Can the Queen/Canterbury dissolve Anglicanism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TomS333
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I didn’t triplecheck the current requirements.
Maybe I should rephrase it into ”even if it’s required the members don’t feel obliged to attend”? That would have the same effect in practice.
 
I mean… wow… even Southern Baptists and Unitarians, the least liturgical churches follow the Sabbath Rule.

How do they interperet that commandment, then?

(I know you’re a lutheran, so if you don’t know/don’t want to Google, feel free to tell me to buzz off)
 
I can’t speak for the Baptists lol. Or indeed the Anglicans, though we’re in full communion with most of them.

Here otoh it’s a general feeling among the laity you don’t need to be physically present in church on a specific day to be close to God. (I am not talking about my own personal stance, which is stricter, though I agree in principle). If anything, it’s considered somewhere between pharisaic and silly to go often. The same attitude applies for religious art or sayings at home, a ”wow! You need reminders for what you profess?!” and rolled eyes.
There are historical and cultural reasons for this, that are offtopic to this thread, but they do strongly affect attendance at mass or service on any given week.
 
Honestly, the only church I’ve encountered that has the “attend church under penalty of serious sin” is the CC (and EO). Protestant churches, like Methodist or Baptist, will of course promote regular attendance because it is considered edifying for the believer.

Episcopal churches, such as the one I attend, encourage regular attendance to maintain spiritual health and balance, by receiving the Eucharist, and to connect with the church community.

But if one wants to take a weekend and go fishing, they are not going to be held accountable to find a service somewhere to avoid missing. It’s not considered so much a sin to miss Sunday Liturgy. Though if one were to miss services chronically, that will invite some frowning and sardonic commentary from the junior warden in my church, lol.
 
Last edited:
SnowRose said:
Or indeed the Anglicans, though we’re in full communion with most of them.
Click to expand...
Yes, my Episcopal church celebrates alongside Lutheran clergy from time to time. We had some guest ministers, oh about a month ago.
 
We hold Evensong about monthly, and I did spot an Anglican/Episcopalian sounding Vesper but I was busy with my family that day.
 
Anglicans generally (what an odd word to use in a sentence re: Anglicans) identify certain mandatory Holy Days, but no one takes attendance. Weekly attendance encouraged.
 
For a number of years, the CofE did require weekly attendance, you could be punished civilly as a “recusant” if you failed to show.

But its been a while since then.
 
TomS333 said:
If the Queen or the Archbishop of Canterbury wanted to, would they have the power to dissolve the Anglican Church, since (correct me if I’m wrong here) they are the Heads of the Church of England?

I realise this may lead on to “Can the Pope disband Catholicism?” So I’ll ask that too.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that, in either case, the Church is found where a Bishop presides, where word and sacrament are found. My Anglican Bishop and priest, would still be there, regardless of what the Archbishop of Canterbury does.
BTW, not in communion with the CoE anyway
 
Last edited:
Yes, my memory suggests (and to be frank my memory is not what it was) that the recusancy Acts were disposed of by the Lord Protector. So more than 350 years ago.
 
Many people in England would give their religion as “CofE” if asked. It doesn’t mean a thing to a significant proportion of those folk. It just indicates that their parents identified as CofE and that they were probably baptised in a CofE church. As routine baptism becomes less commonplace, people are more likely to state that they don’t have a religion.

There are large numbers of people calling themselves CofE who would never, ever go to church or give religion a second thought.
 
Isca said:
There are large numbers of people calling themselves CofE who would never, ever go to church or give religion a second thought.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but isn’t that true of a lot of churches though? There is probably a similar gap between people baptized Catholic and those who actually “ever go to church” or “give religion a second thought.”
 
Last edited:
I assume so. I used to be CofE so I’m familiar with that religion.

I also know that my BIL is Jewish, but he regularly eats pork and bacon. 🙂
 
Isca said:
I assume so. I used to be CofE so I’m familiar with that religion.

I also know that my BIL is Jewish, but he regularly eats pork and bacon. 🙂
Click to expand...
Is it still necessary to be a CofE member to be accepted among the powerful people in English society? I would assume that without those social benefits you can expect in the future baptism rates to look more “realistic”.
 
Last edited:
ltwin said:
Is it still necessary to be a CofE member to be accepted among the powerful people in English society?
Click to expand...
No, absolutely not. It’s best to be CofE if you want to be Queen, though.
 
Tony Blair only officially converted to Catholicism when he was no longer Prime Minister.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top