The phrase “May God save the Queen” (or “...the King,” depending on the reigning monarch) is famously part of the British national anthem and is regularly used in royal ceremonies and public prayers. It reflects a deep-rooted tradition in the United Kingdom, where the monarch also holds the title of Supreme Governor of the Church of England. According to Anglican theology, what is the basis for invoking God’s saving help on the monarch? How does this relate to Anglican understandings of divine providence, the God-ordained nature of civil authority (e.g., Romans 13:1–7), and the Church’s duty to intercede for rulers (e.g., 1 Timothy 2:1–2)? Does this phrase carry a spiritual significance regarding the monarch’s role, or is it mainly a formal civic expression? I’m looking for answers grounded in Anglican theological thought and liturgical practice, rather than purely historical or political explanations.

The question is: According to The Anglican Church, does God have a soul? Understandably, the answer will have to incorporate the Anglican definition of 'soul' and, if yes, whether it differs from the 'human soul'. I apologize for the phrasing of the 'title'. The original was being wrongly resisted as a duplicate by the bot. Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103593/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103592/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103581/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103595/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103596/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103598/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103600/47250

I know that some key fighters for Irish independence were Anglican, and that Ireland has had an ambivalent relationship with Catholicism in modern times. That said, has there been any serious effort by Irish Catholic bishops to reclaim Church of Ireland properties like Christ Church Cathedral or St. Patrick's Cathedral?

I’ve been exploring Panentheism (not to be confused with *Pantheism*) and certain elements speak to my own experience of God. I also understand that this theology is embraced by some contemporary Christian thinkers. I just wondered if this was considered a heresy by the established church (Anglican or Roman Catholic)? Panentheism, in simple terms and as far as I understand it , is the idea that God is within and interpenetrates the whole of creation, but is at the same time above and beyond it in space and time. In other words, God is both immanent and transcendent. Pantheism, in contrast, is the idea that the universe IS God, and that God is the universe. There is no other than the created order. Contemporary Christian panentheists include - Richard Rohr - Ilia Delio - John Polkinghorne - Cynthia Bourgeault - Jurgen Moltmann - Phillip Clayton

I am not a member of the Anglican Community but have not failed to notice that, for a long time, British media has been showing up some terrible goings-on with some of the Church of England clergy, whose gross misconduct, over many years, has been effectively swept under the carpet by their ‘superiors’. My concern now leads to a question, based on news this year of the opposite appearing to now be done: decent clergymen who believe in upholding sound doctrine being castigated as *“a potential threat to children”*, simply because certain biblical teachings are taught. This issue was reported on this website: https://freespeechunion.org/justin-welby-plainly-wrong-over-egregious-blacklisting-of-gender-critical-chaplain/ Earlier information I received from **The Christian Institute** indicates what is going on, behind the scenes, that has so influenced the Church of England that it is now going to have to either ditch some of their theological doctrines or ditch the new “Critical Theory” it is embracing. See http://www.the.ci/CriticalTheoryLT and http://www.the.ci/ChallengingTruth or watch their videos http://www.the.ci/CriticalTheoryWatch What kind of a pass have things come to that clergy upholding the Church of England’s doctrinal stance where it now appears to clash with certain aspects of Critical Theory, are deemed a threat, and suspended from office? **What are those clergy to do?** ***What should members of the Church of England do to support decent clergy who uphold biblical doctrines in word, and by deed?***

What is the overview of the Anglican understanding of who/what the 144000 are in Revelation 7:4? > After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree. 2 Then I saw another angel coming up from the east, having the seal of the living God. He called out in a loud voice to the four angels who had been given power to harm the land and the sea: 3 “Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God.” 4 Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel. ([Revelation 7](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+7&version=NIV) , NIV)

Do Anglicans have the minor orders of subdeacon, acolyte, exorcist, lector, and door-keeper (porter), like in the Catholic Church (cf. Council of Trent ses. 23 ch. 2 ), and the major order of deacon? (I know they claim to have the priesthood .)

I'm writing a story of sorts that has its basis in an Episcopal character who performed a great number of good and faithful deeds (caring for the sick, preaching and even claims of miracles). He was a good and faithful person. After his tragic death, I wonder how he may be remembered or venerated? I know devotion to the saints is usually less focused on than in say, Catholicism. Would the Anglican calender, perhaps at least locally, commemorate his death? Would he get visits to his grave?

Here ([*On Conscience and the Pope*](https://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section5.html)) is found an essay written by St. John Henry Newman. It begins as follows: > IT seems, then, that there are extreme cases in which Conscience may come into collision with the word of a Pope, and is to be followed in spite of that word. I found this essay published in 1875 by The Catholic Publication Society here: [*A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation: Certain Difficulties Felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching*](https://ia904704.us.archive.org/10/items/a678635200newmuoft/a678635200newmuoft.pdf) . The link contains an expanded title. However, this book has neither Approbation or Imprimatur by competent *Catholic* ecclesiastical authority. QUESTION: Does anyone know of a publication which contains the above essay; and which comes with a valid Imprimatur? Preferably, the book will be accessible online. If not, that's O.K. too.

Given the phenomenon known as the High Church can it really be said that the Reformation led to complete independence from the Bishop of Rome? How much influence does Rome still have in the Anglican Church?

Most Protestants recognise only two sacraments, saying something like this (from the Anglican 39 Articles): > There are two sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, > that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord But in the Gospels it is written: John 20:21-23 > Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am > sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the > Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if > you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” > Mt 16,18-20 > And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my > church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give > you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will > be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be > loosed in heaven.” > Mt 18,18 > "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound > in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in > heaven. For who tells that was introduced by Pope Innocent III: Acts 19,18 > Some believers, too, came forward to admit in detail how they had used > spells > John 1,1:9 > If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us > our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. > 2 Corinthians 5,18 > All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and > gave us the ministry of reconciliation Why isn't confession/penance considered a sacrament by most Protestants? Why don't they think these verses institute the sacrament of confession?

[Ex Opere Operato](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_opere_operato) is a theological claim that a sacrament is efficacious by the nature of it being a sacrament, not the minister or recipient. But what is the biblical basis for this idea (if any?)?

[It is in the news](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/15/church-of-england-backs-plans-for-blessings-of-same-sex-weddings) that the Church of England is conducting standalone services to bless the weddings of same-sex couples. These are described as trials/experimental. I know nothing about how such things are done in the theological world, but I know a little about how clinical trials are prepared in the biomedical world. When doing clinical trials in the UK for example there is a [whole convoluted procedure that one must go through](https://www.ct-toolkit.ac.uk/routemap/) , some of the important points that must be documented and approved before the trial is authorised: - What is the objective of the study - What data will be collected - How that data will meet the objective of the study - What magnitude of effect is expected - How likely the study is to demonstrate the effect given the true magnitude of effect Is this sort of information published about this sort of study? Do we know precisely what question they are trying to answer, how the trial will do that and what the chance of getting a conclusive result is given various underlying realities?

The Anglican Church came from the Roman Catholic Church about the same time as the Reformation was starting, but that doesn't answer how they are different on a practical level. How is the Anglican Church different from the Catholic Church in practice? What doctine(s) distinguish them as a separate denomination from Catholicism?

I was having a discussion with a friend and he made the claim: > The Anglican Church was originally intended to be a 'middle ground' between Catholics and Protestants. This seemed half-true to me, but I thought the origins were more based in the interests of Henry the VIII and having an English National church distinct from the Continental Church. My understanding is that the Constitutional documents are meant to be 'inclusive' but I wouldn't have described them as a 'middle ground'. My question is: **Is it fair to say that the Anglican Church was originally intended to be a 'middle ground' between Catholics and Protestants?**

I read about Anglo-Catholicism and what I found is that there aren't differences between them and Catholic (in terms of doctrine). Am I wrong? If I'm not wrong, the only difference is in the Pope's authority vs the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury (or the Queen of England), so why they do not come together? I can't understand the schism.

The 1534 Oath of Succession made Elizabeth, daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, heir to the throne rather than Mary, daughter of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon. The oath also recognized the king as supreme head of the church in England, thus formalizing Henry’s break with Rome. **Question**: Besides the Bishop of Rochester (St. John Fisher), were there any other bishops who refused to sign the Oath of Succession? (I suspect he may have been the only one.) According to [**My Catholic Life**](https://mycatholic.life/saints/saints-of-the-liturgical-year/june-22-saints-john-fisher-bishop-and-martyr-and-thomas-more-martyr/) : > All the bishops of England, save Fisher and two others, lost their courage and acquiesced, without a fight, to Henry VIII’s takeover of the Catholic Church in England. Their weakness brought to a sudden, crashing end a thousand years of Catholicism in England. The "two others" are not named; however, I am a little skeptical, as I can never recall having read of any bishop other than St. John Fisher who adamantly opposed Henry's oath. Perhaps someone can shed some light on this.

(NOTE: I am aware that a similar question has been asked on this site before, but I have first hand experiences which seem to contradict the one answer - at the time this question was asked - to that other question.) The standard practice of the western churches which make use of the **sacrament of confirmation** - e.g. the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion - is that this sacrament is only to be conferred by a bishop - except where a bishop delegates this responsibility to a priest for some practical reason. Those, as I understand it, are the requirements for the conferring of the sacrament to be **licit**, but might a conferral of the sacrament under different circumstances still be **valid**, even if it was illicit? This might seem to be one of those silly brainteasers, but I ask for a very concrete, personal reason. I was born into a relatively observant Anglican family, was baptised and later confirmed according to the rites of that church, in which I spent the first thirty years of my life, until, in 2021, I was received into the Roman Catholic Church. As part of the process of my being received, I had to provide my baptismal certificate; there was, of course, no question of my being re-baptised, since, in principle, anyone can baptise anyone else. I was pleasantly surprised to be told that I wouldn't have to be re-confirmed either; the opinion of the diocese was that the Roman Catholic and Anglican sacraments of confirmation were 'the same'. In the service in which I was received, I simply recited the Nicene Creed solo, and then received the bread and wine shortly after. Unfortunately for my brain, I've never been able to stop wondering why the Roman Catholic Church viewed my Anglican confirmation as valid! I understand the logic regarding baptism; again, anyone can baptise anyone else. But, to be valid, doesn't confirmation have to be performed by a bishop, or at least a priest acting on a bishop's behalf? And doesn't the Roman Catholic Church view Anglican ordinations as null and void? Or is it that a confirmation performed by a non-priest could be valid, at least in principle, but would be illicit? Some short specific questions which summarise the issues I raised above: 1. Who can validly confer the sacrament of confirmation according to the Roman Catholic Church? 1. Is the sacrament of confirmation as practied by Anglicans recognized as valid by the Roman Catholic Church? 1. If a priest conferred the sacrament of confirmation without a bishop's approval, I imagine that would be illicit, but would it also be invalid, with the person in question needing to be re-confirmed? 1. What is the impact of this issue on Christians who move between sacramental traditions - Eastern Catholic, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, etc, etc - each of which has slightly different views on how the sacrament of confirmation is to be conferred?

Isn't the fact that [Thomas Cranmer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cranmer) was validly ordained by the Roman Catholic Church certain proof that the Anglican Church holds valid apostolic succession? Why then is it denied by the Roman Catholic Church?

I am reading The Upper Room by Bishop J.C. Ryle and I came to this passage that surprised me: > James the son of Alphaeus was there, who had the honour of being the > presiding Apostle at the first Council held in Jerusalem, and of whom > St. Paul tells the Galatians that, together with Peter and John, James > was a "pillar of the Church" (Gal. 2:9). Is that accurate? Was James the son of Alphaeus the presiding Apostle at the first Council held in Jerusalem? And if not, was he generally thought to have been in the 19th century (by evangelicals)?