If the CofE was disestablished, who would be head of the Church?

[JockSporran]

If disestablished, the Queen would no longer be head of the Church, so who WOULD be? Would the General Synod elect one of the Archbishops as Supreme Pontiff, or might they elect a Moderator (like the Church of Scotland)?

[naomi24]

I don't know Jock, but I imagine it would be the Archbishop of Canterbury.

[Octavius]

The Church of England is governed synodically (by a council).

The most senior bishop of the Church of England is the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is the archbishop of the southern province of England, the Province of Canterbury. He also has the status of Primate of All England and Metropolitan.

The second most senior bishop is the Archbishop of York, who is the archbishop of the northern province of England, the Province of York. For historical reasons he is referred to as the Primate of England.

The bishops of London, Durham and Winchester are ranked in the next three positions.

By virtue of the Convocation of the English Clergy (Canterbury & York) and election by the General Synod, it may be possible that each Province would have its own leader in a North / South dual role.

[Theland1]

I believe that the Bible is true and that as it predicts, we will see ultimately a one world religion.
The Ecumenical movement is growing and Rome has made overtures to all religions to join in, at present, a rather loose association, whose banner is not God or Jesus Christ, but a peace and an anti poverty agenda.
If things continue as they are, and I believe they will, then Rome will head up the emerging one world religion, all of the signs point that way.
So, disestablishment or not, the ultimate leadership is going to be the Vatican.

[Schutzengel]

Oh! no it's not.

[Theland1]

Oh yes it is!

[Schutzengel]

Ecumenism would be a wonderful idea, if only the people at the grass roots believed it would work. A more likely scenario will be further divisions in the mainstream religions. I hope I'm wrong, but the signs are quite clear.

[Theland1]

The signs to me at least, are not clear regarding what you ascertain.
Canterbury and the Vatican, along with the World Council Of Churches, and many more are moving together.
In my humble opinion that is.

[Octavius]

They may well be, if only to protect themselves from the growth of Islam. But it is unlikley that they can all 'get along' when it comes to the finer details, its bound to be fractious and strained, with splitters going off in all directions.

[WaldoMcFroog]

If only dem evul Caflicks were real Christians like wot you is, eh, Theland?

[Theland1]

Octavius, the banner is not God, but peace, and who would argue with that.
Herein lies the great deception.

[monkeyeyes]

Any peace acheived would surely then be undermined by the practises peculiar to each particular 'branch' of the united church ?

It wouldn't be long before there was dissent and 'splitters' would cause greater disharmony in a newly fledged united church than we have now..........

[Schutzengel]

Theland. It's the leaders of the various religious groups that you mention who are (in their wisdom), deciding that joining together is the best way forward. That does not give a true picture of the feelings and aspirations of the laity with regard to their own denomination being subsumed into one powerful religious organisation, which is that organisation's stated aim. There are already rumblings of disassociation, which given time are likely to grow stronger.

[Aquagility]

Who would argue with that, Theland1? (Peace)

A great many people would. All those who put the importance of their religion, and its acceptance by the rest of the world, above life itself. To them, peace is for wimps.

[Theland1]

Yer darn tootin' Waldo!

The leadership of the various churches might just decide to act like big bad Europhiles and take us kicking and screaming into an unwanted and unwelcome association, and very few would bail out.

[Schutzengel]

Theland. Agreeing with Waldo, are you arguing against yourself.

[Theland1]

No, as far as I am concerned, Roman Catholicism is in grievous error and misleads its followers.
MacFroog was being facetious and implying that I disliked catholics - which is wrong - I love them so much that I would like to see them leave the R.C. church and follow Jesus, not the pope.

[Theland1]

Schutz - are you searching for answers yourself, or just being politely conversational? Nice to hear from you though.

[Schutzengel]

Now we're getting somewhere at last.

[Schutzengel]

Theland. Thank you, I'm enjoying the conversation, and picking up on other peoples ideas and opinions. If you look at my post timed at 10.55 I think you will deduce where I stand on the subject. Best regards. Schutz.

[ajmmac]

who is going to convince the ulster prodestants to follow a church, united or otherwise, based in rome?--don't fancy that job