British Monarch's role in Anglicanism/Episcopalianism

  • Thread starter Thread starter JesuXPIPassio
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GKC said:
Originally, the American colonies were under the episcopal jurisdiction of the Bishop of London. After the Revolutionary War, representatives from the Church in America went to England to seek the consecration of Samuel Seabury as the first bishop of the Episcopal Church, the request was denied, in that such a Church was no longer under the CoE (a first), and no longer subject to the Monarch. This is why the first Episcopal bishop received his consecration from those Non-Jurors that Gurney mentioned, not via the CoE.
Click to expand...
So you’re saying that rather than return home empty-handed the American representatives went to Scotland where these non-juror bishops who were sitting around not doing much of anything since they had been kicked out of the Kirk by the Presbyterians conveniently agreed to consecrate Samuel Seabury as the first Episcopal bishop? Odd how these things work.
 
GKC said:
The CoE sort of followed the flag, into the Empire, as it grew. And slowly, as the colonial entities moved toward self governing entities, dominions and then independent countries, the colonial sees (after a transitional period I don’t recall well) became autonomous jurisdictions within the Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church was the first such offspring, though it followed a different path.

Originally, the American colonies were under the episcopal jurisdiction of the Bishop of London. After the Revolutionary War, representatives from the Church in America went to England to seek the consecration of Samuel Seabury as the first bishop of the Episcopal Church, the request was denied, in that such a Church was no longer under the CoE (a first), and no longer subject to the Monarch. This is why the first Episcopal bishop received his consecration from those Non-Jurors that Gurney mentioned, not via the CoE.

The CoE was outside of England for the same reason the British flag was. Empire and colonies.

GKC
Click to expand...
And Seabury was selected at the Glebe House in nearby Woodbury, CT. If you are in the area, tours are available.
 
tomarin said:
As a side note I was interested to learn recently that the apostolic lines of succession for the bishops in the Episcopal Church in America actually come from the Scottish Anglican bishops – in an effort to maintain distance from England, obviously. Exactly how or when that came about I don’t know but it’s interesting that people at the time felt it was necessary.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t the Episcopal Church that felt it was necessary. It was the CoE who felt it was impossible to consecrate a bishop who was not under the British monarch. This was a new situation for them all. So when Samuel Seabury, selected by the Church in America, approached the CoE seeking consecration, in 1783, he was turned down, since, as an American, he could no longer take the oath of allegiance to the King. So, in 1784, Seabury approached the Non-Jurors (q.v.), who were not in communion with the CoE, as an alternate source for the Apostolic Episcopate. Parliament subsequently adopted a new scheme to provide for the consecration of foreign bishops.

But it was not a scheme to avoid the CoE, on the part of the American Church, that led to Scotland.

GKC
 
tomarin said:
So you’re saying that rather than return home empty-handed the American representatives went to Scotland where these non-juror bishops who were sitting around not doing much of anything since they had been kicked out of the Kirk by the Presbyterians conveniently agreed to consecrate Samuel Seabury as the first Episcopal bishop? Odd how these things work.
Click to expand...
No. You need a little research on the Non-Jurors. One was the former Archbishop of Canterbury. Issue dated back around 100 years.

GKC
 
Pregustator said:
I’m not sure sure this would have been the case during the days of Empire, though. Perhaps Elizabeth II is not the Supreme Governor over the Protestant Episcopal Church in America or over the Anglican Church of Canada, but I’ll bet, for example, that the British Monarch was imagined to be Supreme Governor of the Church of England, in Canada, before the establishment of the Anglican Church of Canada, as such.

And that brings up a question: why would the Church of England ever exist beyond England? If it were a matter of a “Church of Britain”, it’s expanse throughout the Empire would make sense. But an entity called, say, “The Church of England of Canada” seems a monster.
Click to expand...
Very interesting point and not one I’ve ever given much thought to. I suppose in the days of Empire when Britain “exported” the Church of England Victoria may have been Supreme Governor over a much bigger CofE. I suppose when the indpendent members of the Anglican Communion came into being she ceased being their Supreme Governor. I quite sure she would have been very forthright in telling her government and her bishops want she wanted!
 
Matthew_Holford said:
Very interesting point and not one I’ve ever given much thought to. I suppose in the days of Empire when Britain “exported” the Church of England Victoria may have been Supreme Governor over a much bigger CofE. I suppose when the indpendent members of the Anglican Communion came into being she ceased being their Supreme Governor. I quite sure she would have been very forthright in telling her government and her bishops want she wanted!
Click to expand...
Both assumptions are correct. There was a formal process that the colonial sees went through, paralleling the poliltical process which led to the colonies becoming, eventually, independent. While under the monarch, the monarch was the supreme governor. After independence, ecclesiastical independence followed.
 
GKC said:
No. You need a little research on the Non-Jurors. One was the former Archbishop of Canterbury. Issue dated back around 100 years.

GKC
Click to expand...
I agree. I only learned of the existence of the schism a few short posts ago.
 
GKC said:
It wasn’t the Episcopal Church that felt it was necessary. It was the CoE who felt it was impossible to consecrate a bishop who was not under the British monarch. This was a new situation for them all. So when Samuel Seabury, selected by the Church in America, approached the CoE seeking consecration, in 1783, he was turned down, since, as an American, he could no longer take the oath of allegiance to the King. So, in 1784, Seabury approached the Non-Jurors (q.v.), who were not in communion with the CoE, as an alternate source for the Apostolic Episcopate. Parliament subsequently adopted a new scheme to provide for the consecration of foreign bishops.

But it was not a scheme to avoid the CoE, on the part of the American Church, that led to Scotland.

GKC
Click to expand...
That makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to explain it, GKC.
 
tomarin said:
That makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to explain it, GKC.
Click to expand...
You’re very welcome.

By coincidence, the first foreign bishop consecrated subsequently was a former American (colonial, anyway) Charles Inglis, who was consecrated the first bishop for the Church of England in Canada, 4 years after Seabury tried.

GKC
 
I resemble that remark! LOL…honestly, hate to say it but I can’t think of an ABC in modernity that was worth a darn…I grew up Catholic with John Paul II at the helm and I thought the man could fly. Still do. I think aside from his bungling the sex abuse stuff, his moral leadership and amazing heroism in youth as well as his overall holiness, he’s the greatest pope in the last several hundred years to be sure. The day he died I felt an emptiness that was profound. I’m not a big Benedict fan. Miss JP2. As far as ABC’s, Rowan is a real failure IMO.
GKC said:
Silly person.

GKC
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
I resemble that remark! LOL…honestly, hate to say it but I can’t think of an ABC in modernity that was worth a darn…I grew up Catholic with John Paul II at the helm and I thought the man could fly. Still do. I think aside from his bungling the sex abuse stuff, his moral leadership and amazing heroism in youth as well as his overall holiness, he’s the greatest pope in the last several hundred years to be sure. The day he died I felt an emptiness that was profound. I’m not a big Benedict fan. Miss JP2. As far as ABC’s, Rowan is a real failure IMO.
Click to expand...
Abp. William Temple? (1942(?) - 1944) “Worship is the submission of all of our nature to God…the greatest of human expressions of which we are capable.”
 
Good point. From what I’ve read of temple (I’m only 35) he seems like a quality ABC. I liked his desires to combat anti-semitism, his desire to improve the working class (I’m a union rep! 👍), common sense about the war, and personal holiness.
Dave_Noonan said:
Abp. William Temple? (1942(?) - 1944) “Worship is the submission of all of our nature to God…the greatest of human expressions of which we are capable.”
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Good point. From what I’ve read of temple (I’m only 35) he seems like a quality ABC. I liked his desires to combat anti-semitism, his desire to improve the working class (I’m a union rep! 👍), common sense about the war, and personal holiness.
Click to expand...
I want to read more of his work some day. What little I’ve read seems great and I wonder what things would be like if he were here today.
 
Indeed. I wonder how he’d handle this massacre of theology and total butchery of traditional morality in the Anglican Communion, most notably in TEC in the U.S. I also wonder how he’d take the “women’s ordination,” my personal bane!

I think the Anglican Communion is much like the State of California right now—100% ungovernable. I don’t think anyone could handle that office.
Dave_Noonan said:
I want to read more of his work some day. What little I’ve read seems great and I wonder what things would be like if he were here today.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top