How is the Queen of England Not the Head of the American Episcopal Church?

[Zooey]

Real Anglo-Catholics like GKC think that Anglicanism is an indubitably apostolic church, which is one reason they are willing to form small “continuing” churches in order to preserve it.

**Well, it is. **
And since Early American Methodist bishops were properly consecrated by properly consecrated Anglican bishops, so are we UMCs an “indubitably apostolic church”.

Hammer, may I offer you ahttp://bestsmileys.com/medical/1.gif prescription strength pain reliever?? That head has to be killing you by now.

 

[Sixtus]

I guess because the Americans are willfully defiant of their rightful and legal respect crown. They may have won the battle for Independence but that was only one fight. We Brits are STILL your owners, we will come again…and next time we will win…taking back what is rightfully ours

 

[Sixtus]

Of course I do not really believe that. May God bless America. The greatest nation on earth

 

[Zooey]

I guess because the Americans are willfully defiant of their rightful and legal respect crown. They may have won the battle for Independence but that was only one fight. We Brits are STILL your owners, we will come again…and next time we will win…taking back what is rightfully ours

[sign] Pooh. Piffle. [/sign]
In any case, the last “rightful and legal respect crown” of England died in 1807, in the Papal States.
Henry Benedict Cardinal Stuart was Henry IX, King of England, Scotland,France, & Ireland.

:shrug:How can anyone one be anything **but **“willfully defiant” of a passle of Electors of Hanover???
Especially a Catholic!! If a mere American Methodist knows who the proper royal line was…

 

[Zooey]

Especially a Catholic!! If a mere American Methodist knows who the proper royal line was**…**

Mind you, the reason that I know that, is that Susanna Wesley, mother of John & Charles Wesley (& their 17 siblings) was loyal to the Jacobite line. As she well should be.
Actually, her husband once left her for a year over it. She refused to call the Person Sitting On the English Throne anything but…the:thumbsup: Elector of Hanover.

 

[Contarini]

**Well, it is. **
And since Early American Methodist bishops were properly consecrated by properly consecrated Anglican bishops, so are we UMCs an “indubitably apostolic church”.
.

What properly consecrated Anglican bishops? I’m afraid this is a fairy tale. No Anglican bishops were ever involved in a Methodist consecration as far as I know. Wesley adopted the view that presbyters and bishops were, in principle, the same office, and this is central to any Methodist claim of apostolic succession.

I think this is a more reasonable claim than most on this board would admit–see Jerome’s discussion of the origins of episcopacy. But it’s certainly not an indubitable one.

Edwin

 

[Zooey]

Well, it’s no fairy tale in the Free Methodist Church, Edwin. Benjamin Titus Roberts was ordained in direct succession from Francis Asbury, & Francis Asbury was ordained in direct succession from…those “non-juroring bishops in Scotland”.

Now mind you, I don’t disagree: presbyters=bishops=presbyters. But dinnae tell a Free Methodist pastor whose ordination was in that line, that he is not a priest as well as a pastor. You’ll have war in the camp.
As a child, I well remember that when Rev. E.F. Phelps was there, at Holy Communion, my grandmother would not let me, a non-member of the church, receive Communion from him. Because he was insaid line…and therefore, we had the Real Presence…

It is no accident that I call myself a “High Church Methodist”, even though any Anglican Catholic may well laugh to hear the phrase.

 

[GKC]

Of course I do not really believe that. May God bless America. The greatest nation on earth

Thank you.

GKC

 

[Vaclav]

Is this how it was handled when Margaret Thatcher - a Methodist - was PM?

No. This is typically ignored in modern times as it is expected that Cabinet will consult anyway.

There is a Crown Appointments Commission that results in a bunch of important people from the Government and the CoE meeting with one another and boiling everything down to two names.

When that is done the two names are given to the Prime Minister, who picks one and sends it to Her Majesty who can then decide if the choice meets her approval. Rarely the Prime Minister can decide that the list of two is lousy and a whole new list must be drawn up (though since the PM has known the names through the entire process this does not happen often and angering the Crown Appointments Commission or the CoE can be bad for one’s political career). Also, extremely rarely, the Monarch can decide to reject the appointment.

The individual is asked if he or she wishes to accept the nomination. Then the name is given to the CoE who then “elects” the person I believe. I’ve never really understood that part. I think they pray about the choice and take some sort of vote.

Then there is consecration and other formalities that someone else here likely knows far more about than I.

Speaking of Maggie (the milk snatcher ), her rule was surprisingly different than most Tories as she had a very tenuous relationship with the CoE, whereas Tories before her typically had a healthy relationship.

 

[Contarini]

Well, it’s no fairy tale in the Free Methodist Church, Edwin. Benjamin Titus Roberts was ordained in direct succession from Francis Asbury, & Francis Asbury was ordained in direct succession from…those “non-juroring bishops in Scotland”.

No, he wasn’t. Asbury was ordained as presbyter and “superintendant” (the title ws later changed to bishop) by Thomas Coke, who had himself been consecrated by John Wesley, who was of course not himself a bishop in the traditional sense. Otterbein participated in Asbury’s ordination/consecration, but Otterbein was not a bishop in apostolic succession either–he was a German Reformed minister.

I am pretty confident about this, but you are of course welcome to provide evidence of a non-juring Scottish bishop being involved in the consecration of either Coke or Asbury, if you can do so.

Edwin

 

[Sixtus]

Just as a matter of interest: when NASA establishes a space station on the moon and mars, which Catholic Bishop will have diocesan responsibility?

What will be the name of the first place of worship on the moon?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Just as a matter of interest: when NASA establishes a space station on the moon and mars, which Catholic Bishop will have diocesan responsibility?

What will be the name of the first place of worship on the moon?

Smart money’s on the Military Archdiocese!

 

[ASimpleSinner]

**Well, it is. **
And since Early American Methodist bishops were properly consecrated by properly consecrated Anglican bishops, so are we UMCs an “indubitably apostolic church”

I would rather love to see your sources for such a statement.

Can you provide citation for the notion that Anglican non-juring bishops in fact did consecrate bishops for what would become the UMC?

Can you offer evidence that the UMC not only understand and affirms this but in consecrating new bishops and ordaining ministers (not priests) it shares in this understanding of Holy Orders & apostolic succession?

 

[MelanieAnne]

This is just silly.