Talk:Anglican Church of Canada/Archive 1

This page 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.

Is the Anglican Church still established in the Maritime Provinces? If not, when did it become disestablished there? --

The Anglican Church is not the established church anywhere in Canada at present but you've raise an interesting question, I believe it was established in some of the maritime provinces prior to Confederation. AndyL 21:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

According to this biography the Anglican Church was disestablished in Nova Scotia in 1850 with the death of John Inglis. AndyL 21:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article itself says the Anglican Church was established in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and PEI, but doesn't say when or if it was disestablished there again, just that it was never established throughout Canada. --

_comhrá

22:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you can research the issue and put the answer into the article? 70.49.88.25 19:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it was ever officially the established church of Manitoba but it came out west with the Hudson's Bay Company - for example there is still a seat dedicated to the chief factor of the HBC in St. John's Cathedral here in Winnipeg. --Cantis 20:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find this info on the ACC website and I'm not as familiar with the structure of the church as I am with the Catholic structure...I was wondering about the archbishops mentioned on this page. Is there a separate archbishop and bishop of Ontario, for example? Is the Archbishop of Canada different from the Primate? I see that the ACC website refers to him as "Archbishop", but of what? The reason I ask is that I was adding Canadians to the

• Canadian Forces Chaplaincy site
• poster

Hmm, I see...I think! Thanks. Adam Bishop 04:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

It would go something like this (I think) Parish with (I've heard all of these) Parish Priest, Rector or Incumbent, Deanery made up of a few churches (this layer not always present) co-ordinated by a Sr. priest an Arch Deacon, the Diocese with it's Bishop, Church Province with an Archbishop (The Metropolitan) and the Archbishop of Canada, The Primate Andrew Hutchinson then the Archbishop of Canterbury. Note that a lot of this structure is collegial and not really discipline based unless it's a matter of doctrine, which is controled by the national synod. Cantis 23:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The Primate of Canada, is titled Archbishop, and so addressed formally as The Most Reverend Andrew Hutchinson, and referred to as Archbishop Hutchinson or The Primate. As Primate s/he has no diocese. Properly, s/he could never be called the Archbishop of Canada. A Metropolitan Bishop, is also titled Archbishop, and is addressed formally as The Most Reverend N.N., and referred to as Archbishop or the Metropolitan. As Metopolitan s/he is responsible for one of four ecclesiastical provinces. And continues as the Diocesan bishop of whatever dioces s/he was in when elected as metropolitan (for example at a provincial synod). e.g. The Most Reverend John R. Clarke, is the Metropolitan Archbishop of Rupert's Land, and Archbishop of Athabasca. Before his election as Metropolitan he was The Right Reverend John R. Clarke, Bishop of Athabasca. Note that the Diocese of Athabasca is not the Archdiocese of Athabasca. That is in the Anglican Church of Canada unlike The Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church, becoming the Bishop of a particular Diocese doesn't mean that one then becomes the Archbishop. So the Metropolitan of Rupert's Land have come from various dioceses, in my memory, Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon, . . .

Note that the four Ecclesiastical Provinces in the Anglican Church of Canada are 1. British Columbia and the Yukon, 2. Rupert's Land, 3. Ontario, and 4. Canada.

The Metropolitan of Canada would be the Metropolitan Archbishop of the Ecclesiastical Province of Canada (which includes dioceses over most of the civil province of Quebec and all of Newfoundland and the maritime provinces.) For clarity's sake, I don't believe he would be normally addressed as Archbishop of Canada. The present Metropolitan of Canada is the Most Rev. Bruce Stavert, Archbishop of Quebec.

Also note that within the Province of Rupert's Land is the Diocese of Rupert's Land. The Diocesan Bishop of Rupert's Land (The Right Reverend Don Phillips) is currently NOT the Metropolitan Archbishop of Rupert's Land. (Though he could be one day, if duly elected).

And note, that neither the Primate nor the Anglican Church of Canada are "under the authority" of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

And in our diocese the responsiblities and positions are as follows

Parish -> Incumbent (normally a Priest, sometimes a Deacon, or even a Bishop sometimes we call ourselves Rectors, but that's a whole other can of worms - look up Rector and Vicar in the Oxford English Dictionary)

Deanery-> Regional or Rural Dean (an Incumbent chosen from among the clergy of the constituent Parishes)

Archdeaconry-> Archdeacon (an incumbent normally a priest (I believe is appointed by the bishop, maybe elected among the clergy,) An Archdeaconry is, in this diocese (Calgary) composed of two deaneries.

Diocese-> Diocesan Bishop (elected by clergy and lay Delegates to an Electoral Synod. One who is not already a bishop, must subsequent to election, be ordained or consecrated a Bishop.) MrSeanBrook 21:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

How can "The first Anglican clergy arrived in Canada as chaplains on John Cabot's expedition in 1497" really be true? Maybe I'm getting my dates mixed up, but surely 1497 is prior to Henry VIII split from Rome, which would be the earlist the Anglican Church could really be said to exist? David Underdown 15:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

We Anglicans tend to think of the

I'm an Anglican too, and whilst obviously there is continuity, those English clergy with Cabot wouldn't have recognised that desciption of themselves David Underdown

Actually, I'd be quite happy to go along with something along the lines of, "the first english representatives of what was then still the

Roman Catholic church". Keep in mind, though, that anglican simply means english i.e the english church or the church in England. I'm not happy about the current edit,"The first English (Catholic) clergy

", simply because I dislike using parentheses in reasonably formal writing.

The latest changes (and reverts) were nothing to do with me. I'm not overly bothered by the wording, it just struck me as rather anachronistic when I first read it. I agree that anglican could refer to more general "englishness", but I think when read in conjunction with clergy, people are unlikely to read it that way. Just realised that I forogt to sign my second comment above, so have now added name only sig to that to improve readability. David Underdown 10:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Much as I appreciate the extra publicity for the parish of which I 'm a member, I question the appropriateness of this section. Writing about individual parishes on the article page for the national church is necessarily going to give undue prominence to a few parishes. -Dhodges 01:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. The discussion doesn't single any parish out in an ecclesiastical context but rather in cultural ones; in Australia, where awareness of Canada (much less the ACC) is next to nil, CDs of both SMM's choirs and the Elora Festival Singers are available in record stores, and the hymn tune Bellwoods is discussed in the commentaries on the 1975 Australian Hymn Book; Willan's music is sung throughout the USA (though little known elsewhere in the world) and much of it was composed for SMM; Gerald Moore's association with St Thomas is noteworthy in itself. It's difficult to think of any other parishes which have cultural significance beyond Canada in this way. (One might make a case for St Anne's with its Group of Seven murals, but again these artists are largely unknown outside Canada.) Masalai 10:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, the photo of St Bartholomew's, Ottawa doesn't really add a vast amount; the photo is not particularly prepossessing. Perhaps the person who contributed it might care to write a discrete article on this parish. Hallowed Walls is a useful source of information on it. Masalai 11:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I should think that it is notable, as the GG historically worshipped there. There is in fact an article on it. The previous internal link was to St. Bart's in Toronto; I have corrected this.

And are the Group of Seven really "largely unknown outside Canada"?! Carolynparrishfan 16:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry: it was the link that was incorrect, not the caption to the photo. Nonetheless, I should think that the link to the St Bartholomew's, Ottawa article sufficient given that the section is a mite light on text to bear gracefully three photos, and indeed the photo isn't very illuminating. Perhaps someone could find a public domain photo of the GG's pew inside the church or something. And yes, alas, the Group of Seven is only world famous in Canada. Masalai 08:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone up for a housecleaning? Fishhead64 02:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

By all means take a stab at it. One thing that can go is the over-the-top demand for citations that has just appeared. Matters of common knowledge and common sense certainly don't need to be cited even according to the most punctilious bibliographic standards. It is analagous to the law of evidence, where judicial notice is taken of facts that are generally known; and for that matter, while one's presumption that the birthdate one celebrates really is the anniversary of one's birth, that is indeed a matter of inadmissible hearsay, strictly speaking but no court in its right mind would insist on documentary evidence. Masalai 03:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've stabbed. The intro was way too long and speculative, and the history seemed to end in 1893. I'll do some work on the rest of it as time warrants. Fishhead64 04:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that Cridge was the Dean of British Columbia? In the British Columbia [Law] Reports his suit is styled Cridge v. Diocese of Columbia [sic] and I had assumed there to have been a diocesan name change at some point. Masalai 05:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You are correct! Good catch! Fishhead64 09:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course it wasn't just Dean Cridge who decamped from the cathedral; he took the major part of the cathedral congregation with him; on the other hand, that was essentially the extent of it and apart from the Church of Our Lord in Victoria, constituted by Cridge and his congregation, there was little further development in that movement and one wonders if is all that notable in terms of the wider ACC. Masalai 04:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have substantially revised this article, with the exception of this section. I question its appropriateness, since it is bound to be - if you'll excuse the expression - parochial in its outlook. As it reads, one would think that there were no notable parishes outside southern Ontario, which is plainly not the case. Unfortunately, I don't have the breadth of knowledge to determine, much less enumerate what constitutes "notable" parishes - but I have to think the pioneer church in Barkerville, St. Saviour's; the Cathedral in Victoria, and St. James' in Vancouver must count for historical and architectural reasons - not to mention some the earliest churches in Atlantic Canada. What do others think? Fishhead64 00:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Conceivably Quebec Cathedral for its age — it is the oldest cathedral building in the country by some decades — and St John's, Newfoundland, Cathedral, as the oldest Anglican congregation by some centuries. There wouldn't really be any other parishes that are notable in a secular sense or beyond Canada, which was the theme of the section. If Barkerville parish is notable in a historical sense then one would have to list several others that have comparable significance, including Stanley Mission in Saskatchewan but it starts to get somewhat out of hand. St James, Vancouver, is notable for its high church liturgy (its music isn't really up to all that much any more) but there are lots of equally high church parishes across the country) and conceivably its unusual architecture, but then unusualness in architectural style became almost normative in the decades immediately subsequent to its building and it wasn't St James that set that in motion. Victoria Cathedral is an imposing west front and a few bays of what would have been a substantial nave but since its completion was essentially abandoned one wonders how it is notable in its final form. Masalai 04:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's just it, isn't it? It's a judgement call. I'd like to hear what others think should be done with this section, because it could conceivably grow like topsy. Fishhead64 06:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

("Nevertheless, in the latter half of the 20th century liturgies steadily drifted into greater homogeneity across the ACC and former disjunctions among high-, low- and broad-church sensibilities became blurred.") Well, it was an orphan sentence in that it began with the now superfluous "nevertheless," which referred to the formerly preceding discussion of "high," "low" and "broad." And the discussion of those issues is now certainly complete but it is also a mite vague, whereas there are other articles that discuss these very party issues in the wider Anglican church which were once very important indeed, and the sentence usefully alludes to them in terms of their decreasing significance in Canada. (And, cosmetically, at least, internationally as well — Peter Akinola's and Michael Nazir-Ali's copes and mitres would have been extremely unlikely a few decades back; it would surely nowadays be the contrast between formal liturgy of any kind and virtually no liturgy at all, as one perhaps finds more often in England than in Canada, that is of significance rather than the old high church/low church disjunction that matters in terms of liturgy. And literalness or liberalness in scriptural interpretation and adherence to or willingness to depart from tradition with respect to the contentious issues of women and gays, which comprehensively cross the old party lines, with parties as disparate as the Sydney Anglicans and the old Rome-oriented high churchmen finding unlikely common cause.) Masalai 04:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There has been much evolution in the grounds on which Anglicans contend, however contentiousness and schism remain an entrenched tradition. In my editorial activity, I tried to highlight the continuity of party contention (which always seem to be based largely on cultural differences) as well as the shifting fields of battle (from liturgy to ethics).

I tried to bring out the high-low-broad aspect in both the history section ("Expansion and division") and the last paragraph of the "Liturgy and service books" section. More thoroughgoing discussions of this characteristic of Anglicanism and the attendent controversies exists in several articles, notably

Anglican Eucharistic theology. Fishhead64

06:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

So it is, but only via the greater Anglican Communion, and the Old Catholics are of less than marginal significance in Canada. One might with equal validity mention the Church of Sweden, the Mar Thomites of the Malabar Coast (who have a far greater awareness of Anglicans than any Old Catholic; indeed so do the Malankara Oriental Orthodox of India, who are not in communion with the Anglicans at all) and the Philippine Independants. Given that the article concerns the ACC specifically, perhaps the reference to the Old Catholics could be removed, eh? Masalai 16:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

My own preference would be additive rather than subtractive. Fishhead64 17:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

By all means, but surely a generalisation is preferable to specifying particular communions. It becomes rather invidious as various members in full standing of the Anglican Communion anathematise the ACC and declare themselves not to be in communion with it — Nigeria, Uganda and Tanzania already; doubtless in due course Pakistan, South India, North India, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Singapore, the Southern Cone. Masalai 19:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

In Toronto, we have

Utrecht Union, and is allowed to send seminarians to the Vancouver School of Theology

. All of these, I believe, are worth mentioning.

The

ELCIC, so we are in full communion with them. Carolynparrishfan

19:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it's particularly invidious, since there are any number of churches not in full communion. Fishhead64 21:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"ACC" does indeed often refer to the Anglican Consultative Council, but an article on the Anglican Consultative Council would also need to define the abbreviated term: "The Anglican Consultative Council (the 'ACC')." That is the contemporary, shorter, version of what used to be rendered as "hereinafter referred to as...." And in this article "ACC" has been defined to mean Anglican Church of Canada. This is the protocol in all legal drafting nowadays: in a contract one might say "Carolyn Parrish Fan ('Fan')" and thereafter consistently refer to Carolyn Parrish Fan as "Fan." In a statement of claim one might say "The First Plaintiff ('Fan')..." and thereafter be excused from continually reiterating "the First Plaintiff," which becomes extremely confusing when there are multiple plaintiffs, defendants, counter claimants, counter defendants, third party claimants, third party defendants, and so on. So no, it's certainly not incorrect to refer to the Anglican Church of Canada as the ACC provided that it is clear in the context that that is what one means and particularly if one expressly defines the abbreviation at the first mention of it. Masalai 19:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

In a legal context, it would be fair to use the formula you describe, but on Wikipedia it would give the impression that the denomination is in fact properly called the ACC for short. As someone who sees this mistake far too frequently, I'm not keen to perpetuate it. Carolynparrishfan 21:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's certainly not only in a legal context; I only used that example because it is the one where absolute punctilio is essential. It applies in any formal prose. "ACC" has been defined as "Anglican Church of Canada" in this article and there is in fact no reference to the Anglican Consultative Council (a considerably more recent ACC in any event, and for that matter one in which the Anglican Church of Canada has been expressly invited no longer to participate). You could check the Anglican website Anglicans Online, whose directory for the Anglican Church of Canada also uses "Anglican Church of Canada (ACC)" though, alas, without the quotation marks: http://anglicansonline.org/canada/index.html Masalai 22:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Using an argument from legalistic English is not appropriate to Wikipedia. The stylistic rules of scientific English and journalistic English are more applicable because both styles do not consider an article in isolation. In scientific English, one can not simply define a term de facto and de novo as if the outside world did not exist. In journalistic English,the principle of common usage and common understanding prevail with the arbiter being the 'common person on the street'. I have not seen a newspaper article in Canada ever refer to the ACC. It is always Anglicans or Canadian Anglicans. To expand on this, Canadian newspapers refer to the Conservative, Liberals and NDP when reporting political stories without regard to the legal names of these parties. You'll never see a newspaper article print Nicely Done Potatoes ('NDP') and then continue referencing internally this de novo meaning. Simply put, the new definition is not commonly understood. Removing technical jargon and writing in plain English is one of the tenets of Wikipedia . Wassupwestcoast 00:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Except that you are wrong: the Anglican Church of Canada is commonly abbreviated ACC. Again, I refer you to the Anglicans Online website, where indeed the reference is to the Anglican Church of Canada (ACC), and thereafter the ACC. Masalai 00:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree that within the organization the Anglican Church of Canada uses the jargon ACC ^[1]. The issue at hand is one of style. Legalistic styling is ill suited to Wikipedia. What the website Anglicans Online chooses to do is only partially of interest. The question is one of common useage and understanding. An editor of any news publication would red-line ACC without blinking and wonder what the reporter was thinking. Wassupwestcoast 01:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Self-definition has a long and firm place in WP editing, see

WP:NAME. People will understand, a la Anglican Church of Canada (ACC). Fishhead64

02:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I just want the text to read smoothly in Plain English free of jargon. If you consult Wikipedia:Manual of Style you'll note that:

It can also be helpful in a longer article to spell out the acronym or abbreviation for the reader again or to rewikify it if it has not been used for a while, especially at its first use in a major section.

This I have done. I'm not trying to ban ACC but modify its use so that the non-sophisticated reader isn't left scratching their head. Cheers. Wassupwestcoast 02:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, the tone and standard of language in newspapers hardly rises to the frequently repeated abjuration that Wikipedia articles must be encyclopedic. Plain English is good; it doesn't have to be simple to be plain. Masalai 03:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"Anglicans": Oops. You did go ahead and replace "ACC" with "Anglicans." But the ACC is not the only Anglican denomination in Canada. So you have introduced a quite unnecessary element of ambiguity. Masalai 03:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

To me, it reads much more clumsily to write the name out in full repeatedly, rather than using a perfectly obvious abbreviation (speaking as a non-Canadian). David Underdown 10:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Shall we proceed to revert back to what Mr Wassup considers "jargon" and the rest of us consider a "perfectly obvious abbreviation," then? I hope this doesn't become a tiresome revert war. Masalai 16:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, three against one: I'm all for consensus. I've re-edited and placed ACC where appropriate. I might be slow on the uptake but I hope this "Anglican Church of Canada" vs. "ACC" is not a proxy debate in the Anglican schism controversy. It has occurred to me that referring to the Anglican Church as the ACC can be seen as an attempt to disestablish the ACC as the official church. Again, newspaper style in Canada refers to Anglicans meaning the Anglican Church of Canada and not to any splinter movement. Now that would be tiresome. Wassupwestcoast 01:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"Prior to this, General Synod had adopted "l'Église Episcopale du Canada" in 1977 and amended the canons to reflect this in 1983[1] when it became clear that francophone Canadians were baffled by the term "Episcopale" but well understood the term "Anglicane." This sentence doesn't actually make sense — I presume it is intended to indicate that the ACC became "Episcopale" in 1977 and "Anglicane" in 1983 but I can't check it in the footnotes because the references to the Handbook are incorrect. I believe it was Carolyn Parrish Fan who dealt with this in the first instance: could she perhaps re-check it now? Masalai 20:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

We still don't have this citation correct. If Ms Fan has access to the canons, would she mind correcting the footnote? Masalai 18:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

A proposal is being floated at the project page that there be a standard format for organising each article about national provinces of the Anglican Communion, including this one. Please consider participating in the straw vote and discussion. Cheers! Fishhead64 21:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the general feeling about the Info Box? Do the labels make sense? At the TEC site, there was some discussion: see

There are going to be huge issues with this box throughout the anglican communion pages. Let's see what's here, shall we?

Classification: Protestant There is an on going dicussion about just how Protestant this Church is. The church no longer refers to itself as Protestant in general. What is more the Protestant Episcopal Church has started using that name and the ECUSA seems quite happy to let them have it.

Orientation: Mainline, Anglican Orientation? What is that? Neologisim from what I can tell. All in the communion would agree that we are Anglican (sorry Scots). Orientation of one sort or another, on the other hand, is splitting the communion in two.

Polity: Episcopal I suppose I can buy that but of course they are "Episcopal" - it is in their name.

Founder: Samuel Seabury Christ was the founder, end of argument. There were Episcopalians here waiting for Seabury when he came from Scotland. He was not a founder of anything other than a line of Apostolic Succession.

Origin: 1789 If the Church is Protestant, why was it founded 100+ years after the Reformation ended in England?

Separated from: Church of England Not seperated, misleading, full communion with Canterbury.

This box just is not a good fit for the ECUSA or probably any other of the daughter Churches of the C of E. Thoughts? -- SECisek 05:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

So, problem or not? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 19:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted this deletion as I was rather confused by the reason given in the edit summary. I don't see why cabot is any less relevant to the history of the ACC than the following para, and if this para is to go, then the image of the Matthew should be deleted as well, or it makes no sense. David Underdown 11:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering the Anglican Church of Canada's Book of Common Prayer commemorates the event, I think it is relevant to the history section. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 22:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

To all you church historians out there, a question: was the name "Church of England in Canada" ever made official? Is there a document, say at the first pan-Canadian synod in 1893 that called the church by that name? I know very well the church was called that. My mom still uses the name. When I registered at university, my mom checked off the box "Church of England in Canada" rather than the "Anglican Church of Canada" above it. Was it an actual official name or a name of convenience? There are certainly references to its use in the 19th Century ...maybe earlier ...but it is hard to parse the sense of an official name from a simple geographic modifier. That is. "We are Church of England in Canada" and "In Canada, we are Church of England" might have the same meaning, if you get my point. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The Solemn Declaration of 1893 did indeed refer to "the Church of England in the Dominion of Canada." I'm surprised that it was still given as an option. Carolynparrishfan 04:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It was about twenty years ago...but the option was there. And of course, this would be about forty years after Anglican Church of Canada became official. Some changes are slow. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 05:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This page 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.

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Anglican Church of Canada/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following