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

[Contarini]

If the Queen of England says “in order to remain in communion with the Archbishop of Cantebury” you must do “this”, wouldn’t it mean that in order to stay in the Anglican community, a parish must do “this”?

If the Anglican Communion is defined by being in communion with the Archbishop of Cantebury, and his policies are dependent upon the Queen/King of England, then isn’t it logical to assume that one can only be in communion with Archbishop of Cantebury based on one’s agreement with the policies of the Queen/King of England?

Since this has never been put to the test, it’s a hard question to answer. In the first place, I don’t think the government (actually the Prime Minister in practice rather than the monarch) has much control over what the Archbishop does once he’s consecrated–they just have a say on who the Archbishop is in the first place. Until you can provide some evidence that the government can actually tell the Archbishop what to do, your argument is dead in the water. Certainly the fact that they pick the Archbishop does give them some indirect control over the Communion as a whole, but I don’t think they have direct authority over the policies adopted once the Archbishop has assumed office. (I suppose it’s possible that they can depose the Archbishop, but again I’d like to see actual evidence to that effect.)

Furthermore, the Anglican Communion has been up to now a very loose coalition. The Archbishop does not have and does not claim the power to set policies for the entire Communion. If the British government really told the ABC to order the whole communion to do something (assuming this was possible in the first place, which you have no proven), the Communion would laugh at him. This might bring the Communion as we know it to an end, but if Canterbury was clearly behaving in a tyrannical way I don’t think the other Anglican churches would care that much about losing communion with Canterbury. In other words, one of the many holes in your argument is a consideration of what if anything Anglican churches have to lose by not being part of the Communion.

Which brings us to the present crisis. The ABC is not in fact acting on the basis of his own personal views or even primarily those of the C of E (certainly not on the basis of any government position). He is serving as a voice for the consensus of the Communion as a whole. Still, many (perhaps most) American Episcopalians don’t really care that much about the Communion. So again, they don’t really think they have much to lose if they are no longer part of it.

Edwin

 

[rr1213]

There is a worldwide Anglican Communion. Made up of 38 totally independent jurisdictions, mainly national level Churches, like the Anglican Church of Canada, the Anglican Church of South Africa, the Anglican Church of New Zealand. You get the idea. In communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, as Primate of the Anglican Communion (that is, toothless figurehead). He wears two hats: the Primate of the Church of England, and the senior bishop of the Anglican Communion (remember, toothless figurehead). Think of the Communion as a sort of an analog of the British Commonwelath, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, as sort of an analog of the Queen, with respect to the Commonwealth. No real authority in either position, just a voluntary association, with an honorary figurehead.

By act of Parliment (Elizabeth I’s, that is) the British Sovereign is head of the Church of England. Which is one (the original) of those 38 independent jurisdictions. As the Episcopal Church is, in the USA. The Queen is NOT the head of the Anglican Communion, only of the Church of England. When that act of Parliment was passed, there was no Anglican Communion.

Answering this same question was the first post I ever made on the net, maybe 8-9 years ago, on a RC board. I have lost count of how many times I’ve answered it since.

GKC

You are a truly patient man!

 

[GKC]

Wait, you haven’t even gotten into High Church, Low Church, Broad Church yet.

Plus there’s the Archbishop of York, the Oxford Movement, and my personal favourite (just because of the name) the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral.

Fun. Collect them all.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Although nominally the monarch is the head of the Church of England, AFAIK I know she doesn’t interfere in the running of it - just as even though the Queen has to accept various laws and the appointment of a prime minister, she rubber-stamps all of them.
I know there is a Private Member’s Bill in the works to get rid of the anomaly that a monarch (or heir) can’t marry a Catholic.

Yep. As has been said before.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Since this has never been put to the test, it’s a hard question to answer. In the first place, I don’t think the government (actually the Prime Minister in practice rather than the monarch) has much control over what the Archbishop does once he’s consecrated–they just have a say on who the Archbishop is in the first place. Until you can provide some evidence that the government can actually tell the Archbishop what to do, your argument is dead in the water. Certainly the fact that they pick the Archbishop does give them some indirect control over the Communion as a whole, but I don’t think they have direct authority over the policies adopted once the Archbishop has assumed office. (I suppose it’s possible that they can depose the Archbishop, but again I’d like to see actual evidence to that effect.)

Furthermore, the Anglican Communion has been up to now a very loose coalition. The Archbishop does not have and does not claim the power to set policies for the entire Communion. If the British government really told the ABC to order the whole communion to do something (assuming this was possible in the first place, which you have no proven), the Communion would laugh at him. This might bring the Communion as we know it to an end, but if Canterbury was clearly behaving in a tyrannical way I don’t think the other Anglican churches would care that much about losing communion with Canterbury. In other words, one of the many holes in your argument is a consideration of what if anything Anglican churches have to lose by not being part of the Communion.

Which brings us to the present crisis. The ABC is not in fact acting on the basis of his own personal views or even primarily those of the C of E (certainly not on the basis of any government position). He is serving as a voice for the consensus of the Communion as a whole. Still, many (perhaps most) American Episcopalians don’t really care that much about the Communion. So again, they don’t really think they have much to lose if they are no longer part of it.

Edwin

GKC speaks in aphorisms; Contarini explicates.

Another interesting point of history. Back those 8-9 years ago, when I posted that historic first post, Contarini was the second person to respond.

GKC

 

[GKC]

You are a truly patient man!

In truth, the only thing I hope to do, sometimes, is speak a little history, and tell what an Anglican thinks.

But thank you.

GKC,

who is still gives away books, from time to time.

 

[rr1213]

In the first place, I don’t think the government (actually the Prime Minister in practice rather than the monarch) has much control over what the Archbishop does once he’s consecrated–they just have a say on who the Archbishop is in the first place.

…and, moreover, it certainly was not unheard of historically for temporal authorities to claim, and excercise, the “right” to choose local bishops for the Catholic Church, subject to Church approval.

 

[rr1213]

GKC speaks in aphorisms; Contarini explicates.

Another interesting point of history. Back those 8-9 years ago, when I posted that historic first post, Contarini was the second person to respond.

GKC

Wow. Got a copy of that thread floating around anywhere? It would be an interesting piece of history!

 

[GKC]

…and, moreover, it certainly was not unheard of historically for temporal authorities to claim, and excercise, the “right” to choose local bishops for the Catholic Church, subject to Church approval.

Very true. There are acts of Parliment related to the practice, part of those acts I mentioned, before Henry VIII.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Wow. Got a copy of that thread floating around anywhere? It would be an interesting piece of history!

I wish I did. I think the first time I did it, I did it best.

But it was on a defunct forum (Chrisitian Unity, I think it ws called) and is long gone.

Sometimes I try to save stuff, now, if I put a lot of work into it.

GKC

 

[Vaclav]

On a serious note, is the Archbishop of Canterbury not the “first among equals” (primus inter pares) of the other heads of the Anglican Communion, or has that lost its meaning in the practical terms of the communion itself?

I suppose it actually has because I know that the ordination of women was a big deal around 1992 (?) or so for the Church of England, but the Episcopal church in the United States had already had ordained women at that time (1989 perhaps?). And currently Nigerian Anglicans tend to be more disfavourable towards homosexual clergy than the CoE or the American or Canadian counterparts within the Anglican Communion (please tell me if I have misspoken).

I don’t think the government (actually the Prime Minister in practice rather than the monarch) has much control over what the Archbishop does once he’s consecrated–they just have a say on who the Archbishop is in the first place

This is true. It also helps to understand the UK government a little better too. It does not work at all like the American system (so few governments do, probably to their benefit ). It is tradition that the CoE sticks to its own affairs and the Government does not interfere with CoE affairs. Therefore the Lords Spiritual (primarily CoE clergy) only vote on matters of morality or matters that specifically effect the church. Also, it is rare that a political party issues a whip (a party line on how to vote) to its Members of Parliament on an Act that involves an issue of morality. These acts are typically left to a “free vote.”

I know there is a Private Member’s Bill in the works to get rid of the anomaly that a monarch (or heir) can’t marry a Catholic.

I think the Liberal Democrats propose this every so often! The idea of course is that a problem might arise if a Catholic were to become the nominal “Defender of the Faith.” Non CoE Prime Ministers would simply pass the appointment priveleges down to the Second Lord of the Treasury (The Chancellor) as this question has come up before (actually Her Majesty would pass this privelege down).

 

[Catholic_Hammer]

So, is the ABC appointed by the Queen/King, and then “approved of” by Parliament?

Please, excuse my ignorance, but are the bishops throughout the Anglican Communion appointed by the ABC?

 

[Contarini]

GKC speaks in aphorisms; Contarini explicates.

Another interesting point of history. Back those 8-9 years ago, when I posted that historic first post, Contarini was the second person to respond.

GKC

On what board was that?

Edwin

 

[GKC]

So, is the ABC appointed by the Queen/King, and then “approved of” by Parliament?

In theory, yes. First, though the Sovereign is told who the ruling party has selected, as proposed by the relevant political committee. I am not sure, but the Sovereign may be given a choice of more than one name, if deemed feasible, but don’t quote me. That would imply a more active role that I understand to be the case.

Please, excuse my ignorance, but are the bishops throughout the Anglican Communion appointed by the ABC?

No, nowhere. Remember, totally independent jurisdictions, 38 of them. I know of no place that the Anglican bishops aren’t elected.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

That being the case, then if those “formularies”, liturgies, and lines of succession are accepted by the Bishop of Rome as a legitimate rite, then wouldn’t all Anglicans who fallow as such be within the [C]atholic Church?

Many of us would love to see this happen. Most Anglicans are attached first and foremost to our traditions and liturgy rather than to the Communion per se. For me, the Communion is the best thing we have short of union with any of the indubitably apostolic churches. That’s why I would never join the Continuum with GKC–I’d be Catholic or Orthodox much sooner. (In other words, being a schismatic is bad enough, but I don’t want to be a schismatic schismatic!) 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.

In other words, I care more about the Communion than GKC does, because I see Anglicanism as the least schismatic form of Protestantism. GKC sees it as a fully authentic expression of Catholicism defined by particular rites and liturgies just as Latin or Byzantine or Syriac Catholicism is (is that fair, GKC?).

Other Anglicans would in fact define Anglicanism in terms of union with Canterbury, and would question whether GKC is a real Anglican–just as GKC might question whether we are real Anglicans because we have what he considers a highly defective prayer book and questionable orders due to the ordination of women, etc.

Edwin

 

[Catholic_Hammer]

So, is the ABC appointed by the Queen/King, and then “approved of” by Parliament?

Please, excuse my ignorance, but are the bishops throughout the Anglican Communion appointed by the ABC?

OK, I found the answer on Wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Appointments_Commission

Is this correct?

OK, then how are American bishops appointed?

 

[GKC]

On a serious note, is the Archbishop of Canterbury not the “first among equals” (primus inter pares) of the other heads of the Anglican Communion, or has that lost its meaning in the practical terms of the communion itself?

No, that’s about it, but the primus must not be stretched too far.

I suppose it actually has because I know that the ordination of women was a big deal around 1992 (?) or so for the Church of England, but the Episcopal church in the United States had already had ordained women at that time (1989 perhaps?). And currently Nigerian Anglicans tend to be more disfavourable towards homosexual clergy than the CoE or the American or Canadian counterparts within the Anglican Communion (please tell me if I have misspoken).

No, in a nutshell, that’s accurate.Third world Anglcains in general, the vast majority of the official Communion, are theologically more orthodox than the developed world. But also more on the Evangelical side of the Anglican spectrum, alas.

This is true. It also helps to understand the UK government a little better too. It does not work at all like the American system (so few governments do, probably to their benefit ). It is tradition that the CoE sticks to its own affairs and the Government does not interfere with CoE affairs. Therefore the Lords Spiritual (primarily CoE clergy) only vote on matters of morality or matters that specifically effect the church. Also, it is rare that a political party issues a whip (a party line on how to vote) to its Members of Parliament on an Act that involves an issue of morality. These acts are typically left to a “free vote.”

I think the Liberal Democrats propose this every so often! The idea of course is that a problem might arise if a Catholic were to become the nominal “Defender of the Faith.” Non CoE Prime Ministers would simply pass the appointment priveleges down to the Second Lord of the Treasury (The Chancellor) as this question has come up before (actually Her Majesty would pass this privelege down).

Thanks for a voice from close to the front. And I note that Charles has expressed a desire to be considered “Defender of the Faiths”. And after all Henry went through to get that title.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

So, is the ABC appointed by the Queen/King, and then “approved of” by Parliament?

Please, excuse my ignorance, but are the bishops throughout the Anglican Communion appointed by the ABC?

No. They are generally elected locally, as was the custom in the early Church, and approved of solely on the level of the national province (as was *not *the custom in the early Church). The ABC has absolutely nothing to do with who becomes a bishop in, say, the Episcopal Church. That is one of the issues with the election of +Gene Robinson. Episcopalians (except for the conservative minority) say that the international Communion has no business interfering with the election of a bishop in a particular national church. Conservative Anglicans respond that +Robinson’s election is an implicit statement that same-sex sexual relationships are fully moral (and furthermore that an acknowledgement of one’s homosexual identity is a legitimate reason to end one’s marriage), so the issue is about doctrine and morals, not just the machinery of episcopal elections.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Many of us would love to see this happen. Most Anglicans are attached first and foremost to our traditions and liturgy rather than to the Communion per se. For me, the Communion is the best thing we have short of union with any of the indubitably apostolic churches. That’s why I would never join the Continuum with GKC–I’d be Catholic or Orthodox much sooner. (In other words, being a schismatic is bad enough, but I don’t want to be a schismatic schismatic!) 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.

In other words, I care more about the Communion than GKC does, because I see Anglicanism as the least schismatic form of Protestantism. GKC sees it as a fully authentic expression of Catholicism defined by particular rites and liturgies just as Latin or Byzantine or Syriac Catholicism is (is that fair, GKC?).

Other Anglicans would in fact define Anglicanism in terms of union with Canterbury, and would question whether GKC is a real Anglican–just as GKC might question whether we are real Anglicans because we have what he considers a highly defective prayer book and questionable orders due to the ordination of women, etc.

Edwin

It is not only fair, my friend, it is, as is the custom with your posts, accurate and irenic in tone. As from the first.

GKC

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I think the Liberal Democrats propose this every so often! The idea of course is that a problem might arise if a Catholic were to become the nominal “Defender of the Faith.” Non CoE Prime Ministers would simply pass the appointment priveleges down to the Second Lord of the Treasury (The Chancellor) as this question has come up before (actually Her Majesty would pass this privelege down).

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