Talk:Anglicanism/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

History

The history section is not really about the history of "doctrine and practice" - which is what this article is about, but a mere history of the Communion. Anglican Communion#History and History of the Anglican Communion rehash the history already in TWO other articles. I propose a massive edit/merge of these three history sections. Anyone object if I act boldly? -- SECisek 11:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Be bold! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 00:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Seems fine to me. Myopic Bookworm 09:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Anglican worship: an overview

What exactly does Anglicanus regard as "twee", other than my careful use of the old British (and Prayer Book) spelling of "baptize" which he so carefully effaced? Myopic Bookworm 16:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering what 'twee' meant too. How is the "Anglican worship: an overview" section "dainty or pretty in an overdone and affected way"? On another note, a number of contributing editors seem to dislike this section. Yes, it is not well written: Be bold and revise. As for its necessity, a number of Wikipedia guidelines would say it is. For example, State the obvious and Provide context for the reader which says "Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible the reader knows nothing about the subject: the article needs to fully explain the subject." So, a section in an Anglicanism article must give a sense of what Anglican worship looks like, in terms free of eccliastical jargon, much like an anthropologist/sociologist would describe any ritual (without the academic jargon). This is hard to do and, probably, the cause of the poor writing style. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 16:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You are certainly correct about the poor writing style of this section. 'Twee' might not be the most precise word to describe it, at least according to a dictionary definition - perhaps 'trite' would be more appropriate as the section is both bland and boring. Whilst I try to avoid being contentious (most of the time) this section at present is really unworthy of inclusion in the article. I do, however, appreciate the difficulties in trying to describe worship. Anglicanus 15:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

In an attempt to clear some ground, I have moved a whole load of doctrinal stuff out of this section altogether. Myopic Bookworm 23:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Your edits and removal are sensible. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 00:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The Real Presence

In the sentence "Depending on the individual, the range of Anglican personal belief is from 'objective reality' to 'pious silence'.", what do 'objective reality' and 'pious silence' mean? I don't understand. I was going to delete it as it is unsourced. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 16:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I know what they are intended to mean but they won't mean much, if anything, to most people without any explanation. Anglicanus 16:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"Objective reality" means, I think, what it says: Christ is "really"/"objectively" present in a way which does not depend on any perception or interpretation by the subject (i.e. the believer). "Pious silence" also seems fairly transparent: some people who prefer not to express an opinion on the doctrine, but simply accept that in some way or another Christ is present. The sentence perhaps fails to ackowledge that some Anglicans hold a sort of Zwinglian view: Christ is present in the eucharistic participation itself, not in the physical elements. Myopic Bookworm 22:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
PS I think the section should go, though. There is a much better treatment at Anglican Eucharistic theology. The specific notion of "Real Presence" seems to me not really Anglican, but Lutheran. Neither this nor the following section on Sacrifice of the Mass have a place in the section on the BCP: they are essentially concenred with very detailed points of Anglican/Catholic (or Anglican/Protestant) polemic. Myopic Bookworm 22:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Somehow the section is getting more complicated and seems to be muddled by Anglo-catholicism. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 00:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I am mischievously tempted to suggest that all references to Anglo-Catholic practice could be replaced by a general note saying "Anglo-Catholics also use a variety of Roman Catholic liturgical and ceremonial forms, both current and historical, and may assent to any or all Roman Catholic doctrines with the sole exception of accepting papal jurisdiction". Myopic Bookworm 09:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Or even more mischievious "a variety of Roman Catholic liturgical and ceremonial forms, both current and historical (real and imagined)"... David Underdown 11:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Myopic Bookworm's suggestion isn't so bad, David Underdown's however, might be better left out. -- SECisek 19:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Anglicanism defined

Is it okay to edit the language used in this section? The word "whilst" seems a bit strange, especially in the sentence, "Whilst it has since undergone many revisions..." I think this sentence reads better if it begins simply as "It has since undergone many revisions..." Also, the style guide says to avoid the word "whilst". Quadelirus 14:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You're always free to change wording, as long as it doesn't (significantly) change meaning. Especially when you're doing it to conform to something such as the style guide. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.