Can the Queen/Canterbury dissolve Anglicanism?

[7_Sorrows]

taking Holy Communion is considered low church? or the filming of taking Holy
Communion is low church?
Holy Communion is Holy Communion whether you are high church or low church.

 

[ltwin]

taking Holy Communion is considered low church? or the filming of taking Holy

Communion is low church?

Holy Communion is Holy Communion whether you are high church or low church.

She does not like to take Holy Communion publicly because it is for her a private act of devotion, and according to the Spectator article linked to, this attitude stems from her low churchmanship.

 

[7_Sorrows]

i understand for the Queen it is a private act of devotion and, therefore, does not want to be filmed receiving Holy Communion, but i fail to see how this attitude stems from her low churchmanship. what do you think is the definition of low church anglicanism?

 

[ltwin]

Thank you. Can parliament still exercise similar authority over the Church?

PickyPicky answered this.

Is there a theology regarding the sovereignty of the legitimate government of the state over the legitimate authority of the Church within the state?

I suppose this would have to be found in 16th century theologian Richard Hooker’s Ecclesiastical Polity Book 8, Chapter 1.2:

We hold, that seeing there is not any man of the Church of England but the same man is also a member of the commonwealth, nor any man a member of the commonwealth who is not also of the Church of England; therefore as in a figure triangular the base doth differ from the sides thereof, and yet one and the selfsame line is both a base and also a side … so, albeit properties and actions of one kind do cause the name of a commonwealth, qualities and functions of another sort the name of a church to be given to a multitude, yet one and the same multitude may in a sort be both, and is so with us, that no person appertaining to the one can be denied to be also of the other.

Hooker goes on to say in Book 8 Chapter 1.7 to say that England’s situation is different from the church in pagan societies, in that where infidels have dominion, the commonwealth and the church are indeed two separate societies. In societies where Rome has sway (i.e. Catholic nations), the commonwealth and the church are indeed one society, but the Catholic Church divides them into two bodies, not allowing the church to depend upon the civil magistrate.

In England, however:

Our estate is according to the pattern of God’s ancient elect people, which people were not part of them the commonwealth, and part of them the Church of God, but the selfsame people whole and entire were both under one Chief Governor, on whose supreme authority they did all depend.

Keep in mind, of course, that Hooker is writing about England and Catholic Europe as they were in the late 1500s–almost everyone was a baptized Christian of some sort.

Is what was then true now, is what I’m getting at. Or is the role of the state and Church different now? (It seems obvious to me that they are different, but I guess I’m curious whether there is an objectively established theological authority or if it is subjective and can therefore change based on how things were then versus now.

I think the Anglican response would be that the situation has changed due to the demographics. The Church of England has not been a truly national church for a very long time, so it would follow that the assumption that commonwealth and church are one would need to be revised or entirely abandoned.

 

[ltwin]

i understand for the Queen it is a private act of devotion and, therefore, does not want to be filmed receiving Holy Communion, but i fail to see how this attitude stems from her low churchmanship. what do you think is the definition of low church anglicanism?

Look, read the article. You can agree or disagree with it. A SERVICE FIT FOR THE QUEEN » 5 May 1990 » The Spectator Archive

 

[PickyPicky]

I suppose one could say there has been no change in the transfer of authority to national sovereignty, simply a change in the definition of where national sovereignty lies.

 

[Wesrock]

Thank you for your answers. I’ve read and seen some popular media on Henry VIII recently and I’ve had questions like these in the back of my mind.

 

[Maximilian75]

That’s part of the weird thing about Anglicanism is the whole Church and State thing.

Catholiism used to have it with the Papal States, but they were abolished, as opposed to the UK, in which that power changed hands, making a weird complicated situation.

 

[GKMotley]

While the particular paradigm (Church of England) is not a characteristic of Anglicanism per se, nor can I see the Papal States as a very good parallel to the erastian nature of the CoE, Anglicanism is a weird thing, in itself.

 

[SnowRose]

The Scandinavian Lutheran churches are/were state churches, in Sweden automatic membership on birth (parents could apply to opt their child out) stopped in 2000. The king/Queen are still required to be members. Iirc Norway and Iceland still keep theirs.

It’s a similar situation to the CoE, and while it’s benign to the point of wussiness today, the mix of ecclesial and state power is open to abuse of power.

 

[Maximilian75]

IMO, it’s kinda sad all of the current monarchies in the world (AFAIK) are naught but figureheads today… I want to see a good, benevolent king ruling his country firmly but justly somewhere

 

[PickyPicky]

Those who see the system in England as beneficial (and they are not confined to Anglicans) describe it as ensuring that the voice of faith is heard in the national debate, and as providing a champion for faith at the highest levels of the state. The Queen made that point here:

http://aoc2013.brix.fatbeehive.com/...tends-multi-faith-reception-at-lambeth-palace

 

[PickyPicky]

IMO, it’s kinda sad all of the current monarchies in the world (AFAIK) are naught but figureheads today

I think you’ll find some non-figurehead versions in the Middle East, and they are not a particularly good advertisement for the idea.

 

[Maximilian75]

Yeah, that’s why I said ‘firmly but justly’ at the end of my post.

 

[SnowRose]

Absolute monarchy looks good in theory. So do a lot of things.
If you grow up somewhere with lots of hand-on history, you get a very clear idea why this concept has been scrapped by modern societies.

 

[PickyPicky]

Firmly but justly scrapped.

 

[Maximilian75]

I’m an American. That’s why I’m here as opposed to a farm in County Cork, Ireland haha.

Again, I realize the cons of monarchy. I was primarily speaking of the romantic, good, benevolent but just king. Think Wencesclas, Solomon, Sobeskill and the like.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him

With all due respect, that’s a self-serving Catholic definition which has the impact of intensifying schism, of which Rome is an equal partner and equally guilty.

Jon,

Self serving? Really?

With all due respect, I’m not the one you have to convince.
I quoted The only Church Jesus established, is still here 2000 years later, with the hierarchy Jesus established on Peter, in unbroken succession, guaranteed by JESUS who established it to always be here. You aren’t that Church nor are you in it.

Henry VIII made himself the head of your sect of Protestantism, both products of the 16th century.

is what?

JonNC:

A Bishop in His True Church, every bit as much as the Bishop of Rome.

Again, with all due respect

There’s one True Church. The bishop of Rome is over Our Lord’s Church. By Jesus own design. It’s been that way for 2000 yrs

 

[QContinuum]

Henry VIII made himself the head of your sect of Protestantism, both products of the 16th century.

The argument you have with Jon is between you two. But the above I must correct. Remember,
Protestantism was a movement concerned primarily with theological differences and reform of CC doctrine and practices, and a separate event from the Anglican split.

The split between the CC and the CoE was primarily juridical, not theological. Though theological differences did develop, these were not the reason for the split.

Furthermore, Anglicanism is not born only of Latin spirituality. Centuries before Augustine ever set foot in the British Isles, there were already British churches with roots back to the first century. Anglicanism draws upon this spiritual heritage as well.

I’d like to point out that first century British Chrisitianity predates Henry VIII, by a considerable bit of time. And therefore could not be a product of his making.

Point being, that while Anglicanism contains elements of Protestantism, it is not, strictly speaking, a Protestant sect.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Henry VIII made himself the head of your sect of Protestantism, both products of the 16th century.

The argument you have with Jon is between you both. But the above I must correct. Remember,
Protestantism was a movement concerned primarily with theological differences and reform of CC doctrine and practices, and a separate event from the Anglican split.

Yet, According to John Henry Newman, while still an Anglican, who did much research on the subject, came to a different conclusion.

(emphasis mine)

"Such, then, is the Anglican Church and its Via Media, {377} and such the practical application of it; it is an interposition or arbitration between the extreme doctrines of Protestantism on the one hand, and the faith of Rome which Protestantism contradicts on the other. At the same time, though it may be unwilling to allow it, it is, from the nature of the case, but a particular form of Protestantism. I do not say that in secondary principles it may not agree with the Catholic Church; but, its essential idea being that she has gone into error, whereas the essential idea of Catholicism is the Church’s infallibility, the Via Media is really nothing else than Protestant. Not to submit to the Church is to oppose her, and to side with the heretical party; for medium there is none. From. lecture 12

QContinuum:

The split between the CC and the CoE was primarily juridical, not theological. Though theological differences did develop, these were not the reason for the split.

Division from the Church which is what happened, has been condemned from the beginning, in scripture and Tradition, and the ongoing teaching of the Catholic Church

QContinuum:

Furthermore, Anglicanism is not born only of Latin spirituality. Centuries before Augustine ever set foot in the British Isles, there were already British churches with roots back to the first century. Anglicanism draws upon this spiritual heritage as well.

England was evangelized by the Catholic Church. Even From a Protestant source

QContinuum:

I’d like to point out that first century British Chrisitianity predates Henry VIII, by a considerable bit of time. And therefore could not be a product of his making.

Point being, that while Anglicanism contains elements of Protestantism, it is not, strictly speaking, a Protestant sect.

1. Britain WAS 1st, Catholic. Source above points that out. 1500 yrs later, that changed with ole Hank. He generated the schism and the ensuing accumulating errors. Schism alone, is condemned in scripture and once those in schism know that, THEY also are guilty who keep it going.
2. Anglicanism as is, is Protestant.