Role of Anglican Supreme Governor?

[Duvduv]

What exactly is the role of the British monarch to th entirety of the Anglican faith, including the Episcopalian denomination in the US? How does her role compare to the structure of the Roman Catholic church?

 

[Philip_B]

Her Magesty the Queen has no role in the various Churches of the Anglican Communion generally, save those Churches in specific situations.

The Church of England.
The Church of Wales
The Church of Ireland
The Episcopal Curch of Scotland
​

The role of Supreme Governor has somewhat changed over time. The 1662 Book of Common Prayer was and Act of Parliament that required Royal Assent and was passed by the convocations of York and Canterbury in 1661.

Today there are a number of appointments made by the Sovereign, most notably the Archbishop of Canterbury, but done so on advice.

The role is interesting and the relationship between Church and State always is.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

No one cares about the Roman Catholic Church.

Our dear Queen is Defender of the Faith and has been exemplary in her Christian witness in her 92 years.

God save the Queen. Happy birthday, Your Majesty 21/04/18

 

[Decanus]

Her Magesty the Queen has no role in the various Churches of the Anglican Communion generally, save those Churches in specific situations.

The Church of England.
The Church of Wales
The Church of Ireland
The Episcopal Curch of Scotland

She is only Supreme governor of the Church of England and has no say in the Anglican Churches of Wales, Scotland and Ireland. It's a pretty pointless position she's inherited if you ask me.

No one cares about the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Duvduv]

Can anyone tell me whether the Low Anglican Church are doctrinally the same as the High church, or more "original" since the high church evolved with the Oxford movement? Do they share the same liturgies and all of the same rituals? How do they and their clergies view one another as part of the same denomination?

 

[Liberasit]

Can anyone tell me whether the Low Anglican Church are doctrinally the same as the High church, or more "original" since the high church evolved with the Oxford movement? Do they share the same liturgies and all of the same rituals? How do they and their clergies view one another as part of the same denomination?

I think we need to first clear up what you mean about high and low.

High church is high in ceremony and colour. Their worship has lots of extras, for example choir anthems. Low church is very minimal in these trappings, although may wheel them out for special services, or at the request of a baptism or wedding family.

As for doctrine, you are probably more interested in churchmanship - evangelical, broad church and Anglo-catholic. This is where there will be a divergence. Evangelicals align closely with our historic documents and scripture. Broad church try to make sense of these within our modern context, with a high regard for Jesus’ commandments to love one another. Anglo-catholics are heavily influenced by the Roman Catholic Church, and found a niche via the Oxford Movement to make the Christian faith relevant and aspirational (perhaps even magical) in poor communities of the time - it gave them hope.

We all draw from the same liturgy/prayer book (Common Worship in England), but there is so much scope that services can look very different.

I worship in an evangelical church with low to fairly low ritual (we have multiple services). The highest form of ritual we have is clergy robing (surplice). We don’t process the cross, for example. As a church, we come to the Lord’s Table every week at one service or another, but for the majority of church family, this means once a month. Many churches have more ritual than this, although we are not atypical.

We absolutely regard one another as part of the same denomination. We have a very supportive deanery Synod and churches together network. We share resources, teaching, and clergy support one another. I am surprised this question needs to be asked.

 

[Duvduv]

So in fact before the Oxford movement an Anglican church would have appeared far less like Roman Catholic and more like a Baptist or similar Protestant one, and the doctrines never changed even if rituals became more Catholic in keeping with the High Church preferences among certain segments of the people? I guess it's interesting that there is much more flexibility than in other denominations who have a specific unchanging ritual, and who have probably remained the same over the centuries.

 

[Philip_B]

Article XXXIV
Of the Traditions of the Church
It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, and utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times, and men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained against God’s Word. Whosoever through his private judgement, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.

Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man’s authority, so that all things be done to edifying.​

One of the great ambitions of the Elizabethan Settlement was to bring about a peace born with some level of acceptance that all in the Kingdom might be loyal to Christ and Sovereign. Anglicanism has almost never been monochrome, and the ideas about theology and churchmanship (liturgical practices) equally can not be nailed in specific areas.

The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral identified the four specific characteristics on which Anglicans are not likely to move - Scripture, Sacraments, Creeds, and the Historic Episcopate.

 

[Duvduv]

This degree of official non-conformity in a church under royal approval before modern times seems extraordinary. But who would ensure that basic conformity on essential Christian doctrines would be upheld? Or did it provide thr very basis for the dissenters themselves??

 

[Duvduv]

Were churches before the Oxford movement all Low Churvh resembling Baptists or Methodists?

 

[Liberasit]

Were churches before the Oxford movement all Low Churvh resembling Baptists or Methodists?

I don’t think so. All were outside of the prevailing culture. Baptists and Methodists were officially non-conformist; Oxford movement was an attempt to return to pre-Reformation culture.

You can’t say that church resembled Baptist or Methodist - if anything, Baptist or Methodist resembled the Church of
England of that time, because that that was their mother denomination.

The Church of England is not an authoritarian religion. We have a slight tension with parliament, with no one wanting to pull too hard in either direction. It works, and it benefits our society for those of faith or no faith. It’s hard for outsiders to grasp.

 

[Duvduv]

Can you direct me to any interesting videos of Low and High Church services and preaching of low church ministers compared to high church ministers? It is a bit hard for me to grasp indeed. So what we have today as Baptists, Methodists, and assorted other churches without the "frills" actually took their example from the every-day low churches?

 

[Duvduv]

Hoe would Anglican churches have conducted themselves before the Oxford movement compared to today??

 

[gordonhooker]

Duvduv,

The following wikipedia link will take you to a number of pages that give a reasonable explanation of Anglicanism and its history. Down in the external links section you will also find links to pages on low, high, broad church.

Anglicanism - Wikipedia

As far as sermons go it all depends on the preaching style of the preacher so I don't know that it would be that easy to point you to sermons based on low, high or broad.

blessings, Gordon

 

[Paidiske]

This degree of official non-conformity in a church under royal approval before modern times seems extraordinary. But who would ensure that basic conformity on essential Christian doctrines would be upheld? Or did it provide thr very basis for the dissenters themselves??

It was not always so flexible. During/after the Oxford movement, some clergy went to prison for stretching things too far (which was one of the driving forces for prayer book reform in the 20th century).

Were churches before the Oxford movement all Low Churvh resembling Baptists or Methodists?

Remember that "low church" Anglican might still have meant clergy in cassock, surplice, academic hood and preaching scarf (and in the cathedrals, copes); a surprising amount of dressing up for a Baptist, I would have thought?

Hoe would Anglican churches have conducted themselves before the Oxford movement compared to today??

There's a wealth of information out there. As it happens, at the moment I'm reading a book called "The Rise and Fall of the Incomparable Liturgy," which gets into all of that in great detail, if you want to read more.

As far as preaching goes, Gordon's right that it depends on the style of the preacher, but as a general rule, I'd say that more evangelical churches expect longer sermons with more detailed exposition of Biblical text; more Anglo-catholic churches expect shorter sermons, and are more willing to engage in reflections which are less Biblically-based. (I've preached across the breadth of the spectrum, so I've had some experience of both).

 

[gordonhooker]

It was not always so flexible. During/after the Oxford movement, some clergy went to prison for stretching things too far (which was one of the driving forces for prayer book reform in the 20th century).



Remember that "low church" Anglican might still have meant clergy in cassock, surplice, academic hood and preaching scarf (and in the cathedrals, copes); a surprising amount of dressing up for a Baptist, I would have thought?



There's a wealth of information out there. As it happens, at the moment I'm reading a book called "The Rise and Fall of the Incomparable Liturgy," which gets into all of that in great detail, if you want to read more.

As far as preaching goes, Gordon's right that it depends on the style of the preacher, but as a general rule, I'd say that more evangelical churches expect longer sermons with more detailed exposition of Biblical text; more Anglo-catholic churches expect shorter sermons, and are more willing to engage in reflections which are less Biblically-based. (I've preached across the breadth of the spectrum, so I've had some experience of both).

I thought the evangelical preacher would have had a more expositional preaching style but I have never heard enough of them to comment.

 

[Duvduv]

Are Anglicans left in a situation where they have to decide if they believe in more Catholic-style rituals or if they reject the trappings of Catholicism they have to hunt for a low church instead? If a person was a Low Anglican and lived in a town here a low church didn't exist, or vice versa, would they be forced to abandon Anglicanism in favor of other denominations that they feel more comfortable with ideologically?
And did this situation of Low versus High always exist in Anglican society even before the stricter Oxford movement arose?

 

[Philip_B]

Please don't divide us any more than we are. I worship in a parish not specifically in my comfort zone and I am accepted and accept others. We can be more tolerant than we think. We just need to make space for each other. Remember if you ever find a perfect church, don't spoil the perfection by joining.

 

[seeking.IAM]

...Remember if you ever find a perfect church, don't spoil the perfection by joining.

Love this! Well said. Why didn't I think of that?

 

[Paidiske]

Are Anglicans left in a situation where they have to decide if they believe in more Catholic-style rituals or if they reject the trappings of Catholicism they have to hunt for a low church instead? If a person was a Low Anglican and lived in a town here a low church didn't exist, or vice versa, would they be forced to abandon Anglicanism in favor of other denominations that they feel more comfortable with ideologically?
And did this situation of Low versus High always exist in Anglican society even before the stricter Oxford movement arose?

Despite what Philip said - and it is important - there is an element of this.

In Melbourne I can see it with the number of "Sydney refugees" who come here wanting a theological ethos and style of worship that is (if it is available at all) under pressure to a significant degree in Sydney, for example.

There has always been tension in Anglicanism between those who wanted a more reformed church and those who wanted a more Catholic church. You might, for example, google "millenary petition" to see how that was playing out in the time of James I.