British Monarch's role in Anglicanism/Episcopalianism

  • Thread starter Thread starter JesuXPIPassio
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JesuXPIPassio said:
So Henry VIII broke from Rome and made himself the head of the the Church of England. As I understand it, Episcopalianism is just the US version of that, it just didn’t want to be called Anglicanism because of the anti-British sentiment at the time.

Then, why isn’t the Queen considered the head of Episcopalianism?
Click to expand...
Henry VIII made himself the head of the Church in England. He broke with Rome because he was refused a decree of nullity for his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. He therefore ordered that the English bishops should report directly to him and not to the Pope. Henry VIII was not a protestant. He didn’t establish the Church of England or start up Anglicanism. The Church in England was the Catholic Church in England. Henry VIII just said that he was the head of the Church in England and the pope’s authority didn’t extend over England. The Reformation in England only really got well under way during the reign of Elizabeth I although things did start to happen during the reign of Edward VI but his successor Mary I reversed all that and again restored papal authority in England.

The British sovereign’s relationship is with the Church of England only. She’s not over the Episcopal Church or any other Anglican Church because she’s not the head of the Anglican Communion. If you ask the Church of England who the head of their Church is they’ll tell you it’s Jesus Christ. The British monarch does have the title of Supreme Governor of the Church of England. This is mainly a symbolic role. She appoints bishops and cathedral deans. In fact she doesn’t really do that. Like everything else she does she ‘acts on advice’ from her government. She makes appointments in the Church of England on the advice of the Prime Minister. He in turn will have sought advice from a Church of England appointments commission. So, The Queen is only the symbolic head of the Church of England. She has no involvement with any other church in the Anglican Communion, not even those in the UK (Church in Wales and Episcopal Church of Scotland).
 
Matthew_Holford said:
Henry VIII made himself the head of the Church in England. He broke with Rome because he was refused a decree of nullity for his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. He therefore ordered that the English bishops should report directly to him and not to the Pope. Henry VIII was not a protestant. He didn’t establish the Church of England or start up Anglicanism. The Church in England was the Catholic Church in England. Henry VIII just said that he was the head of the Church in England and the pope’s authority didn’t extend over England. The Reformation in England only really got well under way during the reign of Elizabeth I although things did start to happen during the reign of Edward VI but his successor Mary I reversed all that and again restored papal authority in England.

The British sovereign’s relationship is with the Church of England only. She’s not over the Episcopal Church or any other Anglican Church because she’s not the head of the Anglican Communion. If you ask the Church of England who the head of their Church is they’ll tell you it’s Jesus Christ. The British monarch does have the title of Supreme Governor of the Church of England. This is mainly a symbolic role. She appoints bishops and cathedral deans. In fact she doesn’t really do that. Like everything else she does she ‘acts on advice’ from her government. She makes appointments in the Church of England on the advice of the Prime Minister. He in turn will have sought advice from a Church of England appointments commission. So, The Queen is only the symbolic head of the Church of England. She has no involvement with any other church in the Anglican Communion, not even those in the UK (Church in Wales and Episcopal Church of Scotland).
Click to expand...
True. As I often say on all this.

GKC
 
Matthew_Holford said:
The British sovereign’s relationship is with the Church of England only. She’s not over the Episcopal Church or any other Anglican Church because she’s not the head of the Anglican Communion. If you ask the Church of England who the head of their Church is they’ll tell you it’s Jesus Christ. The British monarch does have the title of Supreme Governor of the Church of England. This is mainly a symbolic role. She appoints bishops and cathedral deans. In fact she doesn’t really do that. Like everything else she does she ‘acts on advice’ from her government. She makes appointments in the Church of England on the advice of the Prime Minister. He in turn will have sought advice from a Church of England appointments commission. So, The Queen is only the symbolic head of the Church of England. She has no involvement with any other church in the Anglican Communion, not even those in the UK (Church in Wales and Episcopal Church of Scotland).
Click to expand...
I wonder how that would play out if Britain had an atheist Prime Minister. Their Deputy PM right now is an atheist, and as we’ve seen in the last week, the country has antipathy toward religion.
 
JesuXPIPassio said:
I wonder how that would play out if Britain had an atheist Prime Minister. Their Deputy PM right now is an atheist, and as we’ve seen in the last week, the country has antipathy toward religion.
Click to expand...
For the most part I don’t think it matters. The Prime Minister may be CofE, belong to another Christian church or ecclesial community, belong to a non-Christian faith, or as you suggested an atheist. They only need to play a relatively symbolic role. The PM could advise The Queen to appoint the first choice of the CofE’s appointments commission. However, I remember once Margaret Thatcher refused to advise The Queen to appoint the appointment commission’s first choice because she didn’t like his politics (unfortunately I can only remember the incident not the bishop involved).
 
Matthew_Holford said:
For the most part I don’t think it matters. The Prime Minister may be CofE, belong to another Christian church or ecclesial community, belong to a non-Christian faith, or as you suggested an atheist. They only need to play a relatively symbolic role. The PM could advise The Queen to appoint the first choice of the CofE’s appointments commission. However, I remember once Margaret Thatcher refused to advise The Queen to appoint the appointment commission’s first choice because she didn’t like his politics (unfortunately I can only remember the incident not the bishop involved).
Click to expand...
You really know your stuff 😃

Is the Queen bound to appoint whomever the PM advises, or does she get to choose?

Also curious is how it would be if an atheist would become Monarch. I know that Constitutionally, the reigning King or Queen has to be CofE, but really, you could be nominally religious but atheist for all intents and purposes (like the people in Sweden apparently are). Since it seems so secular there, at this rate it doesn’t seem unimaginable that a few generations down, an atheist could become heir apparent. Would I be right to guess that how it goes would depend on how the heirarchy at the time will view it? I mean, at one time the CofE wouldn’t let the King marry a divorcee, and the thing with Princess Margaret doing that also caused a stir; but it didn’t seem to matter with Prince Charles and the Duke of York anymore, and that all was in the span of seventy years. Could the role of the King in a few decades matter so little that it won’t even make a difference if he’s an atheist, just as long as he does his Constitutional duty?
 
That’s the problem I have with the idea of Anglicanism in general, that it started and remains, in the CofE, a state religion. Politicians have NO business appointing bishops, etc. and yet they do. Imagine Obama appointing bishops here in the states! Wow!

The Church should have nothing whatsoever to do with the State. And Anglicanism as it spread around the world lost its connection to the State and eventually seemed to devolve into a bunch of autonomous and incoherent bodies. This type of polity and communion is doomed to collapse, sadly. I can’t see a scenario where it would thrive or revive itself in any way?

You’re correct; the British people loathe religion. Each year I go to a science camp up in the foothills of the Sierra Nevadas with my sixth graders. We stay there a week. The interns they get at the camp are from all over the world but every single solitary time we go there are at least two Brits up there. And I swear every time these Brits are atheists and are very vocal about how they and the rest of England hate Christianity. I know this is a priori anecdotal observation but boy it sure goes with what I see on TV and read of England. I had a male intern tell me last week, “we English have the choice on Sunday mornings to go to Church or to a garage sale. We all heartily choose garage sales. They’re far more valuable and interesting.”

I thought that summed it up nicely…in a pathetic and sad sort of way. The Church of England is a joke and has failed England. I think Catholicism is the only hope England has for any return to Christ at all.
JesuXPIPassio said:
I wonder how that would play out if Britain had an atheist Prime Minister. Their Deputy PM right now is an atheist, and as we’ve seen in the last week, the country has antipathy toward religion.
Click to expand...
 
JesuXPIPassio said:
You really know your stuff 😃

Is the Queen bound to appoint whomever the PM advises, or does she get to choose?
Click to expand...
She’s bound to appoint whomever the PM advises. We’re a constitutional monarchy. That means The Queen reigns but she doesn’t rule. So that she remains neutral and does not take anyone’s side she follows the advice given to her by the government of the day. This is only a convention. In other words its an unwritten rule. However, there is no doubt that if The Queen went against the advice of the government we’d be facing a major constitutional crisis.
JesuXPIPassio said:
Also curious is how it would be if an atheist would become Monarch. I know that Constitutionally, the reigning King or Queen has to be CofE, but really, you could be nominally religious but atheist for all intents and purposes (like the people in Sweden apparently are). Since it seems so secular there, at this rate it doesn’t seem unimaginable that a few generations down, an atheist could become heir apparent. Would I be right to guess that how it goes would depend on how the heirarchy at the time will view it? I mean, at one time the CofE wouldn’t let the King marry a divorcee, and the thing with Princess Margaret doing that also caused a stir; but it didn’t seem to matter with Prince Charles and the Duke of York anymore, and that all was in the span of seventy years. Could the role of the King in a few decades matter so little that it won’t even make a difference if he’s an atheist, just as long as he does his Constitutional duty?
Click to expand...
I don’t really know how to answer this. At the moment it doesn’t pose a problem because The Queen is known to be quite religious. Of course, as you say the monarch does have to be a member of the CofE. As you said Princess Margaret wasn’t allowed to marry the man she really wanted to marry because he was a divorcee. I think basically that the whole of society’s attitude has changed. In the 1950’s divorce was taboo no matter what faith background you came from. Now society in general has become more accepting of divorce and the establishment has changed in response to this. The CofE seems to have developed a more ambivalent attitude towards divorce. To avoid the awkwardness of remarrying in the CofE, Princess Anne went to Scotland and married her second husband in the Church of Scotland (a presbyterian church). Prince Charles had a civil wedding for his second marriage. The view of Prince Charles is that the CofE should be de-established, i.e. cease to be the state church. This view, I think, would find sympathy within certain quarters of the CofE. I think the monarch is now the only office in the UK from which Catholics are barred. I’m not sure if Prince Charles would want to separate the monarchy from the CofE although he is on record as saying when he becomes King he doesn’t want to be the Defender of the Faith but he wants to be Defender of Faiths.

As things stand at the moment I think it would matter greatly whether the sovereign was an atheist. The sovereign swears on oath to protect the Church of England and the Church of Scotland. The coronation of the monarch is very much a religious ceremony. Although nowadays it is celebrated within the context of a CofE communion service the coronation ceremony itself dates back hundreds of years. During the coronation the sovereign is anointed with oil. This part of the ceremony is deemed so sacred that even at the last coronation in 1953 which was televised, the cameras were forbidden to show the anointing. There would have to be a major change to many things surrounding the monarchy for there to be an atheist on the throne.

Although the Pope made comments about aggressive secularism in the UK I wouldn’t say we were any more or less secular as a nation than any other western European country. In fact I would say in the UK people’s religions are generally more respected than in some other western European countries.
 
Matthew_Holford said:
She’s bound to appoint whomever the PM advises. We’re a constitutional monarchy. That means The Queen reigns but she doesn’t rule. So that she remains neutral and does not take anyone’s side she follows the advice given to her by the government of the day. This is only a convention. In other words its an unwritten rule. However, there is no doubt that if The Queen went against the advice of the government we’d be facing a major constitutional crisis.

I don’t really know how to answer this. At the moment it doesn’t pose a problem because The Queen is known to be quite religious. Of course, as you say the monarch does have to be a member of the CofE. As you said Princess Margaret wasn’t allowed to marry the man she really wanted to marry because he was a divorcee. I think basically that the whole of society’s attitude has changed. In the 1950’s divorce was taboo no matter what faith background you came from. Now society in general has become more accepting of divorce and the establishment has changed in response to this. The CofE seems to have developed a more ambivalent attitude towards divorce. To avoid the awkwardness of remarrying in the CofE, Princess Anne went to Scotland and married her second husband in the Church of Scotland (a presbyterian church). Prince Charles had a civil wedding for his second marriage. The view of Prince Charles is that the CofE should be de-established, i.e. cease to be the state church. This view, I think, would find sympathy within certain quarters of the CofE. I think the monarch is now the only office in the UK from which Catholics are barred. I’m not sure if Prince Charles would want to separate the monarchy from the CofE although he is on record as saying when he becomes King he doesn’t want to be the Defender of the Faith but he wants to be Defender of Faiths.

As things stand at the moment I think it would matter greatly whether the sovereign was an atheist. The sovereign swears on oath to protect the Church of England and the Church of Scotland. The coronation of the monarch is very much a religious ceremony. Although nowadays it is celebrated within the context of a CofE communion service the coronation ceremony itself dates back hundreds of years. During the coronation the sovereign is anointed with oil. This part of the ceremony is deemed so sacred that even at the last coronation in 1953 which was televised, the cameras were forbidden to show the anointing. There would have to be a major change to many things surrounding the monarchy for there to be an atheist on the throne.

Although the Pope made comments about aggressive secularism in the UK I wouldn’t say we were any more or less secular as a nation than any other western European country. In fact I would say in the UK people’s religions are generally more respected than in some other western European countries.
Click to expand...
IIRC, there is a Parliamentary bar on RCs holding an office that advises the Monarch with respect to the CoE (i.e., the Prime Minister). Used to be able to cite the Act.

Added: Oh, yeah. Catholic Relief Act, Sec. 17.

GKC
 
GKC said:
IIRC, there is a Parliamentary bar on RCs holding an office that advises the Monarch with respect to the CoE (i.e., the Prime Minister). Catholic Relief Act, Sec. 17
Click to expand...
Repealed by the Patronage (Benefices) Measure 1986 (1986 No. 3) Sections 30(3) and 41 and Schedule 5.
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
You’re correct; the British people loathe religion.
Click to expand...
I honestly don’t know how we got this reputation. I don’t think we deserve it. May be the atheists are more vociferous than those of us with a faith. Those of us of faith perhaps should be ashamed of this.
 
Matthew_Holford said:
Sorry GKC I’m not sure what you’re asking.
Click to expand...
Does the Act you cite retain or remove the prohibition in the Catholic Relief Act, Sec. 17, as to Catholics holding a position which includes advising the Monarch on appointments in the Church of England.

GKC
 
GKC said:
Does the Act you cite retain or remove the prohibition in the Catholic Relief Act, Sec. 17, as to Catholics holding a position which includes advising the Monarch on appointments in the Church of England.

GKC
Click to expand...
I see what you mean now. It removes it. I think the office of monarch is now the only office a Catholic cannot hold. Even the Lord Chancellor can be a Catholic now and the justification for a Catholic being barred from this office was that the Lord Chancellor is the “keeper of The Queen’s conscience”.
 
Matthew_Holford said:
I see what you mean now. It removes it. I think the office of monarch is now the only office a Catholic cannot hold. Even the Lord Chancellor can be a Catholic now and the justification for a Catholic being barred from this office was that the Lord Chancellor is the “keeper of The Queen’s conscience”.
Click to expand...
I thank you. I’ll note this in my SELECT DOCUMENTS OF ENGLISH CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY, for future reference.

GKC
 
GKC said:
I thank you. I’ll note this in my SELECT DOCUMENTS OF ENGLISH CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY, for future reference.

GKC
Click to expand...
I’m being nosey now, so tell me to mind my own business if you want, GKC are you in UK or another country? If you choose to answer but prefer the info to remain private please feel free to PM me.
 
An overgeneralization on my part. There are always faithful within the ranks. I’m simply saying that the U.K. by and large, England specifically, has an exceptionally huge secular atheist mindset. There were Catholics cheering for the pope and proud of their faith. There are Protestants of Anglican and Westminister Calvinist stripes, etc. in England. Their numbers are just small and choked so hard by the atheist modernist rabble. The U.S. is also walking the same path. I give a lot of credit to our Puritan beginnings that keep a lot of us grounded. Blessings to you, brother Matthew. 👍
Matthew_Holford said:
I honestly don’t know how we got this reputation. I don’t think we deserve it. May be the atheists are more vociferous than those of us with a faith. Those of us of faith perhaps should be ashamed of this.
Click to expand...
 
Matthew_Holford said:
I’m being nosey now, so tell me to mind my own business if you want, GKC are you in UK or another country? If you choose to answer but prefer the info to remain private please feel free to PM me.
Click to expand...
No problem at all. I was born in Florida, USA, grew up in South Carolina, lived around the country in a 20-year Air Force career, and returned to SC when I retired, 22 years ago.

Do I appear as something otherwise?

GKC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top