Anglican communion and the monarch

[ltwin]

If Episcopalianism is simply Anglicanism by another name, why is the monarch not head of the Episcopalians?

I think the major question (the role of the Queen in the Church of England) has been answered. There is the related question of how all these other Anglican provinces sprung up in other countries.

This all goes back to the days when England had an empire. Basically, wherever the British settled, they brought the Church of England with them. Eventually, these colonies gained their independence and the colonial Church of England would gain its “independence” from the Church of England, being elevated to an “autocephalous” Province within the Anglican Communion. The Queen really has no role in the Anglican Communion.

The main pattern was set down after the American Revolution. Prior to this, the Church of England was an important institution in the 13 colonies. The Revolution placed the American Church of England in a tough place.

With America becoming an independent nation, it became impossible for King George to remain the Supreme Governor for American Anglicans. This would be treason. So, American Anglicans started calling themselves the “Protestant Episcopal Church” ( i.e. “we have bishops but we’re not Catholics and we have NOTHING to do with the nasty English so don’t hate us” ).

They also promptly began to build a national church structure that was completely separate from the British monarchy. They sent candidates for bishop to the Episcopal Church in Scotland and, later, to the Church of England who consecrated the first American Episcopal bishops. After that, the US Episcopal Church had everything it needed to be a self-functioning Anglican Church.

So, the short answer is that the reason the British monarch is not head of the American Episcopal Church is because the British monarch is the head of state of a foreign power whom we fought a war of independence against.

 

[FrankLJ]

You will understand, I am sure, that members of the Church of England do not believe that they are in a church founded by Henry VIII, but that they are in England’s church which has existed for seventeen hundred years and more.

That is my understanding of the belief too. The divisions and arguments that led to the split went on for decades before it actualy happened. The reformed Protestant religion was supposed to be the early faith, cleansed of additions by Rome - that is why Anglicans say their church is Catholic , as well as Protestant. The Catholics, of course, say that the supposed ‘additions’ were implied in the original teaching all along - ‘unpacking’ is a phrase I have heard a priest use to describe it.

The point about Henry’s divorce is that it had little to do with the real issues. ‘If Henry had got his divorce [anullment, really] everyone would still be Catholic’ says one poster. Don’t count on it. I think a good parallel is the current centenary of the start of WWI. The death of the Archduke Ferdinand was just the event that set long building forces in motion, including deliberate choices for war by certain people. If the assassin had not got the Archduke, war would likely have started soon anyway.

And so too, the Reformation would have happened without any action by Henry. Because look, it did elsewhere in Europe. Henry is easy enough to attack, but issues like Papal supremacy and the exact nature of the Mass are independent of his character and motives.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

That is my understanding of the belief too. The divisions and arguments that led to the split went on for decades before it actualy happened. The reformed Protestant religion was supposed to be the early faith, cleansed of additions by Rome - that is why Anglicans say their church is Catholic , as well as Protestant. The Catholics, of course, say that the supposed ‘additions’ were implied in the original teaching all along - ‘unpacking’ is a phrase I have heard a priest use to describe it.

The point about Henry’s divorce is that it had little to do with the real issues. ‘If Henry had got his divorce [anullment, really] everyone would still be Catholic’ says one poster. Don’t count on it. I think a good parallel is the current centenary of the start of WWI. The death of the Archduke Ferdinand was just the event that set long building forces in motion, including deliberate choices for war by certain people. If the assassin had not got the Archduke, war would likely have started soon anyway.

And so too, the Reformation would have happened without any action by Henry. Because look, it did elsewhere in Europe. Henry is easy enough to attack, but issues like Papal supremacy and the exact nature of the Mass are independent of his character and motives.

Disputes between the Monarch and Rome in England precede Henry VIII by hundreds of years–try Henry II!

 

[FrankLJ]

Disputes between the Monarch and Rome in England precede Henry VIII by hundreds of years–try Henry II!

Sure, and other countries had their kings argue with Rome as well, for centuries - I was talking about the specific issues that led to the split in England, which really only crested throughout Europe in a matter of decades. Different things were flashpoints in different countries.

 

[GKC]

That is my understanding of the belief too. The divisions and arguments that led to the split went on for decades before it actualy happened. The reformed Protestant religion was supposed to be the early faith, cleansed of additions by Rome - that is why Anglicans say their church is Catholic , as well as Protestant. The Catholics, of course, say that the supposed ‘additions’ were implied in the original teaching all along - ‘unpacking’ is a phrase I have heard a priest use to describe it.

The point about Henry’s divorce is that it had little to do with the real issues. ‘If Henry had got his divorce [anullment, really] everyone would still be Catholic’ says one poster. Don’t count on it. I think a good parallel is the current centenary of the start of WWI. The death of the Archduke Ferdinand was just the event that set long building forces in motion, including deliberate choices for war by certain people. If the assassin had not got the Archduke, war would likely have started soon anyway.

And so too, the Reformation would have happened without any action by Henry. Because look, it did elsewhere in Europe. Henry is easy enough to attack, but issues like Papal supremacy and the exact nature of the Mass are independent of his character and motives.

Essentially, I agree. Though decree of nullity is my preferred term.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Disputes between the Monarch and Rome in England precede Henry VIII by hundreds of years–try Henry II!

You can trace a series of Parliamentary Acts and Royal decrees running back at least as far as the 1st Statue of Westminster, roughly 250 year+ prior to Hank8, in which the Throne was maneuvering to reduce the power and influence of agencies outside the Realm, over the Church in England, and increase the authority of the Crown. Culminating in the Henrician Acts in 1534. Henry’s Great Matter was the perfect storm, but it was coming, eventually.

Henry II and Becket were certainly progenitors of the process.

GKC

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Sure, and other countries had their kings argue with Rome as well, for centuries - I was talking about the specific issues that led to the split in England, which really only crested throughout Europe in a matter of decades. Different things were flashpoints in different countries.

The Carmina Burana, which contain various satyrical criticisms of Rome and clerical corruption (some in Latin, some in Middle High German), are from the 11th and 12th century and thus predate Martin Luther by around 300 years or so. People had been having lots of issues with the Church for an extremely long time–it’s good not to confuse flashpoints with causes.

 

[speakttruth]

What I don’t understand is why some Roman Catholics don’t understand that the reasons for Henry not getting the annulment were purerly political and had very little to due with theology or the validity of the marriage. The Pope gave out annulments like candy to the nobility, Henry was married to a Spaniard and the Pope was very concerned with making the Spanish Monarch very angry.

Furthermore, if you want this discussion to center around the morality of the leaders of the time, then you better make sure none of the medieval Popes had mistresses or any “nephews” running around. It is mind boggling that some Catholics will accuse Henry of gross immorality, when the medieval Popes were the kings of corruption and immorality.

I have discussed this issue in more depth in other threads, but there was a Church in England before the nature and the Papacy evolved into what it was during medieval times. When Augustine of Canterbury arrived, there was a Church in England. This Church in England came to be in communion with Rome, however, the Church in England still had a relative degree of autonomy. Also, Anglicans removed no books from the bible, they are all there.

Also, the split and the protestant reformation cannot be purerly laid at the feet of Luther and the other protestants. The Catholic Church was a hotbed of corruption and sin prior to and leading up to the reformation. Catholics and protestants are both responsible for the split.

In my eyes, the Catholic Church is just as much responsible for the split as protestants. Furthermore, the vast majority of Anglican provinces have not altered their teachings related to homosexual issues. Also, there are plenty of active homosexual priests in the RCC. None of our “grass” is as “green” as we would all like to think.

I don’t disagree with a lot from what you said. Yes the church was in trouble and we needed to reform but from the inside, we don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. It doesn’t matter what happened, the Catholic Church is the only one true faith established by Christ and his church. What people have done as far as bad Catholics doesn’t change the fact that we have sinners in our church and are in need of repentance. God knew we would have many Judas’s in our church and she is in bad shape,because of how many have infiltrated to destroy her, but she is still the one and only church that Jesus himself established. and she is still standing. Anglicans came after, we had the Catholic church for 2000 years and when was the Anglican church established around the
1600’s? Did Jesus split his church? It doesn’t matter if the queen of England doesn’t want to admit it started with adultery it did. I don’t believe that the Pope was holding back from giving the King an annulment because of politics. One of his closest friend died then to go along with him against the Catholic faith. I will check my history, but I do know that this happened. It still shows that he was disobedient and split the church and look what happened to him. His daughter actually did the most damage as far as the continued split. The Anglicans did have a line from the Catholic church, but they broke it. I know that they are the closest thing to Catholics, and many of the other Protestant church’s are not even close. But the truth remains, we can either decide on our own who Jesus chose to run his church or believe what he said in the scriptures. He didn’t abandon his church. From Peter to the Pope we have now, and yes a couple of bad popes, but they never changed anything against the faith and morals doctrine in the church. If it’s broke we need faithful people to fix it and throw out the people that are trying to destroy it. It is like this to me, we have many cops and one could be bad, but it doesn’t change the laws built to protect us because of one bad cop, then we remove them. As far as practicing homosexual priests, this is not condoned, if they are found out, they are supposed to be removed. I think that their are many Anglican church’s that may have the same problem, but you only hear how bad the Catholic church is because she is hated the most because she will not cave to the world. The church which means the laws established by Christ never condones sin. I still will pray for that communion. Come on back we would love to have faithful people in our church. We have far too many cafeteria Catholics and I used to be one of them until I found the truth.
GB

 

[Picky_Picky]

As I understand it, in England at least, Presbyterians have united with the Congregationalists to form the United Reform Church.

That’s right, although (and this is a very tiny picky correction!) it’s the United Reformed Church.

 

[Cranmer]

Regrettably, it is true that the initial reform of the Catholic church led to (and continues to lead to) fragmentation of the Body of Christ, an outcome that many early reformers would not have desired. It is also true that the Anglican “Instruments of Union” are inherently unequal to the tasks of maintaining either union or religious orthodoxy. The frequently-made Episcopal assertion that we are united by worship, not doctrine, is a polite way of admitting this. It is also increasingly inaccurate insofar as the revision of national prayer books results in increasingly divergent practice and belief. The next American Book of Common Prayer will almost certainly include liturgy that will be hotly rejected by much of the Communion, e.g., a blessing for same-sex “marriages.”

The Anglican churches in America are more orthodox in their faith. However, my experience has been that they are conservative in a negative way, i.e., mindless preservation of form, with little concern for substance. There are those of us (myself included) that would “swim across the Tiber” if we were more courageous and the familial costs were not so high. So, I’ll continue to hope that God in his mercy “grades on a curve”…

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

General notice:
Charity please

 

[FrankLJ]

The Carmina Burana, which contain various satyrical criticisms of Rome and clerical corruption (some in Latin, some in Middle High German), are from the 11th and 12th century and thus predate Martin Luther by around 300 years or so. People had been having lots of issues with the Church for an extremely long time–it’s good not to confuse flashpoints with causes.

The issues were around from the beginning - thus the different Councils to try and resolve them. What I was talking about was the surprise of the fact that one century, they actualy coalesced into a major split. Reading Luther, I was struck by what a surprise it was to him that parts of the church should just split off. The main point was that Henry’s Great Matter really did not matter greatly in this - and so is not relevant in critiques of the Anglicans.

 

[mjwise]

Regrettably, it is true that the initial reform of the Catholic church led to (and continues to lead to) fragmentation of the Body of Christ, an outcome that many early reformers would not have desired. It is also true that the Anglican “Instruments of Union” are inherently unequal to the tasks of maintaining either union or religious orthodoxy. The frequently-made Episcopal assertion that we are united by worship, not doctrine, is a polite way of admitting this. It is also increasingly inaccurate insofar as the revision of national prayer books results in increasingly divergent practice and belief. The next American Book of Common Prayer will almost certainly include liturgy that will be hotly rejected by much of the Communion, e.g., a blessing for same-sex “marriages.”

I think there is little stomach for open up the American BCP for revisions any time soon. It’s simply easier (and more practical) to publish supplements to deal with things rather than open the whole thing for revisions. The reality is there are so many supplements and alternatives available now that it would be hard to decide what would even make the cut anymore.

And the reality is that Catholic practice, especially in the US, is a lot more limited to unity “in worship, not doctrine” than Catholics would like to admit.

 

[Cranmer]

I agree there is little stomach in the pews for another Episcopal prayer book revision. Too many of us remember the battles over the 1979 prayer book introduction. However, the GBLT wing of the denomination regards inclusion in the Prayer Book as indicative of full inclusion in the church. I believe it sufficiently dominates the Episcopal leadership that it will succeed in imposing a more “inclusive” prayer book revision in spite of resistance in the pews. In many respects, a replay of the displacement of the 1928 prayer book by the 1979.

 

[speakttruth]

The issues were around from the beginning - thus the different Councils to try and resolve them. What I was talking about was the surprise of the fact that one century, they actualy coalesced into a major split. Reading Luther, I was struck by what a surprise it was to him that parts of the church should just split off. The main point was that Henry’s Great Matter really did not matter greatly in this - and so is not relevant in critiques of the Anglicans.

Maybe I am not understanding you, but I disagree. Henry’s is hugely relevant and he still started the Anglican Church and did a huge damage to the Catholic Church because of his need for an annulment that he couldn’t get. His daughter reigned for 40 years and did further damage. It makes no difference what Luther thought, look what he did, and Henry disagreed with the reformation. They both are to blame. They were disobedient. The Church still taught what was handed down from the Apostles, but we had some disobedient people. The Catholic church had and has and will always have it’s problems. Sinners are everywhere.

Luther thought a lot of things, not all things true, but had a problem with his father and authority if you read his life story. That is why he had a problem with authority in the Catholic Church. They reached out to him and begged him not do what he was about to do and he wouldn’t even listen or respond. Who was he? Then he did the very thing he claimed to criticized having a Pope for and wanted to be a Pope himself. Such a hypocrite he was… That is why there is a church named after him. Lutheran. He was the head not Christ. Now look at all that split from him. When we have people’s opinions making the church instead of real truth this is what we have today. Even now we have to watch our Bishops, but as long as we have the holy spirit the gates of hell will not prevail.

We needed to be reformed, but from the inside for sure, but his pride got in the way, just like Henry’s. The devil must have been so happen for Henry’s disobedience and Luther’s. Look how many times the people like priests did so much damage from inside the Church. They both were in the inside. Forget about the outside, we have to worry about the inside. Never the less, she still is the one true church and is still standing and she has Jesus Christ physically present inside that tabernacle. The bread of life. Why would anyone want anything less? I wish so much that the Anglicans who are truly not trying to follow the world would all come back. Some already have. I pray for that day of unity. Didn’t Chesterton become a Catholic after being an Anglican? God bless and
God help us!

 

[cmodrmac]

The Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA has 0 = no allegiance or relationship with the Monarch of Great Britain-after the Revolution the limk was broken = period

Rather that use the word Anglican which after the Revoltution was associated with the Tories and England the Church was named the “Episcopal Church”

Episcopal Church liturgy can not be said in a RC Church-it can only be celebrated by episcopal Church members who convert to RC and it is practied as part of the Ordinariate

Prince Charles was a Widower when he married Camilla

 

[GKC]

Maybe I am not understanding you, but I disagree. Henry’s is hugely relevant and he still started the Anglican Church and did a huge damage to the Catholic Church because of his need for an annulment that he couldn’t get. His daughter reigned for 40 years and did further damage. It makes no difference what Luther thought, look what he did, and Henry disagreed with the reformation. They both are to blame. They were disobedient. The Church still taught what was handed down from the Apostles, but we had some disobedient people. The Catholic church had and has and will always have it’s problems. Sinners are everywhere.

Luther thought a lot of things, not all things true, but had a problem with his father and authority if you read his life story. That is why he had a problem with authority in the Catholic Church. They reached out to him and begged him not do what he was about to do and he wouldn’t even listen or respond. Who was he? Then he did the very thing he claimed to criticized having a Pope for and wanted to be a Pope himself. Such a hypocrite he was… That is why there is a church named after him. Lutheran. He was the head not Christ. Now look at all that split from him. When we have people’s opinions making the church instead of real truth this is what we have today. Even now we have to watch our Bishops, but as long as we have the holy spirit the gates of hell will not prevail.

We needed to be reformed, but from the inside for sure, but his pride got in the way, just like Henry’s. The devil must have been so happen for Henry’s disobedience and Luther’s. Look how many times the people like priests did so much damage from inside the Church. They both were in the inside. Forget about the outside, we have to worry about the inside. Never the less, she still is the one true church and is still standing and she has Jesus Christ physically present inside that tabernacle. The bread of life. Why would anyone want anything less? I wish so much that the Anglicans who are truly not trying to follow the world would all come back. Some already have. I pray for that day of unity. Didn’t Chesterton become a Catholic after being an Anglican? God bless and
God help us!

Yes, Chesterton became a RC after being an Anglican. In 1922, though he had determined on his course by roughly 1909.

GKC

 

[ltwin]

Prince Charles was a Widower when he married Camilla

Yeah and both Charles and Camilla prayed a prayer of repentance during the ceremony. So, it’s not as if the adultery was swept under the rug by the CofE.

 

[seanman611]

Maybe I am not understanding you, but I disagree. Henry’s is hugely relevant and he still started the Anglican Church and did a huge damage to the Catholic Church because of his need for an annulment that he couldn’t get. His daughter reigned for 40 years and did further damage. It makes no difference what Luther thought, look what he did, and Henry disagreed with the reformation. They both are to blame. They were disobedient. The Church still taught what was handed down from the Apostles, but we had some disobedient people. The Catholic church had and has and will always have it’s problems. Sinners are everywhere.

The Catholic Church did damage to the Catholic Church for completely and arrogantly dismissing reformers, dissent, and by playing too much politics. While I agree that there is plenty of sin on the side of Henry and Luther, you cannot seriously hold them totally responsible for the split.

Luther thought a lot of things, not all things true, but had a problem with his father and authority if you read his life story. That is why he had a problem with authority in the Catholic Church. They reached out to him and begged him not do what he was about to do and he wouldn’t even listen or respond. Who was he? Then he did the very thing he claimed to criticized having a Pope for and wanted to be a Pope himself. Such a hypocrite he was… That is why there is a church named after him. Lutheran. He was the head not Christ. Now look at all that split from him. When we have people’s opinions making the church instead of real truth this is what we have today. Even now we have to watch our Bishops, but as long as we have the holy spirit the gates of hell will not prevail.

Luther was very much against the Lutheran Church being called Lutheran and he absolutely did not want a split. Also, the RCC at first completely and arrogantly dismissed Luther and his initial criticisms (which were very very conservative criticisms). If the RCC had taken his accurate critiques much more seriously, maybe the Lutheran split does not happen. However, once they realized what kind of a “threat” he was, they then desired to have him killed. You simply cannot lay all of this at the feet of Luther, it is much more complicated than that.

We needed to be reformed, but from the inside for sure, but his pride got in the way, just like Henry’s. The devil must have been so happen for Henry’s disobedience and Luther’s. Look how many times the people like priests did so much damage from inside the Church. They both were in the inside. Forget about the outside, we have to worry about the inside. Never the less, she still is the one true church and is still standing and she has Jesus Christ physically present inside that tabernacle. The bread of life. Why would anyone want anything less? I wish so much that the Anglicans who are truly not trying to follow the world would all come back. Some already have. I pray for that day of unity. Didn’t Chesterton become a Catholic after being an Anglican? God bless and
God help us!

The devil must have been equally as happy at the hypocrisy of the Pope denying Henry an annulment, while the Pope was entertaining mistresses in the Apostolic Palace! Just how many “nephews” did these celibate medieval Popes have running around?

Furthermore, like I said earlier, the RCC wanted Luther dead, rather than address his critiques. Plenty of sin on the RCC side of these issues.

 

[Vouthon]

The Catholic Church did damage to the Catholic Church for completely and arrogantly dismissing reformers, dissent, and by playing too much politics. While I agree that there is plenty of sin on the side of Henry and Luther, you cannot seriously hold them totally responsible for the split.

Luther was very much against the Lutheran Church being called Lutheran and he absolutely did not want a split. Also, the RCC at first completely and arrogantly dismissed Luther and his initial criticisms (which were very very conservative criticisms). If the RCC had taken his accurate critiques much more seriously, maybe the Lutheran split does not happen. However, once they realized what kind of a “threat” he was, they then desired to have him killed. You simply cannot lay all of this at the feet of Luther, it is much more complicated than that.

The devil must have been equally as happy at the hypocrisy of the Pope denying Henry an annulment, while the Pope was entertaining mistresses in the Apostolic Palace! Just how many “nephews” did these celibate medieval Popes have running around?

Furthermore, like I said earlier, the RCC wanted Luther dead, rather than address his critiques. Plenty of sin on the RCC side of these issues.

You are correct, there was plenty of sin on both sides - but also plenty of truth.

The Reformers were right about the scandal of selling indulgences, the imprudent refusal to publish the Bible in the vernacular and I concede that Luther also had some theological merits as well. Both him and the Church of England, to their tremendous credit, did not cast aside the Church Fathers or the belief in the apostolic succession.

On the other hand, while I have always respected Lutheranism and Anglicanism, indeed sympathised with them theologically as well, I cannot say the same for Calvinism which amounted to the destruction of the apostolic succession, a hideous depiction of God as a cruel tyrant predestining men to hell, an excessive Augustinianism (remarkable considering sola scriptura!), a conception of human nature as totally depraved, bare, dull, joyless church buildings and worship services…I could go on but for fear of insulting Presbyterians I will not. Christmas was banned in Scotland until the 1950s.

May I ask, what are your views on Calvinist theology? I admire much of Lutheran and Arminian thought but John Calvin is the limit for me…John Knox I dare not even mention…

I wish I could say otherwise.