Like almost all churches, the Church of England and even more the wider Anglican Communion is struggling to come to terms with the vocal and growing minority of, in their own terms, "non-heteronormative" people, within the church as well as within the wider society. This concerns gender-fluidity/changes as well as homosexuality. The issue is contentious within and between the congregations. This question is motivated by [another question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/104499/how-can-anglican-clergy-be-suspended-without-pay-for-teaching-what-the-anglica?noredirect=1#comment300641_104499) : What should an Anglican priest do who cannot in good conscience represent the more libertarian stance of their church regarding the fairly broad complex of sexual identity, gender fluidity, homosexuality etc. In one specific case cited, a priest was put on leave after opposing in a sermon what he perceived as LGBT indoctrination bordering on coercion by a sexual education charity at a primary school. The OP of that question perceived a mismatch between the more conservative official doctrine of the Church as opposed to their more libertarian actions. The question claimed that the priest was "upholding the Church of England’s doctrinal stance". I tried to find out what that official stance might be. There is a long Wikipedia page about the wider Anglican community's [struggle to deal with homosexuality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_the_Anglican_Communion) , and it is clear that the *factual* opinion spectrum, even just on this relatively narrow topic, is very wide. But what is the *official* doctrine? I read passages of the [Book of Common Prayer](https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer) , "a key source for its doctrine": - The [ordination vow](https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/ordaining-and-consecrating-0) did not seem to contain anything that directly would compel a priest to oppose LGBT... advertising. - There is a [enumerated list of relatives that must not marry](https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/table-kindred-and-affinity) ; homosexuality is not mentioned there, most likely because it didn't cross anybody's mind. - [The Form of Solemnization of Matrimony](https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/form-solemnization-matrimony) talks about man and woman respectively husband and wife throughout. Whether the absence of same-sex marriage is to be taken as a prohibition or whether it simply didn't cross anybody's mind is, I suppose, up to debate. Is there more in the official, binding doctrine that would compel a priest to resist his superiors in LGBT... issues as a matter of doctrinal principle?

Are there any physical or aesthetic differences in a church's name (saint dedication), architecture, signage etc that identify it at CofE or Roman Catholic from the outside? (After years of being deaf and blind in the wilderness, I am re-discovering my Anglican faith. I travel the length and breadth of the UK for work, and want to attend church on my travels but I would prefer to know if it is CofE or RC before hand)

The Society of the Faith charity (*Wikipedia* entry ) uses the following symbol. What is it?

I am a Roman Catholic, baptised when I was a child and later confirmed and have received communion. The Roman Catholic Church is the “default” church in my home country. I have now moved to the United Kingdom and find myself attending mass in a parish of the Church of England — quite “High Church”, although I don't think it matters. (I could reasonably attend mass in a Catholic Church, but the community + practical reasons make me feel better in the Anglican church.) I would like to take an active part in the parochial church council. For this, I shall enroll in the church's electoral roll, and declare that: > I am a member in good standing of a Church (not in communion with the Church of England) […] and also **declare myself to be a member of the Church of England** […] What does the Roman Catholic Church say on its members declaring themselves (also) members of another Church?

[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?

Cremation is a very popular way to deal with the bodies of the deceased in the UK, and is permitted by the Church of England as an appropriate method for doing so. The process creates ashes, which then need to be scattered, interred, or otherwise disposed of. What options for disposal of ashes are appropriate according to the canon law and practices of the Church of England?

If a Church of England member has never been baptized, then there are pathways to receive this sacrament . You can only be baptized once . What happens if a Church of England member is *unsure* and *cannot prove either way* whether they were baptized in infancy? Can they be baptized now? The usual sources of proof - certificate, parish registers - are unavailable or destroyed, and there is no-one living who would be able to recall the original baptism.

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.

The 'Church of England' is 'considering' whether to stop referring to God as 'he' says an article today published by ITV.com . 'The Church' is to launch a 'new project' apparently. >Any potential alterations, which would mark ***a departure from traditional Jewish and Christian teachings dating back millennia*** , would have to be approved by synod, the Church’s decision-making body. The Rt Rev Dr Michael Ipgrave, Bishop of Lichfield and vice-chair of the liturgical commission responsible for the matter, said the Church had been “exploring the use of gendered language in relation to God for several years”. Again, the Bishop of Lichfield says 'the Church has been exploring'. Who are the actual people who are supporting, advising, and actively attempting to push through such language alterations ? Who publicly admits to being involved, apart from Michael Ipgrave ?

As the Church of England website explains , in the season of **Lent**: > Liturgical dress is the simplest possible. Churches are kept bare of flowers and decoration. **Gloria in excelsis** is not used. The Fourth Sunday of Lent (Laetareor Refreshment Sunday) was allowed as a day of relief from the rigour of Lent, and the Feast of the Annunciation almost always falls in Lent; these breaks from austerity are the background to the modern observance of Mothering Sunday on the Fourth Sunday of Lent. **Advent** is a season the church calendar with a similar quality: > The characteristic note of **Advent** is therefore expectation, rather than penitence, although the character of the season is easily coloured by an analogy with **Lent**. [...] Church decorations are simple and spare, and purple is the traditional liturgical colour. [...] The Third Sunday of Advent was observed in medieval times as a splash of colour in the restrained atmosphere of Advent (Gaudete or ‘Rose Sunday’), and the last days of Advent were marked by the sequence of Great ‘O’ Antiphons, which continue to inspire modern Advent hymns and meditations. Is **Gloria in Excelsis** - according to official guidance - omitted by the Church of England in Advent? *I am looking for a specifically Church of England answer, rather than answers from worldwide Anglicanism or Roman Catholicism.*

**How does the Church of England reconcile these three things, which seem at odds with each other:** 1. The bible tells us to ask for things in prayer (ask for what we want / ask for bad things not to happen). 1. Humans have free will. 1. The universe operates according to physical laws (ignoring miracles reported in the Bible). I don't know why it took me 30 years to realise that these three don't make sense when you consider them together. If I pray that my children won't get kidnapped or crushed in a landslide, how could God possibly grant that request without denying the kidnapper's free will, or altering the natural state of a cliff face? These might not be great examples; what about asking for someone to be healed, asking for people to survive an earthquake you've just heard about, asking for world leaders to make the right decisions? How can God grant those wishes? Is there a single thing you can ask for, without violating the 'rules' of free will and nature? Ask for courage/patience for yourself perhaps, that might work. To my (limited) brain it seems like this one aspect of prayer is pointless. I feel a bit stupid about all those fervent prayers I made for world peace. Why do we ever ask for anything, if it is pointless? I understand that there are other aspects to prayer (asking forgiveness, expressing love/worship, thanking) so it is just the one aspect (making requests) that seriously troubles me. I must have got it wrong somewhere...

I can find much material about monastic services, but nothing about the worship pattern in a typical rural parish. The Mass would have been celebrated, of course, but was there a morning and/or evening service as well, and if so what did they consist of? Post-Reformation the typical pattern in the Church of England included Matins and Evensong, each consisting of psalms, scripture and prayers. Was this the case pre-Reformation as well? Or was there only the Mass? Or something else?

Suppose that I have inherited responsibility for a Church of England ambrey which contains some very old consecrated wafers of bread. Ordinarily bread and wine once consecrated should be reverently consumed as per the rubrics of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer : > ...if any remain of that which was consecrated, it shall not be carried out of the Church, but the Priest, and such other of the Communicants as he shall then call unto him, shall, immediately after the Blessing, reverently eat and drink the same... Consuming very old and poorly kept elements is the problem here. What are my options for disposal which are approved - other than simply consuming them?

Anglicans customarily take a specially produced red wine as part of the service of Holy Communion. For small churches and congregations a fortified wine such as sherry will keep its condition once opened for a lot longer. Is it acceptable, irregular, or actually banned in church law to use sherry for this purpose?

Church of England canon law states : > The **churchwardens** when admitted are officers of the bishop. They shall discharge such duties as are by law and custom assigned to them; they shall be foremost in representing the laity and in co-operating with the incumbent; they shall use their best endeavours by example and precept to encourage the parishioners in the practice of true religion and to promote unity and peace among them. They shall also maintain order and decency in the church and churchyard, especially during the time of divine service. It seems clear that the incumbent minister ('vicar') could never legally be churchwarden. But could another ordained minister of the Church of England who worships in the parish become churchwarden?

The Anglican Church (AKA The Church of England) was founded in 1543, and still remains the primary denomination in England, and has made many important contributions, such as the King James Version of the Bible. However, the circumstances of its founding appear questionable. King Henry VIII wished to divorce Catherine of Aragon due to her "inability" to produce a son (even though the gender is primarily determined by the male). Upon the Catholic Church denying the divorce, he kicked out the Church and created a similar one with him as the head. Under these circumstances, how can the COE defend themselves as legitimate, when their founder only created the denomination for purposes of marital infidelity and divorce?

I'm constructing a survey of Anglican worshippers in England. One of the questions asks about _ordination-status_, with the following options: * I am ordained * I am a curate * I am a licensed lay-person * I am an unlicensed lay-person For worshippers in the Church of England, are these categories: * **comprehensive** (_everyone_ is described by _one_ of them) * **exclusive** (_no-one_ is described by _two_ of them)?

Does the Church of England generally consider the Genesis creation account (first couple of chapters) more metaphor than literal history?

Prior to Westcott and Hort influencing the Revision Committee which produced the 1881 [Revised Version](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Version) (the supposed 'revision' of the Authorised Version which, in fact, replaced the Received Text with a new Greek Text - that of Westcott and Hort) these two gentlemen intimated that they would refuse to be on the Committee if the Unitarian Dr Vance Smith was not permitted to be a part of the proceedings. >Dr. G. Vance Smith, a Unitarian scholar, was a member of the Revision Committee. At Westcott's suggestion, a celebration of Holy Communion was held on June 22nd before the first meeting of the N.T. Revision Company. Dr. Smith communicated but said afterwards that he did not join in reciting the Nicene Creed and did not compromise his principles as a Unitarian. **The storm of public indignation which followed almost wrecked the Revision at the outset**. At length however Dr. Smith remained on the Committee. Nesher Resources I have read, somewhere (and it escapes my memory where) that 'thousands' objected to the Unitarian Dr Vance Smith being on the Committee which would oversee the 'revision' of the bible. Yet, somehow, the above mentioned 'storm' and the 'thousands' I have read of, did not result in Vance Smith, Wescott and Hort being removed from the committee. Had they been removed, Professor Scrivener and the other members would have done as was intended and would have adjusted the known defects of the Authorised Version, rather than replace the Received Text with an altogether new text comprising of over ten thousand (seven per cent) alterations, omissions and additions. Why were the 'storm' and the 'thousands' ineffective ? Whose influence was it that overcame the opposition ? EDIT NOTE : The Protocol, referred to, here, by Dean John Burgon in his book 'Revision Revised' indicates the original intent of the 'Convocation' : >That [pg 003]“a Revision of the Authorized Version” is desirable; and the terms of the original Resolution of Feb. 10th, 1870, being, that the removal of “plain and clear errors” was alone contemplated,—“whether in the Greek Text originally adopted by the Translators, or in the Translation made from the same.” Such were in fact the limits formally imposed by Convocation, (10th Feb. and 3rd, 5th May, 1870,) on the work of Revision. Only necessary changes were to be made. The first Rule of the Committee (25th May) was similar in character: viz.—“To introduce as few alterations as possible into the Text of the Authorized Version, consistently with faithfulness.” Dean John Burgon - *Revision Revised*

Today, the Church of England has released an apology for a statement they made. In response to people now entering into civil partnerships, rather than traditional marriage, the C of E made a statement suggesting such partnerships should be 'abstinent friendships' or, in other words, platonic relationships. They are now 'back-tracking' on that previous statement. My question is not about that issue, itself. My question is about whether the Church of England regards itself as a regulatory authority over the entire populace. Or are its directions only made to persons within the Body of Christ, that is to say, those who show repentance and faith and who are followers of Jesus Christ in doctrine and in conduct ?