Is the Queen the Head of the Anglican Church?

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Perhaps so, but the end result was an autocephalous church which had equal or greater distance from the monarchy as the Russian Orthodox Church in the Czarist era. And subsequent Anglican provinces like the Church of Wales and the Episcopal Church are akin to those Orthodox churches which have benefitted from both autocephaly and full independence from government intervention, for example, the modern day Romanian, Bulgarian and Georgian churches, which are the leading moral authorities in their respective countries, without being subject to the caprices of any civil authorities.

By the way, when I was a teenager, before I had the any personal experience of it, I made the spectacular mistake of writing off Anglicanism as something superficial, created to cater to the whims of Henry VIII, on closer inspection brought about by the process of maturity, I came to the realization that I had been fairly spectacularly wrong. Since that time I have made a conscious effort to not be dismissive of any of the historic traditions of Christianity.

Well I'm still of that latter opinion, for the most part. It was a Church essentially created out of Parliament and the King's will by usurping the spiritual authority long recognized in England as belonging to the Bishop of Canterbury who couldn't be confirmed without the Pope's approval.

If it's right to say Henry usurped that authority (and it seemingly died in the Monarch with the death of his son), then one could say that it was a mistake for the English to willingly submit themselves to the Pope to begin with. This was the assumed truth about religion in Britain for centuries. Yet the Anglican Church claims continuation from both the Church pre-Augustine and after Augustine? Yet the argument is that they are returning to a more pure form of Christianity by jettisoning the Pope?

I suppose the question is, whether or not it is a rightful usurpation of Spiritual authority. Judging by some of the comments on this thread, many Anglicans feel adamant that the Queen is not the Supreme head of the English Church, only that she is Governer of it. It would appear that what Henry did was then wrong. Thus isn't the entire foundation of the modern Anglican Church called into question?

If I'm wrong on the exact phrasing and terms, I would like to be corrected. I'm not an expert on Anglicanism. I'm only questioning it based on the history of Christianity in England that I know about.

 

[Radagast]

Judging by some of the comments on this thread, many Anglicans feel adamant that the Queen is not the Supreme head of the English Church, only that she is Governer of it.

Her title, technically, is "Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England."

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Her title, technically, is "Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England."

I understand that.

 

[Paidiske]

Judging by some of the comments on this thread, many Anglicans feel adamant that the Queen is not the Supreme head of the English Church, only that she is Governer of it. It would appear that what Henry did was then wrong. Thus isn't the entire foundation of the modern Anglican Church called into question?

The queen is not the head of the church; that title belongs properly only to Christ (notwithstanding that some humans have had such titles). As Radagast noted, Her Majesty is the supreme governor of the church.

Was what Henry did wrong? I think that's a really complex question. Henry's own motivations seem to have been complicated; as much to do with the international political realities of the day (including corruption in church government) as with his own family situation. My own Anglican instincts are protestant enough that I think where the Anglican church has ended up is healthier than where it might have been had Henry never split from Rome, but I realise that that is the legacy of significant leaders who shaped what Henry left after he died, not so much what Henry himself intended. And I also realise that the process along the way was pretty brutal and not at all godly at times.

I guess if I were going to try to answer, I'd say that Henry was caught up in realities larger than he could control; that his responses were imperfect at best; but that God worked through those events to keep the Church of England (and what has come from it) a faithful expression of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The queen is not the head of the church; that title belongs properly only to Christ (notwithstanding that some humans have had such titles). As Radagast noted, Her Majesty is the supreme governor of the church.

Was what Henry did wrong? I think that's a really complex question. Henry's own motivations seem to have been complicated; as much to do with the international political realities of the day (including corruption in church government) as with his own family situation. My own Anglican instincts are protestant enough that I think where the Anglican church has ended up is healthier than where it might have been had Henry never split from Rome, but I realise that that is the legacy of significant leaders who shaped what Henry left after he died, not so much what Henry himself intended. And I also realise that the process along the way was pretty brutal and not at all godly at times.

I guess if I were going to try to answer, I'd say that Henry was caught up in realities larger than he could control; that his responses were imperfect at best; but that God worked through those events to keep the Church of England (and what has come from it) a faithful expression of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

The bold I certainty question, given Anglicanism's penchant for liberalizing and the deep fractures within itself. Though I won't say anything more than that.

I'm more concerned with the historical question of whether Henry was justified or not. Whether Henry was legitimately the Supreme Head of the Church of England. We (perhaps) agree he was a usurper of the Pope's claim to Supremacy (at least in regards to England) and another question would be whether it is within power of secular states to do this. This would mean that one day the Pope was Supreme head of the English Church and the next day he wasn't and then there eventually came to be no Supreme head of the English Church on earth.

If later Monarchs chose to give themselves a lesser title than Henry, one could legitimately ask why when there's no doubt that Henry and his son were the Supreme Head's of the English Church. In fact, wouldn't Mary, a Catholic, have been Supreme head of the English Church until she repealed that particular legislation? How does that work?

There's a problem with Anglicanism on this point of the title and it's origins and I'm not sure how to express it.

 

[Paidiske]

The bold I certainty question, given Anglicanism's penchant for liberalizing and the deep fractures within itself. Though I won't say anything more than that.

I was thinking more that we rejected some of the things where error had crept into the practice/thinking of the church.

I'm more concerned with the historical question of whether Henry was justified or not. Whether Henry was legitimately the Supreme Head of the Church of England. We (perhaps) agree he was a usurper of the Pope's claim to Supremacy (at least in regards to England) and another question would be whether it is within power of secular states to do this.

I remember one of my lecturers suggesting that one way of looking at what Henry did, was to see it as him effectively trying to replay the investiture controversy with a different outcome. In effect, that Henry thought the Pope had overstepped his proper role and that Henry was reasserting the role of the "godly prince" (which has its roots as far back as Emperor Constantine, who wasn't shy about claiming a role in church governance).

If later Monarchs chose to give themselves a lesser title than Henry, one could legitimately ask why when there's no doubt that Henry and his son were the Supreme Head's of the English Church. In fact, wouldn't Mary, a Catholic, have been Supreme head of the English Church until she repealed that particular legislation? How does that work?

Mary Tudor inherited being supreme head of the English church, and had that changed legislatively through parliament to, in effect, make England Catholic again. It was Elizabeth I who was the first "supreme governor" rather than supreme head, and that there was something there to do with a concern over whether the monarch was seen to be usurping Christ's role (and possibly also concern as to whether a woman ought to be "supreme head" in a way that there hadn't been concern about a man).

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I was thinking more that we rejected some of the things where error had crept into the practice/thinking of the church.

If I were to compare the two and see the various heterodox practices introduced into Anglicanism when compared to Catholicism I think it's a difficult case for you to make.

I remember one of my lecturers suggesting that one way of looking at what Henry did, was to see it as him effectively trying to replay the investiture controversy with a different outcome. In effect, that Henry thought the Pope had overstepped his proper role and that Henry was reasserting the role of the "godly prince" (which has its roots as far back as Emperor Constantine, who wasn't shy about claiming a role in church governance).

What does this imply about Augustine I wonder? He's the one who introduced the English to papal Supremecy and he's also the one who is credited for established a great deal of English Christianity.

Wouldn't it imply he was a Churchman introducing tremendous falsehoods to England? Yet don't Anglicans claim Augustine for themselves? I find Henry's reasoning odd, if that indeed was his reasoning.

Mary Tudor inherited being supreme head of the English church, and had that changed legislatively through parliament to, in effect, make England Catholic again. It was Elizabeth I who was the first "supreme governor" rather than supreme head, and that there was something there to do with a concern over whether the monarch was seen to be usurping Christ's role (and possibly also concern as to whether a woman ought to be "supreme head" in a way that there hadn't been concern about a man).

This would then imply Henry and Parliament usurped Christ's role. I suppose you would then have to say that Anglicanism proper started with Elizabeth and not Henry.

Does the Anglican Church consider the title given to Henry legitimate or illegitimate? If the latter establishes a precedent they would have to consider Henry's actions overstepping the boundary of what's acceptable no?

 

[Paidiske]

If I were to compare the two and see the various heterodox practices introduced into Anglicanism when compared to Catholicism I think it's a difficult case for you to make.

That all depends on one's viewpoint. I have, after all, chosen what seemed to me to be the healthier tradition to inhabit.

What does this imply about Augustine I wonder? He's the one who introduced the English to papal Supremecy and he's also the one who is credited for established a great deal of English Christianity.

Wouldn't it imply he was a Churchman introducing tremendous falsehoods to England? Yet don't Anglicans claim Augustine for themselves? I find Henry's reasoning odd, if that indeed was his reasoning.

There would certainly be some who would see something like the synod of Whitby as a wrong turn for the church in England. But sure, we claim Augustine. We claim a diverse group of figures who certainly don't all agree with one another. Diversity is an irreducible part of Anglicanism.

This would then imply Henry and Parliament usurped Christ's role.

Or at least, made a poor choice of words which was avoided later.

Does the Anglican Church consider the title given to Henry legitimate or illegitimate? If the latter establishes a precedent they would have to consider Henry's actions overstepping the boundary of what's acceptable no?

I think that first question is sort of not really how Anglicans think about this stuff. Our church has been shaped by Henry, Edward, Mary, and Elizabeth each in turn; by the civil war and the restoration; by the Puritans and the Caroline divines and the evangelical movement and the Oxford movement and the charismatic movement and the liturgical renewal movement and by the shift to being a global communion, and on it goes...

We inherit that very mixed legacy and see God at work in and through it, without feeling the need (on the whole) to pass judgement on particular moments in our history. (The one exception I can think of being that the beheaded King Charles has been officially proclaimed a martyr). We tend to be fairly pragmatic, and more concerned with the needs of our day, than trying to sift the legitimacy of history.

 

[Albion]

Would it be correct to say Henry the 8th usurped the Supremecy of the English Church?

Supremacy of the Church? Well, I see that much has already been written here about titles and meanings, so I am late to that discussion as I check in this morning.

If I may offer an "aside," however, I know that Lutherans lionize Luther, Methodists eagerly claim Wesley, Calvinists are more than enthusiastic about Calvin, and then there are all sorts of fundamentalist and Pentecostal preachers and writers that I see Christians of those persuasions praising as their own.

When I visit the churches and social halls of some of the churches identified above, I see pictures of these people on the walls, I hear the musical selections of the "Calvin Choir," some of whose relatives graduated from Calvin College. And there is Luther Hall, several colleges named after Luther, and on and on and on.

Although every poster online who thinks its time to take a poke at Anglicans refers to Henry VIII, Henry VIII, Henry VIII as though they're going straight at where we live...I have never in my life heard any Anglicans acclaim Henry as their religious hero or anything close to it. And when it comes to Catholics or Orthodox Christians, well, you know.

Indeed, you could go for decades in an Anglican parish church in the USA and never hear Henry VIII mentioned at all.

No pictures, no Henry VIII College here that I know of, no Henry VIII memorial on the church's grounds, and no day on the calendar to commemorate the "founder's" religious contributions as we know happens on "Reformation Sunday" in plenty of Lutheran churches.

But he will live forever in the hearts of many who are NOT Anglicans.

 

[Radagast]

Diversity is an irreducible part of Anglicanism.

That's certainly true!

We inherit that very mixed legacy and see God at work in and through it, without feeling the need (on the whole) to pass judgement on particular moments in our history.

Well, I've met Anglicans who see themselves as the church of Augustine.

And I've met other Anglicans who see themselves as the church of William Tyndale.

And I've met yet other Anglicans who see themselves as the church of Thomas Cranmer.

And all those Anglicans seem to live in the same building (but only just).

 

[Albion]

Diversity is an irreducible part of Anglicanism.

And I would add that it doesn't bother us especially. High Church, Low Church, Anglo-Catholic, Evangelical Anglican, even the differences between the various Anglican denominations in this country--Anglican Communion or not-in-the Communion...whatever...it's not a matter of bitter rivalry.

In my associations with friends who attend any number of different Anglican/Episcopal parishes, they know that there is diversity and they accept that it's a fact of life. Some friends take one stand as a matter of conscience while others take a different one. But none of this amounts to "fightin' words."

That doesn't mean we/they think the differences are of trivial importance or that Anglicans are at heart antinomians. Not at all! They just don't "go to the mat" all the time disputing them.

The reason for me saying this is that there are--yes, there certainly are--many other branches of Christianity in which the factions are not like this. Four centuries after thousands of Russians, anathematized by the main church, stalked off into the forests rather than change the way the fingers on one's hand were supposed to be held while making the Sign of the Cross, the "Old Believers" and the Russian Orthodox Church still are separate and unreconciled.

 

[Radagast]

And I would add that it doesn't bother us especially.

No, of course it doesn't.

But, from time to time, the rest of us look over in the general direction of Canterbury and marvel.

it's not a matter of bitter rivalry.

I have heard a few bitter words spoken in the general direction of Sydney, however.

even the differences between the various Anglican denominations in this country

Would that be the USA?

When I spoke of marvelling at the diversity, I was thinking of churches in places like Oxford, Sydney, Lagos, Honiara, and Washington DC.

 

[Albion]

I have heard a few bitter words spoken in the general direction of Sydney, however.

Oh, yes. I hoped that I wasn't going overboard in my description of things. There certainly are exceptions.

In my neighborhood, I occasionally notice some verbal posturing in the newspaper adverts of different Anglican parishes located in the same town. Small time stuff.

Would that be the USA?

Yes.

You mentioned Sydney, and I recognize what you're thinking, but that's a case that is world famous. I know of no other diocese that stands out like Sydney.

 

[Radagast]

You mentioned Sydney, and I recognize what you're thinking, but that's a case that is world famous. I know of no other diocese that stands out like Sydney.

Well, I get the impression that there's a bunch of bishops in Africa that are fairly close to Sydney theologically, though not necessarily liturgically.

 

[The Liturgist]

Well, I get the impression that there's a bunch of bishops in Africa that are fairly close to Sydney theologically, though not necessarily liturgically.

That’s correct; Sydney is extremely low church, whereas very traditional African provinces like the Church of Ghana are in several cases Anglo-Catholic. The South American provinces are also extremely traditional (for example, the Province of the Southern Cone, which received dioceses seeking to leave the repressive Episcopal church during the litigious tenure of the former presiding bishop, who managed to spend over $40 million on litigation, while the Cathedral of St. John the Divine is at risk of having to sell some of the beautiful parkland surrounding it, in order to remain solvent, and one major diocese already had to sell their cathedral (which was sadly acquired by some megachurch).

 

[Albion]

I think there are admirers of Sydney all over the Anglican world, just as there are detractors. However, my impression is that you are right that Africa seems to be more interested in what's going on in Sydney than, for instance, the USA. And, by the way, the USA is not good territory for Low Churchmen, despite what people think.

 

[Radagast]

That’s correct; Sydney is extremely low church

I know this from personal experience.

I think there are admirers of Sydney all over the Anglican world, just as there are detractors.

And sometimes the admirers and detractors are the same people.

And, by the way, the USA is not good territory for Low Churchmen, despite what people think.

I've never thought such a thing.

 

[Paidiske]

Well, I've met Anglicans who see themselves as the church of Augustine.

Not to be nitpicky, but I believe that's a picture of Augustine of Hippo; whereas you're thinking of Augustine of Canterbury.

But yes, your basic point remains.

And I would add that it doesn't bother us especially. High Church, Low Church, Anglo-Catholic, Evangelical Anglican, even the differences between the various Anglican denominations in this country--Anglican Communion or not-in-the Communion...whatever...it's not a matter of bitter rivalry.

From where I am (just down the road from the much-commented-on diocese of Sydney) I'd say there certainly is a degree of injury and bitterness. There are a couple of stand-out issues which have challenged our historic irenic breadth.

I have heard a few bitter words spoken in the general direction of Sydney, however.

And part of the issue here is not just that Sydney is at one extreme of the Anglican diversity. It's that, inhabiting that extreme, they've departed from some of the general norms of how we do things as a church. For example - although it's slightly less bad now than it used to be under the previous archbishop - it is very difficult for anyone who didn't train in Sydney to get a ministry appointment there. They practically treat the rest of us as if we're in a de facto schism.

And another example is the ignoring of diocesan boundaries in order to undermine neighbouring bishops and their ministry, and the use of general synod to attempt to control what happens in other national dioceses.

That sort of stuff is going to upset the usual live-and-let-live generosity around diversity.

 

[Albion]

From where I am (just down the road from the much-commented-on diocese of Sydney) I'd say there certainly is a degree of injury and bitterness. There are a couple of stand-out issues which have challenged our historic irenic breadth.

As I noted, Sydney is a special case and unique in the whole world. Being nearby as you are, I can well imagine that the tension would be real; but I don't think Sydney is anywhere near that in the minds of Anglicans elsewhere.

 

[Radagast]

Not to be nitpicky, but I believe that's a picture of Augustine of Hippo

Yes, that's who I meant. I was working through the windows in a specific Cambridge college, and I was taking Augustine of Hippo as a stand-in for the early Church.

They practically treat the rest of us as if we're in a de facto schism.

From where I'm standing, it certainly looks like you are in a de facto schism.