Yes. Within a few years the problem had been solved by the passage in Great Britain of the Consecration of Bishops Abroad Act 1786, which authorised English bishops to consecrate bishops for service abroad without requiring any oath of allegiance. The second, third and fourth Americans elected as bishops went to England and were consecrated by English bishops under this Act. After that American Episcopalians mostly managed their episcopal ordinations in-house, so to speak.
Well, I’ve learned a thing tonight. Thank you for setting me straight!
American Episcopal priests are not required to swear allegiance to the President or any other office holder, although [the Book of Common Prayer has multiple prayers for the blessing and guidance of political offices.](Prayers for National Life)
Nitpick: the US analogy to the UK’s oath of allegiance would not be an oath to the President or any other official, but an oath of allegiance to the United States itself. In both cases, the subject of the oath is the sovereign.
I’m pretty sure that, of all the churches in the Anglican Communion, the only one that requires an oath of allegiance from its clergy is the Church of England, and that’s because (a) it is the legally-established church, and/or (b) the British monarch is its supreme governor. Neither of these things are true for any other member church of the Anglican Communion.
The Church of Scotland (which is not an Anglican church) is the legally-recognised national church in Scotland, but the Queen plays no role - not even a nominal role - in its governance. Its clergy do not take an oath of allegiance.
That’s a whole other historical can of worms. The monarch does send a ceremonial representative to the Church of Scotland’s General Assembly, but only to observe.
Do you have any citations other than wikipedia that it is “Her official title”?
I have a copy of the 1552 book of common prayer, and I never took Edward’s description of himself to be “an official title”, even if 1552 is still relevant.
(I.m not English)
The Church of England’s website states that “Her Majesty the Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England”.
I don’t think it’s correct to say that Supreme Governor is a “title” of the Queen in the “styles and titles” sense, but it may be an “official title” in the sense that it’s the name or title of an office that she holds. And she undoubtedly holds the office; it’s because she’s Supreme Governor that she gets to appoint bishops, deans, etc.
And of course, ‘Defender of the Faith’ was actually a title granted to Henry VIII by the Catholic Pope Leo X, for his Defence of the Roman Catholic Church. Ironically.
He obviously liked the sound of it, and kept it.
The Queen’s own website explains her relationship with the CofE and the Church of Scotland (of which she holds no title, but pledges to uphold).
It makes more sense once one realises that ‘Anglicans’ mostly didn’t call themselves ‘Anglicans’ until the nineteenth century. The word had existed since the late sixteenth century, but really only as a piece of theological jargon that had no official status. It was the Tractarians who popularised it.
But the issue of what to call the spinoffs from the Church of England that were not national churches had already come up. Most obviously in Scotland, after bishops had been abolished there in 1690. Once those members of the Church of Scotland who refused to accept this had been forced out (which didn’t happen immediately), they naturally enough considered themselves to be just the continuation of the Church of Scotland. So, to avoid confusion, they began to be labelled as ‘Episcopalians’. When Parliament legislated about them in 1711, the term it used was ‘the Episcopal Communion in Scotland’ and in time its members adopted ‘Episcopal Church’ as their official name. That then proved a convenient precedent for their counterparts in America and elsewhere.
There is only one RCC; subdivisions don’t follow national or cultural boundaries except as it happens to be practical, and change as it is practical for different purposes and at different times. There are other churches which consider the Pope as their head, but the difference between them and the RCC is not cultural or geographical or national: it is that they follow other sets of rites (the “Roman” refers to the rites, not to the location of the papal seat).
I think Flyer is making a valid point. There may not be an “Anglican Church” in the official views of the Anglican Communion. But there is an organization that exists outside of that communion which calls itself the Anglican Church.
I was answering the OP, which seemed to assume there was a large organisation known as the Anglican Church in the Commonwealth countries, with the Queen as its head, and the Episcopal Church in the States was not part of that church.
Yes, there are many organisations with the words “Anglican Church” as part of their name, but there is no single “Anglican Church”, which the OP seemed to assume.
I don’t know - what’s the spread in Vegas?
We’ve got gay and women bishops and priests. Bet against us at your peril.
You’ll notice that both of those websites refer to the church as the “Anglican Church in North America.” They don’t purport to be the “Anglican Church.” That usage is consistent with my earlier post : there is no single “Anglican Church.”
As to the Queen’s quasi-religious role in Canada: “The Queen of Canada’s Canadian Royal Style continues to include the title of Defender of the Faith (French: Défenseur de la Foi), and the Canadian Monarch continues her countenance of three Chapels Royal in the Realm.” From the end of the opening paragraph here: Anglican Church of Canada - Wikipedia
Episcopal Presiding Bishop Michael Curry will preach, as it happens, at Harry and Meghan’s royal wedding: Presiding Bishop Michael Curry to preach at wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle – Episcopal News Service
He is a VERY dynamic, but long-winded, preacher. I’ve heard him in person twice.
These are some of the churches whose entire reason for existence is their rejection of gay priests and gay weddings. (Along with, in some or most cases, a rejection of women priests as well).
Just because a church calls itself Anglican, or Episcopalian, or something else, doesn’t automatically mean it’s “officially” a card-carrying member of that church. There are offshoots, breakways, schisms, and flat-out heretics who feel they have as much claim to the name as anyone else.
There are literally dozens of different sects that call themselves “Presbyterian” or “Methodist.” The “Lutherans” have such deep fundamental differences that the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America is closer to the United Methodist Church than it is to the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.
And one of the defining principles of the Baptists is that all local churches are autonomous. So an individual congregation can be a Free Will Baptist one week and a Southern Baptist the next with no apparent difference besides who they get their group insurance through.
The term Anglican, as opposed to Episcopal, when used in the US refers to one the break away churches that left the C-of-E over one of the doctrinal disputes of the last quarter of a century or so. The row over gay vicars is a more recent one of those disputes, but the one I am familiar with was the result of the dispute over ordination of women.
If the people I know who belong to the US “Anglican” church are anything to go by, they are much closer to the American political right-wing than anyone I know in the C-of-E.