On the Royal Ecclesiastical Supremacy of the Queen

Discussion in 'Navigating Through Church Life' started by J_Jeanniton, Jun 21, 2021.

?

Is the Ecclesiastical Supremacy of the Queen contrary to 1 Cor 14:34/35 & 1 Ti. 2:11/12?

  1. Always

    14.3%
  2. Yes, unless she only acts on the advice of her ministers in church matters

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Never

    85.7%
  4. Don't know

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,563
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    In my defense I will say that I had not made that contention at all. Indeed I believe that the ontological value of women is equal to that of men in the eyes of God.

    On the other hand, I do not accept the idea of Egalitarianism (a novel and atheist idea), namely the idea that men and women are equivalent. No, on the contrary men are men, and women are women, they have different natures in that respect. On the biological level men are the the alpha of their households; and on the spiritual level men are the head of their family, because men have spiritual priority (different from greater value). Man is the prototype of mankind itself. It is through a man that sin and salvation enter into the world. Etc. There are around 20-30 verses that deal with male headship. Men and women are profoundly different which is why St Paul teaches that they must be treated very differently from one another.

    I have read as many classic Anglican works on this as I could find, and they all teach this doctrine. Of course the Church Fathers do as well. To be a Christian, and especially to be an Anglican, is to hold to this doctrine, I don’t see any other way, except for revisionism and the secularization of Christianity.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2021
    Othniel and J_Jeanniton like this.
  2. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,678
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    It’s important to remember that this isn’t the way it works now in practice, though this is somewhat tangential to the issue at hand. The Monarch has little real power of her own in the current British constitutional system. I would’ve expected a much greater focus on Thatcher’s or May’s premierships than on the present occupant of the throne. The Monarch’s role is almost a formality, and yet it’s arguable that she is essential to the proper functioning of the system as a whole.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2021
  3. J_Jeanniton

    J_Jeanniton Member

    Posts:
    86
    Likes Received:
    7
    Oh, thank you. I am glad to hear it. I also hold that a biological continuum of differing sexes, human races, and/or biological species/subspecies is mathematically, zoologically, genetically, taxonomically, and theologically impossible.

    The thing I mean about essential inferiority, is firstly, every good-willed Christian knows intuitively that the brute animals, even the chimps, are essentially and ontologically inferior to mankind, and that mankind is the only creature in all of so-called mother nature that has been made in the image of God. Secondly, the faculty which lies at the very foundation of ALL that makes mankind more excellent and makes him to be in the image of God and after His likeness, and thus different from the brutes, and therefore more perfect, is precisely the rational faculty. Without this, NO other faculty of man can accomplish these ennobling effects upon the essential and intrinsic specific unique nature of mankind. Thirdly, the essential inferiority of any one sex means precisely an intrinsic, natural, and fundamental inferiority (merely by virtue of the specific nature and essence of that sex as opposed to the other sex) in that which makes mankind more excellent and makes him a creature in the image of God and after His likeness, and thus different from the brutes, and therefore more perfect. Now it is precisely this sort of inferiority of the one sex over other that we indignantly DENY.

    Every conservative Christian already KNOWS by the light and law of nature, that it is intrinsically against God's Creation Order for any ontologically inferior being to have authority over any ontologically superior being: neither does it make any difference how public or private the sphere these beings may just happen to encounter. Now, in light of this preliminary fact, it can be better understood why the essential inferiority of the female sex to the male sex is a theological as well as a philosophical impossibility. (The theological impossibility of the essential inferiority of the male sex to the female sex is already obvious from a face-value reading of those passages of Scripture which teach the doctrine of male headship.)

    Now, if the female sex had been essentially inferior to the male sex, well then, because identical causes produce identical effects, it would be not only irrational and unphilosophical, but contrary to decency and good order, yea, and also contrary to the Divine Creation Order, not just for wives to exercise authority over their husbands, but even for widowed mothers to exercise authority over their adult sons; and instead, it would be the obligation de jure divino for widowed mothers to obey their own adult sons, merely on account of their difference of sex. Yea, even further, it would follow that ‘it wou’d be a Sin in any Woman to have Dominion over any Man, and the greatest Queen ought not to command but to obey her Footman, because no Municipal Laws can supersede or change the Law of Nature’ (Mary Astell, Reflections on Marriage) as so well expressed by the Divine Order of the Creation of the Sexes, especially through the Male Headship Law. It would have also followed that ‘the Salique Law, as unjust as English Men have ever thought it, ought to take place over all the Earth, and the most glorious Reigns . . . were wicked Violations of the Law of Nature’ viz., the Divine Order of Creation of Adam and Eve!

    It would also follow that who do not have sufficient Christian fortitude to admit that every individual man is the head of every individual woman, even to such an extent that “the greatest Queen ought not to command but to obey her Footman, because no Municipal Laws can supersede or change the Law of Nature” are not just illogical and irrational; they are MALICIOUS lying rascally scoundrelly coward TRAITORS against God and Nature; and had not the wise and benevolent laws of Nature, Reason, and the revealed Moral Law God, yea, and also my love of Christian Brotherly Love and Charity even for my opponents, forbidden it, I would challenge each and every one them to a duel! Even worse, they themselves are already guilty of the same feminism and gynecocracy they profess to reject!

    Neither would it be lawful for any widowed mother, however wealthy she may be, even if she had no son, to hire any adult male as her butler or footman in her house, for she cannot do so without exercising dominion over these males. On the contrary, it is because they are males and she is a female that the divine order of creation requires her to be under their jurisdiction and forbids her from exercising dominion over them even in the running of her house.

    Neither can the quibbling distinction between "public" and "private" be accepted: men and women are respectively male and female regardless of the specific natures respectively unique to the several differing spheres of life in which they just happen to encounter; these differing spheres can NEVER change the fact that men are male and women are female.

    According to Adam first, then Eve... | BaylyBlog, “Wherever man is man and woman is woman, God's Creation Order applies. It is no special revelation for God's Covenant People. It is the universal law of mankind.”

    But even the most feeble-minded nincompoops with enough Christian goodwill and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in their hearts can easily perceive that the variety of differing venues of life men and women may encounter, whether intentionally or fortuitously, can never change the fact that a man is a man and a woman is a woman; ergo, this very fact is a DEFINITIVE and DECISIVE PROOF that the proposed quibbling distinction between "public" and "private" is untenable.

    Finally, even the queen-dowager, as long as she remains a widow, would be under obligation not only to obey her son in his capacity as reigning king, but even her butler and her footman; and even worse, it would not have been lawful for her to hire a butler nor a footman in the first place (because every low-born menial servant KNOWS the lady of the house cannot do so and put these male servants to her service without therefore ipso facto exercising authority and dominion over them)! But this conclusion is not only illogical and irrational, but also contrary to all the direct precepts and approved divine examples in both the OT and NT on this point concerning the relative duties of masters and servants.

    We therefore indignantly DENY that the female sex is essentially inferior to the male sex. We also deny that this essential equality of the sexes means or necessitates sameness in every respect. The sense in which we hold that the sexes are essentially and ontologically equal is that both sexes are equal in all and singular of those things which are necessary in order to make mankind more excellent and make him to be in the image of God and after His likeness, and thus different from the brutes, and therefore the most perfect part of the Terrestrial Creation. And all of this we believe, teach, and confess in opposition to the Scholastic philosopher Thomas Aquinas, who in his Summa Theologica I.92, 1, 2, & 3, who makes the sanctimonious assertion that the female sex is inferior, and also to a Traditionalist "roman catholic" contending, on the basis of Summa Theologica I.92, 1, 2, & 3, that the female sex, is inferior (and also that it is a modernistic error if not also a heresy to deny this inferiority), “Because the rational faculty is more dominate in nature in man, the rational faculty being that which makes man excellent and like unto God, different from the brutes, man is therefore more perfect” (http://rencesvals.blogspot.com/2010_06_01_archive.html).
     
  4. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,678
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    This is vile, rank misogyny and completely contrary to the Gospel. It’s also indicative of an extremely unhealthy obsession. One can only imagine what passers-by on this site must think of this discussion. That they might identify any of this with Anglicanism (or worse, the Gospel itself) is a truly sickening thought.

    Moderator, I think it’s time this thread were closed for good.
     
  5. Admin

    Admin Administrator Staff Member Typist Anglican

    Posts:
    727
    Likes Received:
    273
    Agreed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.