Talk:Archbishop of Canterbury

From OrthodoxWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(King Lucius)
 
(12 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
  
 
I think it would be best to have a consecutive list with three subdivisions as opposed to three somewhat disjointed lists.  (In other words, yes.) --[[User:Magda|magda]] 13:57, 7 Feb 2005 (CST)
 
I think it would be best to have a consecutive list with three subdivisions as opposed to three somewhat disjointed lists.  (In other words, yes.) --[[User:Magda|magda]] 13:57, 7 Feb 2005 (CST)
 +
 +
Is that better? --[[User:Magda|magda]] 14:30, 7 Feb 2005 (CST)
 +
 +
Okay.  I'll work on that.  -- [[User:Joffridus|Joffridus]]
 +
 +
: In case I wasn't clear, I was advising that the list be ordered with the earliest dates at the top, descending to the later dates (which is the same as other chronological lists in OrthodoxWiki articles).  Thus, you'd have St. Augustine of Canterbury first, with Archbishop Rowan Williams last.  --[[User:ASDamick|Rdr. Andrew]] 19:36, 7 Feb 2005 (CST)
 +
 +
Okay.  Done.
 +
 +
i don't know the history very well, but i would think changing it from 'post-reformation archbishops of canterbury' to 'anglican archbishops of canterbury' would be less confusing?  [[User:Pistevo|Pistevo]] 01:20, 10 Aug 2005 (EDT)
 +
 +
== Saints ==
 +
 +
I came across Ethelhard's commemoration ([[May 12]]) as a saint in [http://www.ortodoxakyrkan.se/Typikon%202005.pdf this typikon].  There are a [http://www.orthodoxengland.btinternet.co.uk/stdmay.htm few] [http://www.odox.net/Icons-Ethelhard.htm more] mentions in Orthodox commemorations, but not many. Found Deusdedit for [[July 14]] in the same typikon. —[[User:Magda|magda]] 12:02, 30 Jun 2005 (EDT)
 +
 +
 +
==non-Orthodox==
 +
I am wondering if it would make more sence to NOT list all the "Archbishops" that are "technically" not Orthodox since they are a continuation of the line but post-Schism. I find that keeping the list of Archbishops is deceiving in that it can confuse or imply that there is a connection to Orthodoxy. What do others think? [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 07:23, May 11, 2009 (UTC)
 +
 +
== Reginald Pole ==
 +
 +
Reginald Pole, while post-Reformation, was actually a Roman Catholic Archbishop (under Mary). Should he be listed as such? -- [[User:Joffridus|Joffridus]]
 +
 +
Yes. Under Queen Mary, the see was Roman but it was still the archbishopric of Canterbury. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 20:41, August 7, 2009 (UTC)
 +
 +
== King Lucius ==
 +
The ''History'' section of this article mentions King Lucius connected with the origins of Christianity in Britian. However I believe modern scholarship has largely dismissed this legend as erroneous; there is a good explantion of why it is not factual at the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05378a.htm Pope St. Eleutherius]. I therefore suggest either qualifying or removing the reference.
 +
Cheers, :)
 +
[[User:Angellight 888|Angellight 888]] 01:57, August 9, 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:57, August 8, 2009

Would it perhaps make more sense to reverse the order of these lists, so that the earlier archbishops are on the top of the list, and the later ones at the bottom? --Rdr. Andrew 11:55, 7 Feb 2005 (CST)

I think it would be best to have a consecutive list with three subdivisions as opposed to three somewhat disjointed lists. (In other words, yes.) --magda 13:57, 7 Feb 2005 (CST)

Is that better? --magda 14:30, 7 Feb 2005 (CST)

Okay. I'll work on that. -- Joffridus

In case I wasn't clear, I was advising that the list be ordered with the earliest dates at the top, descending to the later dates (which is the same as other chronological lists in OrthodoxWiki articles). Thus, you'd have St. Augustine of Canterbury first, with Archbishop Rowan Williams last. --Rdr. Andrew 19:36, 7 Feb 2005 (CST)

Okay. Done.

i don't know the history very well, but i would think changing it from 'post-reformation archbishops of canterbury' to 'anglican archbishops of canterbury' would be less confusing? Pistevo 01:20, 10 Aug 2005 (EDT)

Contents

Saints

I came across Ethelhard's commemoration (May 12) as a saint in this typikon. There are a few more mentions in Orthodox commemorations, but not many. Found Deusdedit for July 14 in the same typikon. —magda 12:02, 30 Jun 2005 (EDT)


non-Orthodox

I am wondering if it would make more sence to NOT list all the "Archbishops" that are "technically" not Orthodox since they are a continuation of the line but post-Schism. I find that keeping the list of Archbishops is deceiving in that it can confuse or imply that there is a connection to Orthodoxy. What do others think? Vasiliki 07:23, May 11, 2009 (UTC)

Reginald Pole

Reginald Pole, while post-Reformation, was actually a Roman Catholic Archbishop (under Mary). Should he be listed as such? -- Joffridus

Yes. Under Queen Mary, the see was Roman but it was still the archbishopric of Canterbury. --Fr Lev 20:41, August 7, 2009 (UTC)

King Lucius

The History section of this article mentions King Lucius connected with the origins of Christianity in Britian. However I believe modern scholarship has largely dismissed this legend as erroneous; there is a good explantion of why it is not factual at the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on Pope St. Eleutherius. I therefore suggest either qualifying or removing the reference. Cheers, :) Angellight 888 01:57, August 9, 2009 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
interaction
Donate

Please consider supporting OrthodoxWiki. FAQs

Toolbox