L
- Status
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Episcopalian is not equal to orthodoxy in Anglicanism IMOā¦but then again, Anglican Orthodoxy is oxymoronic, ask any Anglican! LOL
Well said!
- assuming that you belong to the orthodox part of the Anglican Church
G
GKC
Guest
J
JesuXPIPassio
Guest
So is the Monarchās role like how the Roman Emperorās role was after Constantine legalised Christianity ā there to approve Bishops in some sort of cooperation between the church and state?
But in the case of post-Constantinian Emperors, the Pope was still the head of the Church in the West and the Patriarch in the East; as I understand it, the Emperor didnāt assume become its leader too, just acted like a sort of cooperator. Is Britain the only case where the Monarch took on the role of head (even though itās now just titular)?
But in the case of post-Constantinian Emperors, the Pope was still the head of the Church in the West and the Patriarch in the East; as I understand it, the Emperor didnāt assume become its leader too, just acted like a sort of cooperator. Is Britain the only case where the Monarch took on the role of head (even though itās now just titular)?
L
LutheranDK
Guest
Indeed, but there ARE orthodox (in the proper meaning of that word) Episcopalians
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
To be technically correct the monarch doesnāt approve bishops that have been chosen. She actually chooses them. That at least is the theory. To observe neutrality the monarch never truly exercises free choice but is always advised by a government minister. In the case of appointing CofE bishops the government minister who advises the monarch is the Prime Minister. In most cases the PM doesnāt advise the monarch to appoint someone of his own preference. The PM is advised by a selection committee which is chaired by an archbishop and made up of CofE clergy and laity. They present the PM with a list of 3 candidates. Usually, the PM chooses the selection committeeās first choice and this is the one he advises the monarch to appoint. So in actual practice its a committee of CofE clergy and laity who choose new bishops. The monarch and PM play merely superficial roles. However, there was at least one occasion (unfortunately I cannot recall the full details) when Margaret Thatcher was the PM when she refused to appoint the selection panelās first choice because she didnāt like that candidateās views on many matters which were opposed to her own politics.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
No matter what the administrative role of the Queen and Parliament over the Established Anglican Church - the Queen is not the head of that church but its governor only. Those two are not the same thing.
And Henry VIII was never the head of the Anglican church - he declared himself to be the head of the Catholic church in England which was in schism from Rome, but which was in all other ways āCatholic.ā
And the Episcopal Church only began commemorating the American Revolution liturgically in the . . . 20th century. For years after the Revolution, the Episcopal church continued to maintain some form of relationship with the British Crown on a āspiritual planeā - whatever that means.
And Queen Elizabeth II is not only the British Monarch - she is also the Head of State of 16 constitutional monarchies world-wide, including her Dominion of Canada.
God save the Queen!
Alex
And Henry VIII was never the head of the Anglican church - he declared himself to be the head of the Catholic church in England which was in schism from Rome, but which was in all other ways āCatholic.ā
And the Episcopal Church only began commemorating the American Revolution liturgically in the . . . 20th century. For years after the Revolution, the Episcopal church continued to maintain some form of relationship with the British Crown on a āspiritual planeā - whatever that means.
And Queen Elizabeth II is not only the British Monarch - she is also the Head of State of 16 constitutional monarchies world-wide, including her Dominion of Canada.
God save the Queen!
Alex
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
I donāt think anyone in this thread has claimed sheās the head of the Church of England. If you ask the Church of England who the head of the church is they will tell you itās Jesus Christ. The Queen has two titles: Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith. Both titles are symbolic; she takes no part in the governance of the CofE. She definitely has no wider role in the Anglican Communion, not even in the other three Anglican churches in the UK.
No one has said Henry VIII was head of the Anglican Communion. It didnāt even exist during his reign.
That is correct. Iām not sure I understand its relevance to this thread. The Queenās association with the Anglican Communion is solely with the Church of England. She has no roles relating to the other three Anglican churches within the UK, no role in any other Anglican church, and no role in the Anglican Communion as a whole.
G
GKC
Guest
I get nostalgic reading this. Itās almost the same as the first post I ever made, on line, to explain the role of the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, only. Thatās been around 8-9 years ago now. Had to deal with the position of +Cantuar, too.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
Iām partial to Archbishop Ramsey, myself.Ah the days of ++Carey, another forgettable ABC lol
GKC
Gotta love that Nagās Head controversy! 
P
Pregustator
Guest
Iām 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 Iāll 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 āChurch of Britainā, itās expanse throughout the Empire would make sense. But an entity called, say, āThe Church of England of Canadaā seems a monster.
T
tomarin
Guest
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 ā in an effort to maintain distance from England, obviously. Exactly how or when that came about I donāt know but itās interesting that people at the time felt it was necessary.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Ya just gotta love those non-jurors!
T
tomarin
Guest
You lost me there, Gurney. Must be some inside baseball Anglican humor.
If there were a head-scratching emoticon, I would definitely post it now.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Go read about the non-jurors in the history of the Church of England and youāll understand. Sorry, thought you were up on that. oopsā¦apologies.
T
tomarin
Guest
Iāll look it up. No need to apologize ā this is precisely why I enjoy the conversation on CAF so much.
G
GKC
Guest
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 donāt 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
- Status