. Tb (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This thread has shifted from Nontrinitarianism to Restorationism. As part of this comment, I've inserted a subsection in this Talk thread.

• A "Restorationist" section need not comment upon trinitarianism or nontrinitarianism, except perhaps in subsubsection(s). The "Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)" could decide for itself whether they felt better described as Protestantism or Restorationism; we'd respect whatever the references indicated (or implied) about their self-classification.
• "Bible Student groups" seems to have been moved to Nontrinitarianism; great.
• My earlier point was that JWs have more in common with Bible Students than they do with Doukhobors or Subbotniks; JWs should be (and now are) grouped with "Bible Student groups".
• The "proper group" for JWs is "Bible Student groups". I personally have put JWs into "Bible Student groups" at least twice (perhaps more), but someone keeps moving JWs out of that group.
• There is no encyclopedic basis upon which an editor could successfully argue that belief or disbelief in the Trinity defines "Christian". It's been done to death; a "Christian" just claims to follow "Christ". Period, without regard to trinitarianism or nontrinitarianism.
• JWs too would probably prefer to be elevated to the same level as "Catholicism" and "Protestantism" (and, currently, as "Latter day Saints movement"); that doesn't mean editors should do so (they shouldn't). JWs have never referred to themselves as Restorationists, and JWs refuse to formally accept the classification. However, JWs have apparently grown accustomed to being grouped with Restorationists as the least inaccurate of three inaccuracies; JWs have historic contentions with Catholicism and Protestantism (the only other two major categories, according to many scholarly authorities). It seems odd to give such special consideration to categorically elevate LDS and not JWs (or, more accurately, the Bible Student movement).
• "Restorationism" is not by definition trinitarian or nontrinitarian. It seems that LDS should be a subsection immediately below the Restorationism heading. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• The term "Restorationist" is quite problematic. You think it's obvious that LDS belongs there, but no, they really don't. Likewise, the Stone-Campbell Restorationists have very little in common with the Bible Student groups. It's not helpful to group them.
• I completely agree that the encyclopedia shouldn't say that trinitarianism is essential for Christianity. At the same time, many people think it is. A useful route, therefore, is to find classifications which avoid constant churning of the same things, and reach a state that everyone is more or less equally content (or equally discontent) with. Right now, the "Protestant" category means "trinitarian protestant"; the placement of the Bible Student groups there was simply an error. People kept moving JWs out of that category because they knew that JWs were non-trinitarian, but didn't know that the Bible Student groups in general should be moved out of that.
• If JWs don't belong in Restorationism (and neither do LDS), then there isn't any problem with things as they are. You should not assume that the number of equal signs signals importance; it does not. The Bible Student groups are not more or less important depending on the number of equal signs, and please, arguing about status is the least helpful thing here.
• If everyone including LDS agreed that LDS were non-trinitarian, we'd just move them there. They have a different category precisely because nobody can agree about whether they are trinitarian or not. About JWs, by contrast, there is no disagreement. Tb (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I am confused on the LDS not being restorationist. What standard are you defining them, because as I understand it they are restorationists? Here are some sources to links [1] [2] [3] and our own Restorationism article all include LDS. Not to mention their own self proclamation as the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. As to LDS being trinitarian, you cannot just lump them there because it is not a single denomination but a collection of many denominations, all with various beliefs about the trinity. That is why the Latter Day Saint movement is currently in a separate section. Bytebear (talk)

A common confusion! But our articles have it right. See how Restorationism describes the Restoration Movement, but does not say LDS is part of it; instead, it says that LDS also use the term "restoration". The Restoration Movement itself, is a term that refers to the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement. There isn't really a single thing called "restorationism"; but there is a single thing called the Restoration Movement, and that's what our section on this page is about. We don't have a "restorationism" section on this page. Tb (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense, but the chart of denominational branches seems to be off. I would recommend separating "Restorationism" into "Restoration Movement" and "Latter Day Saint movement" or adjusting the content to include all groups that claim a restoration into the "Restorationism" umbrella. Bytebear (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable, neutral references that limit the Restoration movment to just the Stone-Campbell group? I would like to review them. --^StormRider 01:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

There is an awful lot at Restoration movement, which is a quite well-cited article. The point is that the term can be used in a narrow or a broad way. In the broad way, it's too broad to be much help in the categorization here; in the narrow way, it's the Stone-Campbell group. Tb (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that the Stone-Campbell group uses it, but the question becomes who "owns" the term? The Stone-Campbell group is significantly smaller than the LDS Church or even most other churches within the movement today. The references in the article all come from their movment and I did not see any from a reliable reference that is so exclusive as you want to use. The unifying feature of all churches of the Restoration movement are that they all believed the churches of the day were the product of the apostasy and a restoration was needed. Beyond that they taught different doctrines, but they all came from a specific period of time and taught the need for the restoration of the original teachings or the original church of Jesus Christ. If we are going to make this exclusive, you are going to need some strong references otherwise all that we have done is make the article highly POV. --^StormRider 17:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If we had a category called "Restoration Movement" or "Restorationism", and then only listed the Stone-Campbell folks in it, that might be problematic. But that's not what we have. The earlier comments from User:AuthorityTam read as if we had that, but he was wrong, and we don't. In addition, there are groups (such as JWs) that seem restorationist (broad sense) in message, yet earnestly reject that label. I'm saying that we don't need a broad "Restorationism" category, precisely because finding an NPOV way to list groups in it is likely to be a serious problem. The proposal of User:Bytebear would be very hard to implement just because of this, but the current article is not deficient. Tb (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Mar Thoma Church

This should be added. Sarcelles (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Why? Are you saying it should be listed twice? :) Tb (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was thinking it wasn`t on the list. One can remove this section. Sarcelles (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Anglicanism, again

I'm going to object, once again, to the placement of Anglicanism in the "Apostolic/Catholic" section. The anon last year had it right - this is Anglo-Catholic POV, and seriously problematic in a lot of ways. The first is that there is a strong tradition within Anglicanism itself (the Low Church tradition) which emphasizes the Reformed or Protestant aspects of the church. The second is that historically, the Anglo-Catholic conception which this article endorses largely emerged in the mid-nineteenth century. Hooker and Laud may have talked about a via media, but it meant something quite different in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries than it came to mean later. And Laud was hugely controversial in the seventeenth century itself. By the eighteenth century, the old high church party had clearly lost, and the established church generally saw itself as unproblematically protestant until the Tractarians came along. Notice for instance Swift's Tale of a Tub, where the established church is represented by "Martin" - i.e., Martin Luther. The third point is one the anon last year emphasized - the competing strands within Anglicanism do not necessarily differentiate it particularly clearly from other conservative churches that emerged from the Reformation, especially the Scandinavian Lutheran churches.

I won't advocate it, because obviously it wouldn't pass, but it would actually be more accurate to simply include Anglicanism within Protestantism. Protestantism is generally defined as those churches which arose out of the Reformation in the 16th century - this is certainly true of the Church of England, and at the time the Elizabethan Settlement was widely viewed as a Protestant one. Anglo-Catholics like to say "Reformed" rather than "Protestant," but this doesn't really help - in the sixteenth century context of the 39 Articles, "Reformed" was actually more radical than Protestant - Protestant was generally taken to refer to Lutherans, while Reformed referred to Calvinists, as it still does in non-Anglican contexts. Similarly, in the eighteenth century, "Protestant" in England was generally taken to refer only to adherents of the established Church, with protestants who were not in the established church called Dissenters. I don't think the current organization is at all tenable, and I don't understand why the Apostolic Succession is being seen as the key distinction here, especially since there are Lutheran Churches which believe they also follow the apostolic succession. At the very least, though, we shouldn't have Anglicanism included within "Catholicism". john k (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Instead of again advocating something which you then say you aren't advocating, how about simply not advocating it? Or, if you are going to advocate it (again), how about not simply rehashing the same arguments the same way again? Tb (talk) 07:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I was not "not advocating" change. I was not advocating just moving Anglicanism into protestantism, although I think that would be better than the status quo. I certainly think the current status quo needs to be changed in some way, although I'm not sure how - I did not propose a specific solution because I hoped discussion might result in something which would be acceptable to people who I'm sure wouldn't agree to move Anglicanism under Protestantism. john k (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Point by point, in the hopes that when you or someone else decides to reopen this, yet again, the next time, we can refer to these in the hopes that maybe some new argument will show up.

• "The anon last year had it right - this is Anglo-Catholic POV". The anon last year didn't actually say anything of the kind. But regardless, the representation is not about a historical claim of how members of the Church of England viewed themselves in the past. The definition of "Catholicism" (or "Apostolic/Catholic" as it now is) used here is crystal clear, and under that definition, there is broad agreement across Anglicanism that Anglicanism fits that definition.

Why is such a definition of "Apostolic/Catholic" being used at all as the key factor to distinguish between different Christian traditions? The only reason I can see is so as to include Anglicanism with Roman Catholicism and the Eastern churches, and keep it away from Protestantism. I remain dubious that Low Church Anglicans would really prefer for the article to be organized as it currently is, but I'll let any speak for themselves, should they want to. My point is that there are a number of ways this article could be organized, and that the current way is one which caters to a contemporary Anglo-Catholic understanding of Anglicanism, without considering other ways of understanding it. If I were to add a little description, saying that by Protestant I mean the churches which emerged in the wake of the European Reformation, and then moved Anglicanism to under Protestantism, and then you protested this, I could say that "the definition of 'Protestantism' used here is crystal clear, and under that definition, there is broad agreement that Anglicanism fits that definition." The point is that there are many different criteria that could be used to distinguish between different Christian denominations. Choosing the apostolic succession as the primary one (except not really, because the Lutheran churches that accept the apostolic succession are not included in "Catholic," for the obvious reason that this would be absurd) has no clear reason behind it, except that it allows Anglo-Catholics to have Anglicanism grouped with Catholicism. john k (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you are seeing the dog's tail wag, and concluding that the dog was constructed in order to get a wagging tail. There is a huge similarity between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, one which is easily as dominant and important as the similarity between different LDS groups or between Presbyterians and Congregationalists. It seems obvious to nearly all that the RCC and the Orthodox belong in the same "bucket", contrasting with the "bucket" that holds the Presbyterians and Congregationalists and such. Once that decision is taken--and which people who barely notice the existence of Anglicanism take all the time--the question is how to identify the commonalities which underly the similarity, and what you quickly notice is that on virtually whatever axis you choose, Anglicanism lands in that bucket too.Tb (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is the case on "whatever axis you choose." On a historical axis, it makes more sense to connect the Roman Catholic Church and Anglicanism with all the Protestant churches as "Western Christendom" and separate out the eastern churches. Or you can look at all those and the Eastern Orthodox Church as "Chalcedonian Christianity" and separate out the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrians. And if one looks at different commonalties, one can just as easily simply place Anglicanism with Protestantism, and keep Catholicism and the Orthodox separate - Low Church Anglicanism, at least, is a lot more like Lutheranism, or even Methodism, than it is like Roman Catholicism. In addition, the Anglican Communion distinctly views itself as a via media between Protestantism and Catholicism. Including it only within Catholicism ignores that issue. john k (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• "The Anglo-Catholic conception which this article endorses largely emerged in the mid-nineteenth century." Much of your comment amounts to dancing around the "largely" to show that while it manifestly did not originate in the nineteenth century, the earlier views of that "conception" somehow don't count. But all that is beside the point. The article is not a representation of the seventeenth century Church of England, nor of the eighteenth, nor of the nineteenth, nor of the twentieth--nor even of the twenty-first. The classification is a representation of twenty-first Anglicanism, an international communion of churches around the globe, which is not determined by this or that period in its history as if that one period somehow trumped all others for purposes of identification or self-understanding. So while I protest that the "conception" is not a purely Anglo-Catholic one (remember, we're talking about whether continuity on the basis of Apostolic Succession is claimed), it isn't much relevant when it "largely emerged".

As I understand it, the Church of Sweden also claims continuity on the basis of the Apostolic Succession. But, perhaps because we don't have too many High Church Swedish Lutherans on Wikipedia, or perhaps because Lutheranism is so strongly viewed as Protestant by outsiders, or whatever, but it's clear that the Apostolic Succession is not clearly the issue here. As far as Anglo-Catholicism, I think you'll find that while Newman, et al, certainly believed they were drawing upon older traditions, actual scholarship on the subject of the sixteenth and seventeenth century church of England does not support this. In particular, the idea of the Via Media is one which has meant widely varying things over the years, and the idea of a via media between Rome and "Protestantism" is a particularly late one. john k (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, the Church of Sweden is a difficult case, but the difficulty is addressed by noticing that it by its own self-understanding subordinates apostolic succession to communion with other Lutherans. In other words, this exact issue arises in practical ecclesiology, as the Church of Sweden historically confronted its own emphasis on apostolic succession, and its emphasis on commonality with Lutherans, and by accession to the Augsburg Confession, and actual practice, it has clearly said "commonality with other Lutherans is more important to our self-understanding than is apostolic succession." By contrast, Anglicanism has, through such documents as the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, or the actual ecumenical practice underlying such things as Porvoo or the ELCA Concordat in the US, indicated that apostolic succession is--for Anglicans--a sine-qua-non of Church unity. As for the sixteenth and seventeenth century, that doesn't matter because we are not discussing where the Church of England of four hundred years ago belongs (and why four hundred and not six, or ten, or one?), but where Anglicanism today belongs. Tb (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

But the sixteenth and seventeenth century defined a lot of elements that are still relevant to Anglicanism today - the 39 Articles, for instance. The Act of Settlement 1701, which is still in effect, uses the word "Protestant" all the time in a way which would make very little sense if the Church of England is not a Protestant Church. And why 400 years? Because "Anglicanism," as a distinct faith tradition within Christianity, can only be traced back to Henry VIII's break with Rome. Before that, English Catholicism is simply a branch of the broader western church, without any particularly distinct traditions of its own. I understand that the Apostolic Succession is important. But the "Reformed" notion is important too, and shouldn't be ignored. john k (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• "the competing strands within Anglicanism do not necessarily differentiate it particularly clearly from other conservative churches that emerged from the Reformation". I don't know which competing strands you mean. In the twentieth-first century (which is the one that counts here), those competing strands certainly do differentiate it. It is true, uncontestedly, that sitting in the seventeenth century it might have been impossible to predict the significant divergence between Swedish and English national churches, but by the eighteenth the difference was clear. The Swedish placed a priority on unity with continental Lutherans, and did not view their episcopate as anything to insist on, while the English took exactly the opposite tack.

And yet, the eighteenth century is the time period when Anglicanism was quite clearly at its most unproblematically Protestant. I meant that there is an Anglo-Catholic group and a Low Church group. Obviously, Anglicanism is unique in the particular strength of the High Church party, and perhaps in that High Church party's conception of itself as Catholic, but this can be found in other churches as well. john k (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

So what? If this were a list of eighteenth-century Christian denominations we might make a different list. The Church of England of 1200 was unproblematically Catholic. But neither the 18th nor the 13th century determines; this list is about the 21st century. Tb (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The article says that the list is "ordered by historical and doctrinal relationships." That makes history relevant. And the break with Rome in the 16th century is a far more dramatic and clear-cut event than the gradual victory of High Church forces within the communion. john k (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Protestantism is generally defined as those churches which arose out of the Reformation in the 16th century". This, as it happens, simply adopts the POV of the Roman Catholic Church. This page aims at the self-understanding of the various groups, without adjuticating the conflicting truth-claims between them. The Church of England did not view itself as having arisen out of the Reformation, but of having been the same church, continuing through a reformation. Moreover, who cares what Protestantism is "generally defined as"? Most people who toss off general definitions fail utterly to consider the corner cases (note how many think that Protestant and non-Roman-Catholic are synonyms!). General definitions are a good starting place, but a poor ending place when the enterprise is a fairly exhaustive classification.

This isn't simply the POV of the Roman Catholic Church. It is reflected in dictionary definitions. I would say that it is, broadly speaking, the POV of everyone who is not an Anglo-Catholic. At any rate, you're right that general definitions are probably an unwise place to go, but there's certainly a lot of English history which is incomprehensible on the premise that the Church of England is not protestant. My actual suggestion would be that Anglicanism should get a section of its own, and that perhaps the whole "Apostolic/Catholic" section should be blown up into multiple sections. john k (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The American Heritage Dictionary lists three definitions. First, " A member of a Western Christian church whose faith and practice are founded on the principles of the Reformation, especially in the acceptance of the Bible as the sole source of revelation, in justification by faith alone, and in the universal priesthood of all the believers." Some Anglicans fit this test, and some do not; at some points Anglicans have mostly fit this test, and at other points, not so. The 39 Articles carefully do not express the first point, describe the second point only as "a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort", and have nothing to do with the third. Second definition, "A member of a Western Christian church adhering to the theologies of Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli." While their thought has at various times held importance in the Church of England, it is a certainty that present day Anglicanism does not adhere to their theologies, and also that their theologies were never mandatory in the formularies of the Church. Third definition: "One of the German princes and cities that supported the doctrines of Luther and protested against the decision of the second Diet of Speyer (1529) to enforce the Edict of Worms (1521) and deny toleration to Lutherans." And that obviously doesn't fit either. Tb (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, certainly Anglicanism doesn't accept the universal priesthood, and on the other points has been mixed, because of the fact that the Elizabethan Settlement was a compromise. Even so, the word "especially" in that definition means that none of those features is a sine qua non. But there are other definitions of Protestantism. Here's the second definition in the OED, into which Anglicanism fits without any difficulty: "A member or adherent of any of the Christian churches or bodies which repudiated the papal authority, and separated or were severed from the Roman communion in the Reformation of the 16th cent., and of any of the bodies of Christians descended from them; (now also more generally) a member of any Western Christian church outside the Roman communion. Opposed to Papist, Roman Catholic, or Catholic in the restricted sense." I think we generally take the OED as the most authoritative source on the meaning of English words, and this definition of "Protestant" is clearly one which includes the Anglican Communion. john k (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• You point out that Anglo-Catholics generally like to say "Reformed", but this is precisely because, by the nineteenth century, the terms had shifted just as you note. In the sixteenth century, and the seventeenth, "Reformed" was more radical than "Protestant", but by the late nineteenth century, it was almost exactly the opposite (or at least, if we mean "reformed" rather than "Reformed", as the latter slid into meaning "Calvinist"). We are not concerned with whether the sixteenth century Church of England fit the sixteenth century meaning of Protestant, but whether the twenty-first century Anglican Communion fits the definition of "Apostolic/Catholic" given here.

But "reformed" in the sixteen articles already meant "Calvinist." That's the point. Outside the context of Anglicanism, "Reformed" still means Calvinist. Anyway, what I am concerned with is whether the definition of "Apostolic/Catholic" given here is the right way to distinguish between denominations. And I think the history is important to at least take into consideration. john k (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What are the "sixteen articles", and what do they have to do with present day Anglicanism? Tb (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ack, 39 Articles. Brain fart. john k (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• As for why the Apostolic Succession is taken as key here, keep in mind that the page is designed to track the self-understanding of the groups in question. For those groups Apostolic Succession is by their self-understanding taken to be of cardinal importance in ecclesiology. (If you doubt this in the case of Anglicanism, note that the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, the touchstone for contemporary Anglican ecclesiology and ecumenism, mentions the "historic episcopate", and does not show much attention to any characteristically Protestant anything.) By contrast, even those Lutherans who do maintain the historic succession of bishops do not view it as being of the same cardinal importance (as the Augsburg Confession says). Tb (talk) 07:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the language of the Lambeth Conference, The Holy Scriptures, as containing all things necessary to salvation, and the existence of only the two sacraments of baptism and holy communion are, in fact, characteristically Protestant, as is the specific mention of those two being "ordained by Christ himself" in the Lambeth version. The description of the Episcopate as being "locally adapted" is also problematic for a purely Anglo-Catholic understanding. The Thirty-nine Articles also contain a whole lot of material that is "characteristically protestant," including justification by faith alone, the rejection of transubstantiation (and, really, a Calvinist understanding of the Eucharist), and so forth. I know the church today downplays the highly protestant nature of the Thirty-nine Articles, but they remain the historic statement of what Anglicanism is, and have never been explicitly rejected. john k (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. So there is no doctrine of sola scriptura, we have no statement that the two great sacraments are the only sacraments. As for local adaptation, I don't know what "purely Anglo-Catholic understanding" is supposed to have a problem with that; I've never heard of Anglo-Catholics who thought that bishops should always and everywhere exercise their office in the same way. Since you "know that the church today downplays...." can we then move to an admission that this article should document the church today? Tb (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would I make such an admission? I tend to think the historical issues are as important as whatever the current understanding, and the introduction to this article explicitly mentions the history. john k (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

To get into this more broadly, I think the basic problem here is the "Apostolic/Catholic" formulation. I would suggest two possible ways of changing it: 1) To get rid of the Apostolic/Catholic Section entirely. Split it into its component parts. 2) Leave things as they are, but add a section on Anglicanism to the Protestant section as well. This could just be a note to see the section on Anglicanism above. john k (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This is simply to give up on any categorization at all. A "solution" which manages to hide the obviously crucial relationship between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics is completely unacceptible to me. Tb (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

So as I said, I find quite unacceptable any approach which fails to note the commonalities between Orthodox and Roman Catholics. As for your second idea, I don't intrinsically mind the idea of adding a note in the Protestantism section, but there are some caveats. One is that this would easily start to creep into a jillion notes all over the place, and I'd like to avoid that. Listing groups more than once produces a number of problems, and we've historically tried to follow a rough "filter". A see-also that doesn't become an invitation for a jillion more doesn't offend me though. I don't mind seeing one in a way that doesn't cause a problem like this. But the current definition of "Protestantism" in the article simply doesn't fit; we can't even add a see-also there without mentioning that the Church of England did not "arise from the Protestant Reformation." Tb (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, what about if we use the OED definition instead - "any of the Christian churches or bodies which repudiated the papal authority, and separated or were severed from the Roman communion in the Reformation of the 16th cent., and of any of the bodies of Christians descended from them?" john k (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

In other words, as the OED puts it, "opposed to ... Catholic in the restricted sense", and as the note on I.2.b indicates, a clearly POV use in contemporary Anglicanism. Indeed, while all Anglicans use the word "Catholic" to refer to themselves--in some sense or other--it is not true that all Anglicans use the word Protestant thus, and indeed, historically, "Catholic" was not the term for Roman Catholics. At the time Anglicans would unproblematically call themselves Protestant, it was not "Protestant as opposed to Catholic", it was "Protestant as opposed to Papist". We find such uses as I.2.c, in which "Protestant" means "A member of a nonconformist or non-episcopal Church", with a citation from the Times in 1862. Of course, what we're talking about is the word "Catholic"; it is you who insist that the propriety of "Protestant" somehow nullifies the propriety of "Catholic". So let's look at "Catholic", and we see right there, II.6.a, which describes the view I'm articulating as that the term is "held by Anglicans not to be so limited, but to include the Church of England, asthe proper continuation in England, alike of the Ancient and the Western Church." Indeed, the view that Catholic means Roman Catholic, is expressed in II.6.a specifically as one which was "claimed as its exclusive title by...the Roman obedience", and not that this is simply its meaning. Indeed, the definition which you want for Catholic falls only when we get to II.8. What the OED documents is precisely my point: that there is not some common universally applied meaning; there is not some simple "dictionary definition" which you want to appeal to, but instead, good dictionaries reproduce the considerable complexity and controversial history of the use of the term. Given that, we have a use which has stood the test of time and consensus here, is clearly and carefully explained, and fairly accurately and consistently used. I grant you that it does not match what every reader's initial presuppositions might be, but then, the job of an encyclopedia is to inform, and not simply to mirror the presuppositions of the reader. Tb (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, this response is unencouraging; I was hoping we might be moving towards some way forward which might be acceptable to both of us. I was not suggesting that there is necessarily one clear definition for Protestant, and I was not suggesting using the part of the OED definition after "now also more generally." I was suggesting using the first half, which is, again, "any of the Christian churches or bodies which repudiated the papal authority, and separated or were severed from the Roman communion in the Reformation of the 16th cent., and of any of the bodies of Christians descended from them," as the definition of protestantism in this article, because I think it is the most common understanding of the term, and does the best job of . I think this is the primary meaning of "Protestant" in English, and is clearer than the current definition. I am not trying to say that Anglicanism's "Protestantism" negates its "Catholicism." What I am saying is that the Anglican Communion's understanding of itself as "Catholic" (which is especially emphasized by Anglo-Catholics) does not negate the understanding of some within the communion, and of most outside, that it is "Protestant." (It would certainly be odd to describe the Church of Ireland as "Catholic," for instance, in a discussion of Irish politics, without any mention of its being Protestant.) I think my preference would be for Anglicanism to be listed separately from "Catholicism" and "Protestantism", and for the via media idea to be mentioned, along with the idea that Anglicanism can be considered to be both Catholic and Protestant. The Catholic section and the Protestant section can both have a sub-section for Anglicanism which notes that Anglicanism can be considered to fall within it, with a hatnote leading to the actual section on Anglicanism. The Anglicanism section would include the Anglican Communion, as well as the continuing Anglican churches. I'm still uncomfortable with the use of "Catholicism" in the broader sense as a section heading, as I think it's very likely to be confusing and misleading to those who generally associate the word "Catholicism" with its narrower meaning, but I'm at a loss for a better term, so I'm willing to let that slide as long as what is meant is clearly explained (which it is). I'm going to edit the article to show what I'm proposing. You may revert if you like, but even if you do I'd like to continue discussing this in the hopes of coming to an agreement. john k (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No need to give up on progress! We are moving forward, of that I'm confident, even if neither of us knows the destination yet. :) A great number of groups on this page fit into more than one category; that's just always going to be the way it goes. (I mean, the LDS and the various non-Trinitarians obviously fit the general category of "Protestant" as well, but it is hardly helpful to put them there, and only leads to confusion and, worse, continual fighting.) As I said, I do not object to the previous arrangement with a pointer in "Protestant" that contained a mention of Anglicans there as well, with a reference to the fuller entry above, but if that's there, then it needs to avoid making the extremely controversial claim that the Church of England originates in the 16th century. I would prefer this solution, I think, to your current re-arrangement; it's just a matter of finding the right characterization, which I'm confident could be done. As for confusion, our job is to explain, not to mirror the unexamined assumptions of the reader. It's certainly not "misleading"; it's just confusing, unless, that is, you take the position that the Roman Catholic Church is the only Catholic church, and that any use of the term by anyone else is misleading. Frankly, that view is one which I think is not only misleading, but offensive (and I don't think you have taken that position, btw, just that it's in the air, so to speak, and I want to avoid it!). The problem, as I see it, is that you want Anglicanism to be listed in a way which is entirely symmetric with respect to the Catholic and Protestant labels, and I think it is inaccurate to see it that way. Consider that by every definition of Catholic, except the one which says "Roman Catholic Church only", Anglicanism is Catholic; consider that Anglicans use the word daily in worship as a description of their faith; consider that there is no group of Anglicans who have refused the word; consider that historically, back when all Anglicans called themselves Protestant, they did so meaning "not Papist", not as meaning "not Catholic". In other words, there is virtual unanimity among Anglicans of the propriety of calling themselves "Catholic", even while there is disagreement about what in practice that refers to. But, entirely asymmetrically, the term "Protestant" is not used in worship, has changed meaning in significant ways over time, does not accurately describe the doctrines of Anglicans, and, more importantly, is repudiated by a strain within Anglicanism which is extremely important today. We have two terms, one about which all Anglicans agree as to its use (and agree that Anglicanism as well fits the definition of that term used here), and a second term, about which Anglicans have a great deal of controversy and division about its propriety, and of far less weight in practice. (Consider, for example, that the PCUSA constitution says "Reformed" on every other page if you want to see what a self-identified Protestant denomination looks like!) Tb (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tb. In terms of LDS and the non-trinitarians, I think the current definition of "Protestant" doesn't clearly include them, as LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses, and such, are not direct descendants of groups which broke away from communion with Rome during the Reformation, while Unitarian Universalists, which arguably are, generally don't really consider themselves Christian at all. I agree that there is a strong case for excluding all these from Protestantism. I will says that while I don't believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the only Catholic church, it is the only Catholic church which is commonly known as the Catholic Church. Basically, many churches are Catholic, but there is only one "Catholic Church," if that makes sense. I do wonder at the whole thing a bit, though - many non-controversially protestant churches also use the Nicene Creed. And I don't think "Protestant" is used in worship by anybody, is it? In terms of symmetricality, though, I take your point, but my thinking is that this is primarily a question of the broad meanings of words, rather than issues of self-definition. Allow me to explain:

1. My general feeling is that in non-technical spoken and written English, "Protestant" would be taken to mean the OED definition I went to in my version of the article, and thus to include Anglicans. This meaning would not be taken to have any specific doctrinal content. (Examples: "The principal Protestant churches in Ireland are the Church of Ireland and the Presbyterian Church in Ireland." "The Episcopal Church has been considered one of the 'seven sisters of American Protestantism.'")
2. My general feeling is also that in non-technical spoken and written English, "Catholic" would generally be taken to mean the narrow meaning of "Roman Catholic.." (Examples: "John F. Kennedy was the first Catholic president of the United States." "Catholics were subjected to legal penalties in the United Kingdom until the repeal of the Test Act in 1829.")
3. These definitions are not wrong, in that they are in common usage, and any of the sentences I gave above could, I think, uncontroversially appear in reliable sources. (Note for instance that the Wikipedia article is at Catholic Emancipation, not Roman Catholic Emancipation). Certainly even if I am incorrect that these are not the most common understandings of the term in English, we can all agree that these are very commonly used and understood meanings.
4. That is not to say that the definitions of "Protestant" and "Catholic" which, respectively, exclude and include Protestants are wrong; and it is very important that a large group within the Anglican community itself holds to those definitions, and strongly feels that the definitions I mentioned above are inaccurate with respect to Anglicanism (and the eastern churches in the second case).
5. As such, I think a symmetrical structure is appropriate, because we have several acceptable meanings of both terms, at least one of which is inclusive of Anglicanism. In the case of "Catholic," the meaning which includes Anglicanism is one which many Anglicans like to emphasize, but which is subject to misunderstanding by most non-Anglicans. In the case of "Protestant," the meaning which includes Anglicanism is one which many Anglicans reject, but which is widely understood. The situations are not precisely parallel, but I don't think the ways in which they are not parallel are of sufficient importance to justify disparate treatment. The ways in which it is not symmetrical should be discussed in the text about Anglicanism, as hopefully it is. john k (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Title of "Catholicism" section

So for the longest time, the title of the first main section has been "Catholicism", with a see-also to Catholicism. Then an anon editor changed it to "Apostolic" and removed the see-also; then a minute later to "Apostolic/Catholic(=Universal)" User:Jamesmarkhetterley helpfully fixed that a bit, by removing the ugly "(=Universal)" part. None of these changes got edit summaries. I've reverted it to the previous "Catholicism". The motive for the change--and here I'm really guessing--seems to have been a concern by the anon editor, mostly active in articles touching on Armenia, that the term Catholicism is not sufficiently inclusive of the Eastern Orthodox. This is a touchy area, to be sure, but the term "Apostolic" raises more problems than it solves. In the United States, when "Apostolic" is used as a denominational title, it almost always refers to a Holiness or Pentecostal group, and frequently (though not always) specifically to the non-Trinitarian "Oneness" Pentecostals. Given that the meaning of the term for purposes of classification here is already spelled out, and not only includes the Orthodox, but lists them under it, and that Catholicism goes to some length to cover the question, I think the older terminology should be restored, and have done so. Tb (talk) 07:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This is indeed a very touchy subject. Having a section called "Catholicism" which includes Anglicanism and the eastern churches is really unacceptable. I understand that "the meaning of the term for purposes of classification here is already spelled out," but the fact that the article is using that meaning is really, really problematic. Two suggestions: either change "Catholicism" to "Churches emphasizing the Apostolic Succession," or remove it entirely and just list all those churches separately. john k (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It sounds as if you are simply advancing the Roman Catholic view in which only the Roman Catholic Church is allowed to conceive of itself as "Catholic". The exercise here is in categorization; the "solution" of "have no categories" is not helpful. Tb (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I am advancing the non-Anglo-Catholic view that the word "Catholic" and "Catholicism" refers in English primarily to the Roman Catholic Church. I did not say to have no categories - I said that the particular category currently titled "Catholicism" is highly problematic. john k (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The OED--which I remind you is the resource you have claimed should be determinative--contains no such claim about "primarily", nor does it substantiate your argument that this is simply and unproblematically "the" best meaning here. Indeed, it is a category which has the advantage of doing some categorizing: it includes more than one, and less than all. It is as if we looked at the various common meanings of "Catholic", and identified the one that has that property. Tb (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

If you read above, I have given up on that point. I made the edits I suggested above to the article. Please let me know what you think. john k (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, what I do not see in the OED definition of "Catholic" is any reference to the apostolic succession. john k (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)