Is the Queen the Head of the Anglican Church?

[Not David]

So how does that work?

 

[Tolworth John]

Officially the English Monarch is the supreme governor of the church of England and titular head of the same.
In effect the archbishop of Canterbury together with the synod governs the Co E and the Queen acts according to his advice.

 

[Not David]

Officially the English Monarch is the supreme governor of the church of England and titular head of the same.
In effect the archbishop of Canterbury together with the synod governs the Co E and the Queen acts according to his advice.

Does she interfere in Church issues?

 

[Albion]

Does she interfere in Church issues?

No.

Perhaps I should also call your attention to what Tolworth John wrote in his previous reply. Whatever relationship the Queen has to the Church, we are speaking of the Church of England, not the Anglican churches in other countries and not even the independent Anglican churches in England.

 

[Not David]

No.

Perhaps I should also call your attention to what Tolworth John wrote in his previous reply. Whatever relationship the Queen has to the Church, we are speaking of the Church of England, not the Anglican churches in other countries and not even the independent Anglican churches in England.

So you don't venerate the Queen?

 

[Albion]

So you don't venerate the Queen?

I'm an American, so why would I?

But even if you were confining your question to members of the Church of England, I'd say that "venerate" is the wrong word.

There's no religious implication to be found. Nothing in the manner of Catholics "venerating" the saints by praying to them, seeking their intercession with God, and so on. But respect the Queen? Sure. Anglicans pray that God will so direct the hearts of all rulers that they will properly and impartially administer justice.

 

[Not David]

I'm an American, so why would I?

But even if you were confining your question to members of the Church of England, I'd say that "venerate" is the wrong word.

There's no religious implication to be found. Nothing in the manner of Catholics "venerating" the saints by praying to them, seeking their intercession with God, and so on. But respect the Queen? Sure. Anglicans pray that God will so direct the hearts of all rulers that they will properly and impartially administer justice.

I find it weird that one can be Anglican and having no associations with England.

 

[klutedavid]

So how does that work?

Well, the church of England was started by King Henry the eighth. So the monarch is at the top of the food chain.

 

[Albion]

I find it weird that one can be Anglican and having no associations with England.

Well, there are historic associations, but Anglicanism is a worldwide faith. The largest national church of Anglicans is the Church of Nigeria, you might be interested to know.

But otherwise, I find it weird that anyone would think that if one is an Anglican--or an Episcopalian, as is the more commonly used term in the United States--that he somehow is tied to the government of England. We do not think that Catholics are associated with the government of Italy, do we? Or Americans who belong to the Lutheran churches are "associated with" Germany?

 

[klutedavid]

So how does that work?

The Supreme Governor of the Church of England is the titular head of the Church of England, a position which is vested in the British monarch.

 

[Albion]

Well, the church of England was started by King Henry the eighth. So the monarch is at the top of the food chain.

Sorry, no.

The Church was started in the first century AD or, possibly, the second. Even the recent Olympic games which were held in London paid tribute, during the opening ceremonies, to the bringing of Christianity to Britain in ancient times.

That's a long, long way from the lifetime of Henry VIII, who not only did not start a new church but was never so much as declared a heretic by the Church of Rome.

 

[klutedavid]

Sorry, no.

The Church was started in the first century AD or, possibly, the second. Even the recent Olympic games which were held in London paid tribute, during the opening ceremonies, to the bringing of Christianity to Britain in ancient times.

That's a long, long way from the lifetime of Henry VIII, who not only did not start a new church but was never so much as declared a heretic by the Church of Rome.

By 1536, King Henry VIII of England had broken with the Holy See, seized assets of the Catholic Church in England and Wales and declared the Church of England as the established church with himself as its Supreme Head. (wikipedia)

It started out with the monarch as top dog. King Henry started the church of England, purely for personal reasons I might add.

 

[klutedavid]

Sorry, no.

The Church was started in the first century AD or, possibly, the second. Even the recent Olympic games which were held in London paid tribute, during the opening ceremonies, to the bringing of Christianity to Britain in ancient times.

That's a long, long way from the lifetime of Henry VIII, who not only did not start a new church but was never so much as declared a heretic by the Church of Rome.

The position of the monarch role is acknowledged in the preface to the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1562.

It states that:

"The Queen's Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other her Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction. ...[W]e give not to our Princes the ministering either of God's Word, or of the Sacraments...but only that prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evildoers. The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England."[6]

You will lose your head if you keep speaking like that.

 

[Not David]

Sorry, no.

The Church was started in the first century AD or, possibly, the second. Even the recent Olympic games which were held in London paid tribute, during the opening ceremonies, to the bringing of Christianity to Britain in ancient times.

That's a long, long way from the lifetime of Henry VIII, who not only did not start a new church but was never so much as declared a heretic by the Church of Rome.

If that was the case wouldn't they be "Catholics" nowadays?

 

[klutedavid]

If that was the case wouldn't they be "Catholics" nowadays?

Yes they would be.

 

[Not David]

The position of the monarch role is acknowledged in the preface to the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1562.

It states that:

"The Queen's Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other her Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction. ...[W]e give not to our Princes the ministering either of God's Word, or of the Sacraments...but only that prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evildoers. The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England."[6]

You will lose your head if you keep speaking like that.

Yes, I feel something changed after King Henry the VIII took over.

 

[Albion]

It started out with the monarch as top dog. King Henry started the church of England, purely for personal reasons I might add.

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.

 

[Albion]

Yes they would be.

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.

 

[Albion]

Yes, I feel something changed after King Henry the VIII took over.

The Church in England, then about 1400 years old, was no longer under the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

 

[Not David]

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.

Does the original relation of the King with the English Church help establish the idea of "Head of the Church"?