Is the Queen the Head of the Anglican Church?

Radagast said:

I think that his point was that the original English church dates back long before "Catholic" differed from "Orthodox."



Sort of. Not quite. That was my point.

Although his 6th wife, Catherine Parr, was of a more Reformed bent, and she wrote a religious book (The Lamentation of a Sinner - Wikipedia). Henry accused her of the heresy of being a Protestant, but she survived him.

Click to expand...

I see your point and obviously the church existed. But Henry was a Catholic before and even after the CoE.

So how long ago did the Catholic church get a foothold in England?

klutedavid said:

I see your point and obviously the church existed. But Henry was a Catholic before and even after the CoE.

So how long ago did the Catholic church get a foothold in England?

Click to expand...

It all depends on what you mean by "Catholic."

If it means "in union with the See of Rome," then that wasn't really true of England before 664, and certainly wasn't true of Henry VIII after 1534.

Radagast said:

It all depends on what you mean by "Catholic."

If it means "in union with the See of Rome," then that wasn't true of England before 664, and wasn't true of Henry VIII after 1534.

Click to expand...

When were the Romans in Britain?

klutedavid said:

When were the Romans in Britain?

Click to expand...

That's not an answer to my question. What do you mean by "Catholic"?

And I'm not terribly keen on equivocation games.

Radagast said:

That's not an answer to my question. What do you mean by "Catholic"?

And I'm not terribly keen on equivocation games.

Click to expand...

Catholic is Roman church, catholic is universal church.

klutedavid said:

Catholic is Roman church

Click to expand...

And the "Roman" church, as a distinct entity from the rest of Christendom, did not exist before 1054.

Albion said:

Well, no. That's because the Pope, the Roman Catholic Church, broke away from the Church of England in 1571 and ordered all Enlishmen who remained loyal to the Pope to start up their own, separate, chapels. In short, no, Englishmen would NOT be Catholics today because of the decision of the Catholic Church to go it alone, without the oldest church in the Gentile world, the Church of England.

Click to expand...

Lol, utterly incorrect and you know it

never mind

Radagast said:

And the "Roman" church, as a distinct entity from the rest of Christendom, did not exist before 1054.

Click to expand...

The Roman bishop was extending his power many centuries before 1054.

Think it through. Rome was the powerhouse of the Roman Empire. Roman citizens were educated, wealthy, proud, superior to the feral countries that surrounded them.

How long will it take for a Roman church to exert it's influence and power. Certainly not a millennium. I have seen 380 AD mentioned, but I believe it may have been even before this.

Radagast said:

never mind

Click to expand...

Lower or upper case 'c'?

Paidiske said:

Yes, but I thought it was a bad example. Because the political centre of Catholicism is a separate sovereign nation.

Click to expand...

Of course you're entitled, but I was offering examples of erroneous ideas people have about supposed ties between churches and heads of state. I probably should have omitted that particular example.

klutedavid said:

Rome was the powerhouse of the Roman Empire.

Click to expand...

In 330, Constantinople became the capital of the Eastern part of the Empire.

In 286, they moved the Western capital to Milan. In 402, they moved the Western capital to Ravenna. In 476, the Western Roman Empire vanished.

klutedavid said:

The Roman bishop was extending his power many centuries before 1054.

Think it through. Rome was the powerhouse of the Roman Empire. Roman citizens were educated, wealthy, proud, superior to the feral countries that surrounded them.

How long will it take for a Roman church to exert it's influence and power. Certainly not a millennium. I have seen 380 AD mentioned, but I believe it may have been even before this.

Click to expand...

You are attempting to determine what was likely to have happened, relying on logic rather than historic facts. But the historic facts are available to us in this case, and Radagast's advice to you is correct.

The Church of Rome (so that we don't argue further about what we mean by either "Catholic " or "Roman") had no influence whatsoever over the Church in Britain for the first couple hundred years of the Christian era. But there is absolutely no doubt that the Church did exist in Britain.

Then, in the early Middle Ages, the two reached an accord on certain religious practices. Centuries later, during the High Middle Ages, the Papacy gained greater authority. That was over a thousand years after Christianity had come to the British Isles.

Only several centuries afterwards, the Reformation occurred...and then the Church in England returned to its historic position as an autonomous church. The clergy continued in place, the parish churches were the same ones as always, and so on.

These are the kinds of questions that arise when kings, queens and bishops push the only Head of the church aside and claim the tittle themselves.

Albion said:

the Reformation occurred...and then the Church in England returned to its historic position as an autonomous church. The clergy continued in place, the parish churches were the same ones as always, and so on.

Click to expand...

The monasteries took a bit of a hit, if I recall correctly.

Radagast said:

The monasteries too a bit of a hit, if I recall correctly.

Click to expand...

Yes, but that's not a matter of doctrine or of the nature of the church.

Albion said:

Henry did not stqrt a new church; even your own description of the events does not say so.

HOWEVER, this is a thread that is supposed to answer the question posed by our colleague, David, who asked if the Queen is the head of the Church, not all sorts of side issues.

She is the titular head of the Church--in England.

Relatively few of the world's Anglicans live in England, however, and the Anglican churches in the rest of the world have no connection to the Queen.

David is, I think, an American, and the Church in the USA did not so much as get its authorization to function as a self-governing church province from either the Crown or the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Click to expand...

No, but the Churches in England did go in a different direction; and continues to do so to this day.

MarkRohfrietsch said:

No, but the Churches in England did go in a different direction; and continues to do so to this day.

Click to expand...

Well, so have all the other churches/denominations.

Albion said:

Well, so have all the other churches/denominations.

Click to expand...

True enough. Thomas Cranmer was greatly influenced by the Lutheran Reformers; he studdied under Lutheran theologians, married the daughter of one of them, and based his Book of Common Prayer on continental Lutheran Liturgies; particularly Morning and Evening Prayer; Morning Prayer being a blended service of the offices of Matins and Prime; and Evensong or Evening Prayer, a blend of Vespers and Compline.

BTW, as a Confessional Lutheran, I am using the BoCP Based Monastic Diurnal presently for my daily prayers (my Lutheran Pastor introduced me too it.)

Henry's reforms were to the polity of the Church in England; Cranmer reforms were theological.

Not David said:

So you don't venerate the Queen?

Click to expand...

No, but there are days in America when I find myself wondering if she would take us back if we only apologize for that little episode in Boston Harbor.