homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Queen Elizabeth and Communion (Page 3)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Queen Elizabeth and Communion
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Queen is welcome to attend any Church od Scotland service she wishes and to receive Communion if she wishes.I don't know whether there are any Communion services in Crathie Kirk when the Queen is present.

As to whether she is a full member of the Church of Scotland,I think there is some doubt about that.She cannot be both Episcopalian and Presbyterian at the same time.

The most we can say is that in England she is committed to defending the rights and privileges of the Church of England and is also committed to defending the rights and privileges of the Church of Scotland when in Scotland.

Her own personal beliefs are her own but without considerable mental gymnastics she cannot fully believe in both of the two systems at the same time.

She is encouraged to attend the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland,but she is not allowed to take part in it - nor is her Lord High Commissioner.

Of course she can recognise the common Christian commitment of both communities,as indeed I hope she recognises the Christian commitments of other Christian communities within her realms.I am equally sure that she treats with respect the other faith communities in her territory.

Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You may be right, although I suspect that some of the more pedantic of your fellow countrymen would point out that Her Majesty is not 'Episcopalian' at all. A member of the Church of England, certainly; but while we have episcopalians south of the Tweed- lots of them- we don't have Episcopalians (unless they are individual visitors). And in Scotland she is certainly not an Episcopalian. [Smile]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
She is the head of the Church of England then fine - commune privately: but, at the last count, there were/are lots of churches where anyone can partake without recourse to privacy.

No she is not. Jesus is the Head. She is the 'supreme governor'.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Correction - I should have written 'episcopalian' rather than 'Episcopalian'.
Surely members of the CofE are expected to believe that episcopal government is of the 'bene esse' of the Church,if not indeed essential to the government of the Church.

Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29

 - Posted      Profile for Siegfried   Author's homepage   Email Siegfried   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not sure about the CoS, but in the US, their closest descendents, the Presbyterians, by and large have an Open Table practice, so HM would be welcome to partake.

--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!

Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am quite willing to be corrected by someone who actually knows rather than is conjecturing, but I've always understood that HMQ is Church of England when in England and Church of Scotland, not Piskie, when in Scotland.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869

 - Posted      Profile for Vaticanchic   Email Vaticanchic   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Neither are mutually exclusive within their own frames of reference.

--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"

Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You are quite right.The Queen does not normally attend Scottish episcopal churches when in Scotland. (Why does she normally attend Episcopalian churches in her other realms ? ) Of course the Queen is always welcome to receive Communion in the Church of Scotland as indeed is,if I am correct ,'anyone who loves the Lord Jesus'.

What I doubt is whether she is a full member of the Church of Scotland.

Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Utrecht Catholic
Shipmate
# 14285

 - Posted      Profile for Utrecht Catholic   Email Utrecht Catholic   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Please allow me to remind the readers that the Anglican Church/Church of England and the Episcopal Church,are similar,in full communion with each other.
They are all part of the Anglican Communion.
So,the Queen is expected to receive communion in the Episcopal Church, when she is in Scotland or in the USA,like her late mother used to do.

That she is also Head of the Church of Scotland, has more historical reasons than theological ones.
Because of , serious differences in matters of doctrine,e.g. de Apostolic Ministry, the two national churches are not in communion with each other.

--------------------
Robert Kennedy

Posts: 220 | From: Dordrecht | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869

 - Posted      Profile for Vaticanchic   Email Vaticanchic   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Now the CofE has proceeded to ordain women bishops, yes they are once again full communion.

The doctrinal differences between the CofE & CofS in no way prevent a person being in communion with both, despite the fact that the ecclesial bodies are not.

--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"

Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Utrecht Catholic
Shipmate
# 14285

 - Posted      Profile for Utrecht Catholic   Email Utrecht Catholic   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Church of Scotland has not even Bishops,that is why their ministry is not being recognized by the Anglican Communion,Church of England, Scottish Episcopal Church,
So if a Church of Scotland minister would like to become an Anglican/Episcopal priest he has to be re-ordained by a bishop,standing in the Apostolic Succession.
I have to tell the former contributor, in matters of Ecclesiology,there are serious differences between the two national Churches, so no full communion between the two bodies.

--------------------
Robert Kennedy

Posts: 220 | From: Dordrecht | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
kingsfold

Shipmate
# 1726

 - Posted      Profile for kingsfold   Email kingsfold   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
posted by Utrecht Catholic:
That she is also Head of the Church of Scotland, has more historical reasons than theological ones.

No, HMQ is NOT Head of the Church of Scotland. There is no "head" of the Church of Scotland. It's Presbyterian, which, according to their
own website states that " that no one person or group within the Church has more influence or say than any other. The Church does not have one person who acts as the head of faith, as that role is the Lord God's. "

[ 17. July 2015, 19:07: Message edited by: kingsfold ]

Posts: 4473 | From: land of the wee midgie | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
However it remains that diplomatic problems have arisen when a monarch of the Kingdoms of the United Kingdom has shown preference in partaking of communion in CofE rather than CofS.

The monarch was Queen Victoria.

Jengie

--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge

Back to my blog

Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869

 - Posted      Profile for Vaticanchic   Email Vaticanchic   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
The Church of Scotland has not even Bishops,that is why their ministry is not being recognized by the Anglican Communion,Church of England, Scottish Episcopal Church,
So if a Church of Scotland minister would like to become an Anglican/Episcopal priest he has to be re-ordained by a bishop,standing in the Apostolic Succession.
I have to tell the former contributor, in matters of Ecclesiology,there are serious differences between the two national Churches, so no full communion between the two bodies.

Read my response carefully - & welcome to the world of Protestantism.

--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"

Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No, the CofE and the CofS are not in communion with each other. The CofE and the SEC are. You may think- is this what you're suggesting?- that once an episcopal church ordains women to the episcopate it is no different from a non-episcopal church, but you'd be wrong. I'm sure that not even all non-episcopal protestant churches are in full communion with each other.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
They are all part of the Anglican Communion.
So,the Queen is expected to receive communion in the Episcopal Church, when she is in Scotland or in the USA,like her late mother used to do.

That's... not even remotely true. In Scotland the Queen is a member of the Church of Scotland. The SEC is not the established church and hasn't been since the Dutch invasion the 17th Century. Who is doing the expecting in your understanding?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And of course the late Queen Mother was (i) not Supreme Governor of anything and (ii) IIRC a cradle Scottish Episcopalian. So her practices are not really relevant here. The current Queen, as Queen regnant rather than consort, is in a quite different position in respect of the CofE and CofS.

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869

 - Posted      Profile for Vaticanchic   Email Vaticanchic   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
No, the CofE and the CofS are not in communion with each other. The CofE and the SEC are. You may think- is this what you're suggesting?- that once an episcopal church ordains women to the episcopate it is no different from a non-episcopal church, but you'd be wrong. I'm sure that not even all non-episcopal protestant churches are in full communion with each other.

These denominations are not in communion with each other but individuals may still be in communion with both - because the systems in use are not universally definitive within their frames of reference.

Obviously sections of the Anglican Communion who do not ordain women bishops are out of communion with those who do.

--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"

Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
These denominations are not in communion with each other but individuals may still be in communion with both - because the systems in use are not universally definitive within their frames of reference.

I don't think I have a clue what this means. It is the case that the C of E, C of S and SEC all practice an open table, offering to share the sacrament with any Christian (the precise formula is a little different but the meaning is similar).

quote:

Obviously sections of the Anglican Communion who do not ordain women bishops are out of communion with those who do.

Why is this obvious? It's wrong. TEC has had women bishops since 1989, but C of E hasn't had them until this year. These two churches remained in communion with each other throughout the period 1989-2015. The difficulties between TEC and C of E surround gay bishops, not female ones.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
As to whether she is a full member of the Church of Scotland,I think there is some doubt about that.She cannot be both Episcopalian and Presbyterian at the same time.

And yet she is. From royal.gov.uk:
quote:
The Church of England, and the monarch's relation to it, was established through a series of Parliamentary Acts in the 1530s, which brought about the English Reformation.

Henry VIII broke from the Roman Catholic Church by denying papal claims to ecclesiastical or any other jurisdiction, and by declaring himself rather than the Pope as Supreme Head of the Church in England.

The Sovereign's relationship to the Church of Scotland is different. Since 1707, the British Monarch has been required by the Treaty of Union to preserve the Church of Scotland, Scotland's established Church.

The Queen is therefore not the Supreme Governor of the Church of Scotland, but an ordinary member.

The way I have always heard it explained is that when in England she in Anglican, and when in Scotland she is Presbyterian. Her Majesty's Household in Scotland (Ecclesiastical) is composed of Church of Scotland clergy.

quote:
Her own personal beliefs are her own but without considerable mental gymnastics she cannot fully believe in both of the two systems at the same time.
Unless, of course, she holds the traditional Presbyterian position that the presbyterian form of church government, while Scriptural, is not necessary to the nature of the church but rather is a matter left to the judgment of particular church communities. [Biased]

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That is okay as far as the Church of Scotland is concerned.

However,if the Queen, as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, accepts the general Anglican position of the importance ,if not indeed necessity, of episcopal governance and of Apostolic Succession, as Anglicans generally understand this, then she must surely accept that there is something lacking in the Church of Scotland.

Either that or she is not a full Anglican ?

I am glad that the Queen attends Presbyterian worship while in Scotland and acts as if she were a member of the Church of Scotland.

For almost two hundred years the Catholic Kings of Saxony were the 'supreme governors' of the established Lutheran church there and were able to carry out all their functions as regards appointments to church offices etc.

Living in Scotland I am well aware of the relationship between the monarchy and the National Church - namely that the National Church is completely independent of the Crown but that respect is shown mutually one to the other.

Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593

 - Posted      Profile for american piskie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:


However,if the Queen, as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, accepts the general Anglican position of the importance ,if not indeed necessity, of episcopal governance and of Apostolic Succession, as Anglicans generally understand this, then she must surely accept that there is something lacking in the Church of Scotland.

The Sovereign is obliged to take certain oaths to defend the true protestant religion and presbyterian government of the church established in Scotland. The propriety of of the Supreme Governor of the Church of England doing this has not (I think) ever been challenged, and at any rate [acting under the advice of her ministers as s/he must] s/he has always done so since 1707.

From this I deduce that it is not essential for a member of the Church of England to hold any stronger position than this: "episcopacy is the form of church government current in the Church of England".

(I have tried to dig out, but failed to do so, a reference to a book by Ian Maclean on the UK/Scotland constitutional question, where he has a section on the apparent contradictions arising from the oaths taken by the monarch in respect of the C of E and the C of S.)

Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I understand that the Supremem Governor of the Church of England has to be a communicant member of the Church of England.
Is one not obliged to hold certain views if one is a communicant member ?
I can understand that one does not ,per se, need to hold the same views to be the Supreme Governor.

Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I understand that the Supremem Governor of the Church of England has to be a communicant member of the Church of England.
Is one not obliged to hold certain views if one is a communicant member ?
I can understand that one does not ,per se, need to hold the same views to be the Supreme Governor.

There are two perspectives on this: in the best post-Reformation manner, how one views a range of things will change when one moves from one territory to another which is why (e.g.) a cleric from the church of Hanover or the Minister of Leith could hold preferment from George II there, but would need to be episcopally ordained for a CoE post. The other is that a particular view on episcopacy as essential to Anglicanism is not required as long as one accepts the practice (the old esse, bene esse, plene esse formula).

I think that there be stronger contradiction between the XXXIX and the Westminster catechism, but as assent was only required of ordinands, sovereigns got away with being as elastic as they wished.

Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thank you,Augustine,for that clear exposition.

To me it begs a question about the position of the Scottish Episcopal Church.

If the position of the Church of England/(Anglican ?) is that episcopacy is only of the 'bene esse',why should the Scottish Episcopal Church have/be a separate organisation from the National Church of Scotland ?

Or does the Scottish Episcopal Church have a different view of episcopacy from that of the Church of England,with which it is in full communion ?

I accept that these differences are usually just ignored. I go back to my original doubt about 'full' membership on a personal belief basis.

It may be once again a case of talking beyond each other. As a Catholic I perhaps have a different understanding of what 'full' membership means.

The Queen's personal beliefs and personal religious practices are hers and hers alone.
I am simply pleased that she associates with the Christian community in Scotland.

Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Forthview, perhaps a member of the Kirk can answer your question about "full membership" better, but I can speak from the perspective of an American Presbyterian, so a member of the "daughter" church.

There is no requirement in Presbyterianism that one is expected to believe everything that the church teaches. All that is strictly required for membership is to confess the Jesus is Lord. Someone joining a Presbyterian church, at least here, would be expected to make such a confession in a Trinitarian context ("Believing in one God—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—do you confess that Jesus is Lord and Savior, and will you be his disciple?" or words to that effect) and to promise to participate in the worship and work of the church.

The ordained, on the other hand, are expected to subscribe, in some fashion, to the teachings of the church as expressed in its confessions.

[ 18. July 2015, 12:36: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Forthview I think you're looking at how Protestants think, as though they were Catholics, and then adjudging them mistaken because they are not 'thinking with the church' in the way you or another good Catholic would. Like it or not, that just isn't how most of us approach these things.


I'm not Scottish, but my impression is that just as the Baptists and URC in England derive from divisions in the C17, so in Scotland, the Piskies derive from Charles I's failed attempt to introduce the English prayer book in Scotland in 1637.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Utrecht Catholic
Shipmate
# 14285

 - Posted      Profile for Utrecht Catholic   Email Utrecht Catholic   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It is a well known fact that Soottish Episcopal Church is rather High Church and its Eucharistic Liturgy,as contained in its Prayer Books of 1637,1929, has always been richer and far more catholic than the 1662 BCP.
Furthermore,it has never had all those problems on vestments as the Church of England had in the past.

--------------------
Robert Kennedy

Posts: 220 | From: Dordrecht | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636

 - Posted      Profile for BroJames   Email BroJames   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
However,if the Queen, as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, accepts the general Anglican position of the importance ,if not indeed necessity, of episcopal governance and of Apostolic Succession, as Anglicans generally understand this, then she must surely accept that there is something lacking in the Church of Scotland.

I think this overstates what the BCP 1662 (still the official doctrinal standard for the Church of England) has to say about the threefold order of ministry and episcopacy. It argues that the threefold order is ancient and deserves respect, and that, therefore, the ordering of deacons and priests and the consecration of bishops requires proper discernment and preparation, and an appropriate liturgical form. It doesn't, however, go beyond that to assert any kind of exclusive validity of that order.

The 39 Articles (principally Arts 19-26) have a fair amount to say about the church and its ministers, but are agnostic as to ecclesial polity. Their fundamental definition of the Church is in Article 19
quote:
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Forthview asks:
quote:
If the position of the Church of England/(Anglican ?) is that episcopacy is only of the 'bene esse',why should the Scottish Episcopal Church have/be a separate organisation from the National Church of Scotland ?
Well, it didn't used to, but doubtless one of our Kirk shipmates will be along to point out the difficult history of that period.

But as BroJames points out, the exact position of the CoE has some ambiguity/room for interpretation built in. Anglicans can hold (and do) various positions on whether or not the esse (essential being), bene esse (for the well functioning) or plene esse (for the fulness of the apostolic heritage). Mind you, when a certain senior clerical acquaintance was told that bishops were there for the health and well being of the church, he responded that he knew too many bishops to believe that. And Her Majesty likely knows more bishops than almost any shipmate.

Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Utrecht Catholic
Shipmate
# 14285

 - Posted      Profile for Utrecht Catholic   Email Utrecht Catholic   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It has become clear to me, that most contributors hardly know the Scottish Episcopal Church, which has been strongly influenced by the Tractarians in the 19th century.
It stands for a Catholicism of the the Undivided Church, just like the Continental Old-Catholics.
So, the differences with the Church of Scotland,are not only about the Government of the Church.
I remember 1960,when its Bishops decided not to take part in the 400th Anniversary of the Reformation in Scotland,as they said we have a different vision on the Reformation.
I do not think that the C.of S.was pleased with this decision.

--------------------
Robert Kennedy

Posts: 220 | From: Dordrecht | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The reformed Church of Scotland was greatly influenced by the teachings of Calvin and early on developed the idea that the king,while supreme in earthly governance,had no special place in the Church.

At the same time the bishops, mainly as statesmen and supporters of the monarch were retained with seats in the Scottish parliament and the pensions/apanages which the pre Reformation bishops had enjoyed. With the departure of the kings to England in 1603 they were only with great difficulty able to 'control' the Scottish church. Again due to the absence of the king the Presbyterians were more able to guide the Church along the lines which they wanted.

The Stuart kings tried to enforce the use of the Prayer book of Charles I which led to a riot in St Giles' and to the signing of the National Covenant and eventually the English Civil War.

The return to power of the Stuarts in 1660 brought enforced episcopacy to Scotland and the 'killing times' between supporters of episcopacy and Presbyterianism.

The Glorious Revolution and the Scottish settlement in its wake brought the expulsion of supporters of episcopacy from the parish churches and manses as well as the penal laws which severely limited the celebration of Episcopalian services.

Since then the Church of Scotland has been 100% Presbyterian and we had the creation of a separate Episcopal Church of Scotland which claims to be the succession to the pre Reformation church in Scotland.

This community may (or may not) value episcopacy more highly than the Church of England which, I am told, only sees episcopal governance of the Church as the form which is current in the Church of England.This is something new which I learned.

Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:

This community may (or may not) value episcopacy more highly than the Church of England which, I am told, only sees episcopal governance of the Church as the form which is current in the Church of England.This is something new which I learned.

That's highly debatable. The difficulty within the Church of England is that it was conceived as the church for all the people of England, and so aims to include as many as possible. In terms of polity, that means including those who think Episcopal polity is the only way to govern a church (otherwise it's not a church, doesn't have valid sacraments etc.), those who think that Episcopal polity is preferable but not essential, those who are indifferent, and those who would prefer something else but put up with Episcopal polity for the sake of unity. Those who couldn't put up with it left/were expelled in the 17th century. Which of those 4 represents the broadest view in the Church of England is open to question. I fall somewhere between the first two, which is why I am an Episcopalian now I live in Scotland. Plenty of others, particularly on the evangelical wing of the church, would fall into the latter category. The Scottish Episcopal Church is made up of the former two for the most part, because the latter two are generally part of the Church of Scotland.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And I think that it is perfectly possible for committed member of the CofE to say 'it is for each nation to decide how its church is best ordered: we are episcopal but we pass no judgement on other nations who have chosen to order their church otherwise'. That would be rather Low Church and I don't know whether or not that is the view that Her Majesty holds, but I think it is a possible one within the range of CofE ecclesiology.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596

 - Posted      Profile for Knopwood   Email Knopwood   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Indeed, I think that was the basic position of the English Reformers (who would certainly be considered "low church" today!) on continental Protestantism - just as Calvin didn't rule out episcopacy. (In the Unitarianism thread in Purg, I noted the Episcopal Reformed churches - both Calvinist and Unitarian - in Hungary). [pdf]

[ 18. July 2015, 20:57: Message edited by: Knopwood ]

Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
kingsfold

Shipmate
# 1726

 - Posted      Profile for kingsfold   Email kingsfold   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
posted by Utrecht Catholic:
It is a well known fact that Soottish Episcopal Church is rather High Church and its Eucharistic Liturgy,as contained in its Prayer Books of 1637,1929, has always been richer and far more catholic than the 1662 BCP.
Furthermore,it has never had all those problems on vestments as the Church of England had in the past.

Some Scottish Episcopal churches are "rather High Church", some are very definitely not. Within walking distance of my home, I can certainly attend a rather High Church Eucharist. I can also attend another Episcopal Church where they are very definitely NOT high church. They don't do robes and they don't really do much beyond what the rubrics say thou shalt do. The occasion I attended a communion service there, not only did they not do robes, the celebrant was in mufti and there was absolutely nothing to tell a visitor he was the priest. And their main Sunday morning service is not a Communion every week - it alternates week on week morning to evening.
And most Episcopal churches are probably somewhere between the two.

How each church uses the liturgies available to it varies too (which don't include 1637 or 1929, though there is an updated and adapted translation of the 1929 Eucharistic prayer which is a very recently permitted variation within the 1982 liturgy). The High Church I mentioned above makes the most Catholic use possible of the liturgy, as you might expect. Most of other Episcopal Churches in which I've worshipped do it by the book, with a range of what you might call churchmanship and wearing (or not) of vestments.

Posts: 4473 | From: land of the wee midgie | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think the general ethos of the SEC tends to be more 'catholic' than the C of E as a whole. Certainly an evangelical clergyperson I know who ministered in Scotland saw himself as very much in a minority (though not uncomfortably so I think).

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cottontail

Shipmate
# 12234

 - Posted      Profile for Cottontail   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm sorry I didn't see this thread before it got so complicated! If I am repeating anyone else's point, I apologise. But to clarify a few things from the C of S perspective:

The Queen is most definitely a full member of the Church of Scotland - no 'acting' involved. She is not merely 'welcome' to receive communion, but is expected and entitled to, as are all members. She is not 'expected' to receive communion in the Scottish Episcopal Church in any kind of similar fashion, although no doubt she would if the occasion arose. When in Scotland, the Queen mostly attends her parish Church: Canongate Kirk in Edinburgh when she stays at Holyrood, and Crathie Kirk when she stays at Balmoral. I know of no Episcopal Church which she attends regularly.

As others have correctly stated, the Queen is not head of the Church of Scotland, that being the role of Christ alone. Nor is she any kind of supreme governor. She is a member only, like the rest of us. She attends the General Assembly in her role as Head of State. The Church of Scotland, while disestablished, is nevertheless the National Church, and mutual promises have been made back in the mists of time for the monarch and the Kirk to uphold one another. The Queen addresses the Assembly at the Assembly's invitation, but she has no ecclesial authority, and she does not take part in its decision-making, any more than the Kirk takes part in the government, having no seats in the House of Lords.

So the Queen is indeed both Anglican and Presbyterian at the same time - or at least successively, depending which country she is in! There are actually a few others around the world who share this distinction. I personally know a minister who is (somewhat controversially) ordained into both the Church of England and the Church of Scotland, according to some special arrangement! And someone else might be able to comment on arrangements in South India.

The Scottish Episcopal Church is in full communion with, but it is otherwise entirely independent of the Church of England. When Henry VIII was doing his thing in England, Scotland was still an independent country. It remained a Roman Catholic country until 1560 - a generation longer than England. After the Reformation in Scotland, it took another century before the Church of Scotland settled on a Presbyterian governance, and for a time it swithered back and forth between bishops and no-bishops before plumping firmly for no-bishops in the 1689 settlement. Indeed, neither Calvin nor Knox were opposed to bishops as such, at least for practical administrative purposes. So both the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church of Scotland are the direct products of the 1560 Reformation, and have pretty much equal claims to continuity with the pre-Reformation church. But the Scottish Episcopal Church is no kind of 'daughter' of the Church of England.

Lastly, while the churches are not in full communion, Anglicans and Episcopalians are allowed to take communion in the Church of Scotland according to memorialist theology. I am not fully confident about this, and would appreciate correction from others who know, but as I understand it, Anglicans and Episcopalians can partake in The Lord's Supper in the Church of Scotland, but should not understand themselves as consuming the Body and Blood along transubstantiation/consubstantiation lines. So an Anglican or Episcopalian can in good conscience partake in a Church of Scotland communion, but a Church of Scotland minister cannot preside at an Anglican or Episcopalian Holy Communion. That might be one way the Queen resolves this for herself as well.

--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."

Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
Spike

Mostly Harmless
# 36

 - Posted      Profile for Spike   Email Spike   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:

The Scottish Episcopal Church is in full communion with, but it is otherwise entirely independent of the Church of England. When Henry VIII was doing his thing in England, Scotland was still an independent country. It remained a Roman Catholic country until 1560 - a generation longer than England. After the Reformation in Scotland, it took another century before the Church of Scotland settled on a Presbyterian governance, and for a time it swithered back and forth between bishops and no-bishops before plumping firmly for no-bishops in the 1689 settlement. Indeed, neither Calvin nor Knox were opposed to bishops as such, at least for practical administrative purposes. So both the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church of Scotland are the direct products of the 1560 Reformation, and have pretty much equal claims to continuity with the pre-Reformation church. But the Scottish Episcopal Church is no kind of 'daughter' of the Church of England.

I'm happy to be corrected on this if I'm wrong, but I've always understood that the Scottish Episcopal Church was actually a direct descendent of the American Episcopal Church

--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing

Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:

The Scottish Episcopal Church is in full communion with, but it is otherwise entirely independent of the Church of England. When Henry VIII was doing his thing in England, Scotland was still an independent country. It remained a Roman Catholic country until 1560 - a generation longer than England. After the Reformation in Scotland, it took another century before the Church of Scotland settled on a Presbyterian governance, and for a time it swithered back and forth between bishops and no-bishops before plumping firmly for no-bishops in the 1689 settlement. Indeed, neither Calvin nor Knox were opposed to bishops as such, at least for practical administrative purposes. So both the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church of Scotland are the direct products of the 1560 Reformation, and have pretty much equal claims to continuity with the pre-Reformation church. But the Scottish Episcopal Church is no kind of 'daughter' of the Church of England.

I'm happy to be corrected on this if I'm wrong, but I've always understood that the Scottish Episcopal Church was actually a direct descendent of the American Episcopal Church
I think you could make a case for it being the other way around actually. Quite apart from anything else, the SEC has been around since 1712.

There have certainly been strong Scottish links with TEC (particularly in its formative years) thanks to the non-jurors doing a couple of the ealry consecrations because the CofE wouldn't, but it would (I think - like Spike I'm more than happy and indeed would like to be corrected) be a stretch to say the SEC was a descendent of an organisation it predates!

The first bishop was consecrated for America in 1784, and the first *in* America in 1792 - so the SEC had been kicking around for a couple of generations by then.

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:

The Scottish Episcopal Church is in full communion with, but it is otherwise entirely independent of the Church of England. When Henry VIII was doing his thing in England, Scotland was still an independent country. It remained a Roman Catholic country until 1560 - a generation longer than England. After the Reformation in Scotland, it took another century before the Church of Scotland settled on a Presbyterian governance, and for a time it swithered back and forth between bishops and no-bishops before plumping firmly for no-bishops in the 1689 settlement. Indeed, neither Calvin nor Knox were opposed to bishops as such, at least for practical administrative purposes. So both the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church of Scotland are the direct products of the 1560 Reformation, and have pretty much equal claims to continuity with the pre-Reformation church. But the Scottish Episcopal Church is no kind of 'daughter' of the Church of England.

I'm happy to be corrected on this if I'm wrong, but I've always understood that the Scottish Episcopal Church was actually a direct descendent of the American Episcopal Church
I think you could make a case for it being the other way around actually. Quite apart from anything else, the SEC has been around since well before its incorporation in 1712.

There have certainly been strong Scottish links with TEC (particularly in its formative years) thanks to the non-jurors doing a couple of the ealry consecrations because the CofE wouldn't, but it would (I think - like Spike I'm more than happy and indeed would like to be corrected) be a stretch to say the SEC was a descendent of an organisation it predates!

The first bishop was consecrated for America in 1784, and the first *in* America in 1792 - so the SEC had been kicking around for a couple of generations by then.



--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Probably more accurate to say that the C of E bishops could not consecrate anyone from the US, rather than would not. Their own oaths forbade their consecrating someone who would not take an oath of loyalty to the monarch - something Bp Seabury was not about to do. Accordingly, he took himself off to Scotland where SEC bishops were not bound the same way, and they consecrated him.

AIUI, the then Abps of Canterbury and York would have been very happy to consecrate Bp Seabury had they been able to do so. Several of he Bps would have also been happy to join in.

An aside - the flag of TEC includes a cross of St Andrew - this is a deliberate remembering and recognition of the support the SEC gave to the fledgling PECUSA.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
For American colonists George III refused to allow the consecration of a bishop outwith English territory.

American advocates of episcopacy Samuel Seabury to Scotland where he received episcopal consecration at the hands of three bishops of the Episcopal church in Scotland. The consecration took place in Aberdeen.

There is a very nice window in Old St Paul's episcopal church in Edinburgh, where Seabury at earlier worshipped,showing the consecration.

It is anachronistic as the prelates are shown in full Catholic vestments which would not have been
the case on the day.

Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Whether it was George III or (as I would have tthought more likely) the actual law of the land that forbade the consecration by CofE bishops of a bishop who would not or could not take the oath of allegiance, within quite a short time the law or practice was changed and American bishops were being consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury. In fact William White, the first Presiding Bishop, who was consecrated in 1787 (four years after Seabury) was one such.

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
North East Quine

Curious beastie
# 13049

 - Posted      Profile for North East Quine   Email North East Quine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
St Andrews Cathedral, Aberdeen has very close links with the Episcopalian church in America; it has crests of (AFAIK) all the American states incorporated into its ceiling. Within the church is an American flag, presented by General Eisenhower and I have seen red, white and blue floral displays in honour of the American connection.

I have posted photos of some of the state crests on the Ship FB page; if any American shipmate would like a specific photo of their state crest within the church, just pm me.

I have never worshipped there, but have attended lunchtime concerts.

Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
North East Quine

Curious beastie
# 13049

 - Posted      Profile for North East Quine   Email North East Quine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Interesting archive footage (1938) from St Andrew's Cathedral
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Whether it was George III or (as I would have tthought more likely) the actual law of the land that forbade the consecration by CofE bishops of a bishop who would not or could not take the oath of allegiance, within quite a short time the law or practice was changed and American bishops were being consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury. In fact William White, the first Presiding Bishop, who was consecrated in 1787 (four years after Seabury) was one such.

It was the law of the land, and the archbishops were warned by the law officers that it might have opened up to them the prospects of treason charges, and few bishops were interested in going to the stake for TEC (the penalties as exacted on Mel Gibson in Braveheart were still available), however well-disposed they might be. The delightfully-named Ordination of Aliens Act 1784 (24 Geo 3, c.35 as well as the Act of 1786 (26 Geo 3, c.84) were brought in to permit the consecration of Bishop White.

While these were (for the time) speedily implemented collateral measures to the Treaty of Paris recognizing the independence of the colognies, the uncertainty and dynamics of ecclesiastical events in the 13 breakaway colonies of the 17 had moved things along before then. I gather that Seabury had understood from senior CoE types that they had no objection to him obtaining consecration in Scotland, and so off he went.

Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643

 - Posted      Profile for dj_ordinaire   Author's homepage   Email dj_ordinaire   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
These historical diversions are all very well, but I think we are drifting from the question of public communion (which I think is best kept as a general questions, rather than making it about anyone in particular, even a public figure).

Many thanks!

di_ordinaire, Eccles host

--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...

Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As I recall the only condition the Scottish Bishops laid on Seabury was that he push for the use of the Scottish prayer book, in particular the Scottish communion office, and he duly returned with a stack of them for use in the US.
EDIT: apologies, crossposted with host text.

[ 19. July 2015, 12:42: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]

Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869

 - Posted      Profile for Vaticanchic   Email Vaticanchic   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Looking again at the OP - the eucharist is historically one of the most controversial things in the CofE. It's potentially exclusive/division-making & so largely avoided at official ceremonies - whether you're talking Royal Family, Government, the military, or whatever.

--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"

Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools