Topic: Ecclesiologies with pictures

[Fabio Leite]

With these images I wanted to show in a graphic way the different ecclesiologies we find, that is, how each Christian confession sees the body of Christ.

Here is the Body of Christ as seen by the Orthodox

It is one, entirely visible, with no divisions.

Here is the Body of Christ as seen by the Romans.

It has two heads, one celestial and invisible which is Christ and one terrestrial and visible which is the Pope.


Here is the Anglican Body of Christ.

Same as for Romans, just changing the Pope for the king.

Here is the Body of Christ as seen by the Protestant.

The invisibility of the head spread to the whole body. It is entirely invisible and can and must have various manifested physical forms adapted to its members.

Here is the Body of Christ as seen by the Two Lungs theory


Finally, the Body of Christ as seen by Ecumenism

Mutilated into various parts and in need of healing by much "love", "dialogue" and "tolerance".

[deusveritasest]

Here is the Anglican Body of Christ.

Same as for Romans, just changing the Pope for the king.

Given the extension of the Anglican Communion beyond the Church of England, that's no longer really a fair criticism.

[Fabio Leite]

Here is the Anglican Body of Christ.

Same as for Romans, just changing the Pope for the king.

Given the extension of the Anglican Communion beyond the Church of England, that's no longer really a fair criticism.

This is a real question... isn't the King/Queen of England the head of the Anglican church worldwide? Or has that changed?

[PeterTheAleut]

With these images I wanted to show in a graphic way the different ecclesiologies we find, that is, how each Christian confession sees the body of Christ.

Don't you think your presentation excessively simplistic?

[deusveritasest]

Here is the Anglican Body of Christ.

Same as for Romans, just changing the Pope for the king.

Given the extension of the Anglican Communion beyond the Church of England, that's no longer really a fair criticism.

This is a real question... isn't the King/Queen of England the head of the Anglican church worldwide? Or has that changed?

As far as I know, the English monarch only ever had authority over the Church of England. Now, at a certain point, as far as I understand it, other provinces of the empire were technically part of the Church of England, and thus subject to the monarch. However, I believe as soon as other provinces started establishing independence from the Church of England that likewise meant that the authority of the monarch went as a logical conclusion. However, it is possible that that was not the case and his/her authority gradually phased out in response to provincial independence. Either way, it is most certainly the case now that the English monarch has no authority outside of the UK provinces, and I'm pretty sure that he/she does not have authority in the non-English UK provinces (though not 100% on this one).

[Fabio Leite]

With these images I wanted to show in a graphic way the different ecclesiologies we find, that is, how each Christian confession sees the body of Christ.

Don't you think your presentation excessively simplistic?

No. They are just too explicit about the absurdity of non-orthodox eclesiologies. A body with two heads, being one invisible? An invisible body with multiple manifestations? Are we talking about Jesus Christ or an X-Man?

When St. Paul talks about the Church as the Body of Christ, he is obviously thinking of a normal body. That is Orthodox eclesiology. The jurisdictions, each parish, are members of the body, but the body as a whole is visible, unified... "normal". What is the point of saying that a lion is a big cat if the cat we have in mind has two horns, is as big as a car and ruminates? Obviously, I'm trying to sell to you a cow as a lion if I do that.

It is simple as the original image of a body is simple. It does defuse the elegant sophisms created to justify two-headed bodies, invisible bodies or a bunch of mutilated but autonomously living body pieces in need of healing by not making reference to them.

Romans do believe that the visible head of the body of Christ is the pope and that Christ's head is invisible. Protestants made things worse making the *whole* body invisible. Now what are the chances that these kinds of mutant bodies were what St. Paul had in mind instead of a normal body?

You know, I don't remember who, and God bless this person, but someone once told me that some false ideas are so intellectual and sophisticated that only very intelligent people could even understand their points and thus be deceived by them. I do think that is the case with the non-Orthodox eclesiologies.

[Fabio Leite]

Here is the Anglican Body of Christ.

Same as for Romans, just changing the Pope for the king.

Given the extension of the Anglican Communion beyond the Church of England, that's no longer really a fair criticism.

This is a real question... isn't the King/Queen of England the head of the Anglican church worldwide? Or has that changed?

As far as I know, the English monarch only ever had authority over the Church of England. Now, at a certain point, as far as I understand it, other provinces of the empire were technically part of the Church of England, and thus subject to the monarch. However, I believe as soon as other provinces started establishing independence from the Church of England that likewise meant that the authority of the monarch went as a logical conclusion. However, it is possible that that was not the case and his/her authority gradually phased out in response to provincial independence. Either way, it is most certainly the case now that the English monarch has no authority outside of the UK provinces, and I'm pretty sure that he/she does not have authority in the non-English UK provinces (though not 100% on this one).

Interesting. And how is it organized today then? In jurisdictions like Orthodoxy? Are the Anglicans in non-English lands indepedent and just in communion with England?

[deusveritasest]

Here is the Anglican Body of Christ.

Same as for Romans, just changing the Pope for the king.

Given the extension of the Anglican Communion beyond the Church of England, that's no longer really a fair criticism.

This is a real question... isn't the King/Queen of England the head of the Anglican church worldwide? Or has that changed?

As far as I know, the English monarch only ever had authority over the Church of England. Now, at a certain point, as far as I understand it, other provinces of the empire were technically part of the Church of England, and thus subject to the monarch. However, I believe as soon as other provinces started establishing independence from the Church of England that likewise meant that the authority of the monarch went as a logical conclusion. However, it is possible that that was not the case and his/her authority gradually phased out in response to provincial independence. Either way, it is most certainly the case now that the English monarch has no authority outside of the UK provinces, and I'm pretty sure that he/she does not have authority in the non-English UK provinces (though not 100% on this one).

Interesting. And how is it organized today then? In jurisdictions like Orthodoxy? Are the Anglicans in non-English lands indepedent and just in communion with England?

The Archbishop of Canterbury has some sort of mediating role for the communion at large, but realistically his authority outside of England is slim. One of the most significant points of organization for the communion at large is the Lambeth Conference, which is a council where all the bishops of the communion are invited, occurring every 10 years. As to local affairs, each province is essentially entirely independent from the other, their bond being "full communion" with each other. So it isn't extremely different from the Byzantine ecclesiology.

[EDIT]: One more important point, from what I can tell, the respective governments of those Anglican provinces outside of England have no role in their governance, and even in England the Queen's role is now not all that great.

[ialmisry]

With these images I wanted to show in a graphic way the different ecclesiologies we find, that is, how each Christian confession sees the body of Christ.

Here is the Body of Christ as seen by the Orthodox

It is one, entirely visible, with no divisions.

Here is the Body of Christ as seen by the Romans.

It has two heads, one celestial and invisible which is Christ and one terrestrial and visible which is the Pope.


Here is the Anglican Body of Christ.

Same as for Romans, just changing the Pope for the king.

Here is the Body of Christ as seen by the Protestant.

The invisibility of the head spread to the whole body. It is entirely invisible and can and must have various manifested physical forms adapted to its members.

Here is the Body of Christ as seen by the Two Lungs theory


Finally, the Body of Christ as seen by Ecumenism

Mutilated into various parts and in need of healing by much "love", "dialogue" and "tolerance".

LOL.  Notice in the last one, how you can't get the picture.  How aprops.

[PeterTheAleut]

With these images I wanted to show in a graphic way the different ecclesiologies we find, that is, how each Christian confession sees the body of Christ.

Don't you think your presentation excessively simplistic?

No. They are just too explicit about the absurdity of non-orthodox eclesiologies. A body with two heads, being one invisible? An invisible body with multiple manifestations? Are we talking about Jesus Christ or an X-Man?

And yet the Jehovah's Witnesses often criticize the Christian dogma of the Trinity quite simplistically by accusing us of worshiping a three-headed monstrosity.  We know how wrong they are.  That's why I like to believe that things are never explained as simplistically as we would like.

[Feanor]

Actually, as an Ecumenist I see the Church, the Body of Christ, as unbroken, undivided, totally in tact. That is neither changed nor challenged by the fact that human beings, with all their failures and flaws, are unable to put aside their differences and co-operate, having instead divided the Body's administration and leadership. That is a sin, but the division there is merely human, not celestial or metaphysical.

[Fabio Leite]

Actually, as an Ecumenist I see the Church, the Body of Christ, as unbroken, undivided, totally in tact. That is neither changed nor challenged by the fact that human beings, with all their failures and flaws, are unable to put aside their differences and co-operate, having instead divided the Body's administration and leadership. That is a sin, but the division there is merely human, not celestial or metaphysical.

Oh Feanor!

But truth might
be changed by victory

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Lg2AAXaWCU

You're doing it again. 

Theology is the expression of the individual/group experience of God. Different theologies mean they are having very different experiences. Not the same God.

[Keble]

If we are going to play this game then I suppose I could put up a picture of the various eastern metropolitans, especially all those who aren't in communion with one another.

[Ebor]

This is a real question... isn't the King/Queen of England the head of the Anglican church worldwide? Or has that changed?

No, the Queen of England is not the head of the Anglican Communion.  It is, indeed, like EO in that the various members are like the national jurisdictions and the Archbishop of Canterbury is the "First among equals".

So your little picture is not accurate nor true. 

With respect,

Ebor

[Ebor]

That's why I like to believe that things are never explained as simplistically as we would like.

Here, here!  Thank you, Peter.  The pictures aren't "explicit". They're one person's misunderstanding of other people's Churches as, for example, the one on the Anglicans has been shown to be. 

Ebor

[Fabio Leite]

If we are going to play this game then I suppose I could put up a picture of the various eastern metropolitans, especially all those who aren't in communion with one another.

No, because they are not heads, but "successors of the apostles", therefore just members. As St. Paul said. By the way, in the NT, the Epistles, even the messages of Christ in Revelation, are always directed to local churches. That is true Christian eclesiology and administration. The rest, I'm sorry to say, is not.

[Fabio Leite]

Actually, as an Ecumenist I see the Church, the Body of Christ, as unbroken, undivided, totally in tact. That is neither changed nor challenged by the fact that human beings, with all their failures and flaws, are unable to put aside their differences and co-operate, having instead divided the Body's administration and leadership. That is a sin, but the division there is merely human, not celestial or metaphysical.

In that case, see picture for Protestant Body of Christ.

[Fabio Leite]

This is a real question... isn't the King/Queen of England the head of the Anglican church worldwide? Or has that changed?

No, the Queen of England is not the head of the Anglican Communion.  It is, indeed, like EO in that the various members are like the national jurisdictions and the Archbishop of Canterbury is the "First among equals".

So your little picture is not accurate nor true. 

With respect,

Ebor

But is that something that simply happens in practice despite authoritative dogmatic definitions saying otherwise, or is it what these dogmatic definitions stipulate?

[Fabio Leite]

If anyone wants a "crazy" image of the Body of Christ using the local jurisdictions as it is since the NT as seen by the Church, here it is using the cross:



The fractal effect ( a drawing made of itself in smaller parts) leads to beautiful paintings http://farm1.static.flickr.com/130/411302564_1a006b2c02.jpg  and also occurs in nature.
http://www.miqel.com/images_1/fractal_math_patterns/natural-patterns/broccoflower-fractal.jpg

Fractals and holograms are perfectly good modern images of the Church's ecclesiology, wich is not shared by the many heterodoxies.

[Feanor]

Actually, as an Ecumenist I see the Church, the Body of Christ, as unbroken, undivided, totally in tact. That is neither changed nor challenged by the fact that human beings, with all their failures and flaws, are unable to put aside their differences and co-operate, having instead divided the Body's administration and leadership. That is a sin, but the division there is merely human, not celestial or metaphysical.

Theology is the expression of the individual/group experience of God. Different theologies mean they are having very different experiences. Not the same God.

What makes you believe that? The few occasions in which I believe to have had 'experiences of God' had nothing to do with the complex theological matters which the churches are divided over. In all my 'spiritual experiences', it was love, dependance and submission which I felt always brought me closer to God; not an ontological understanding of the technical Christology of the Incarnation, nor whether the head of the church is the Ecumenical Patriarch or the Pope. These differences really can be put aside.

[jnorm888]

This is the protestant view. You mind as well add the Church of England, and Anglicanism in general in this as well....for she has the branch theory.

I think out of all the pictures, this one is the most accurate. Especially when one looks at the connection between Christology, Ecclesiology, and Soteriology.

The Augustinian / protestant understanding of the invisible church theory makes their christology / ecclesiology / soteriology into some kind of wierd Ecclesial Nestorianism in where the one invisible divine christ person is hypostatic with multiple mere human christ persons......hundreds to thousands of them.











ICXC NIKA

[deusveritasest]

Actually, as an Ecumenist I see the Church, the Body of Christ, as unbroken, undivided, totally in tact. That is neither changed nor challenged by the fact that human beings, with all their failures and flaws, are unable to put aside their differences and co-operate, having instead divided the Body's administration and leadership. That is a sin, but the division there is merely human, not celestial or metaphysical.

That sounds sort of Gnostic.

[deusveritasest]

This is a real question... isn't the King/Queen of England the head of the Anglican church worldwide? Or has that changed?

No, the Queen of England is not the head of the Anglican Communion.  It is, indeed, like EO in that the various members are like the national jurisdictions and the Archbishop of Canterbury is the "First among equals".

So your little picture is not accurate nor true. 

With respect,

Ebor

But is that something that simply happens in practice despite authoritative dogmatic definitions saying otherwise, or is it what these dogmatic definitions stipulate?

There really is no dogmatic definition as to what role the monarch of England is to have in Anglican provinces independent from the Church of England.

[deusveritasest]

You mind as well add the Church of England, and Anglicanism in general in this as well....for she has the branch theory.

Tractarian branch theory is really quite different from Protestant invisible church conceptions.

[Papist]

With these images I wanted to show in a graphic way the different ecclesiologies we find, that is, how each Christian confession sees the body of Christ.

Here is the Body of Christ as seen by the Orthodox

It is one, entirely visible, with no divisions.

Here is the Body of Christ as seen by the Romans.

It has two heads, one celestial and invisible which is Christ and one terrestrial and visible which is the Pope.


Here is the Anglican Body of Christ.

Same as for Romans, just changing the Pope for the king.

Here is the Body of Christ as seen by the Protestant.

The invisibility of the head spread to the whole body. It is entirely invisible and can and must have various manifested physical forms adapted to its members.

Here is the Body of Christ as seen by the Two Lungs theory


Finally, the Body of Christ as seen by Ecumenism

Mutilated into various parts and in need of healing by much "love", "dialogue" and "tolerance".

The image provided for Catholics is inaccurate. Christ is seen as the head of the Catholic Church and the pope is merely a vicar or steward. Have you not seen The Lord of the Rings?

[Fabio Leite]

The image provided for Catholics is inaccurate. Christ is seen as the head of the Catholic Church and the pope is merely a vicar or steward. Have you not seen The Lord of the Rings?

I have seen Pope Pius XII Encyclical of 1943

40. But we must not think that He rules only in a hidden[59] or extraordinary manner. On the contrary, our Divine Redeemer also governs His Mystical Body in a visible and normal way through His Vicar on earth. You know, Venerable Brethren, that after He had ruled the "little flock"[60] Himself during His mortal pilgrimage, Christ our Lord, when about to leave this world and return to the Father, entrusted to the Chief of the Apostles the visible government of the entire community He had founded. Since He was all wise He could not leave the body of the Church He had founded as a human society without a visible head. Nor against this may one argue that the primacy of jurisdiction established in the Church gives such a Mystical Body two heads. For Peter in virtue of his primacy is only Christ's Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisible, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through Church rested not on Him alone, but on Peter too, its visible foundation stone. That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter him who is His representative on earth. After His glorious Ascension into heaven this Unam Sanctam;[61] and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same.

41. They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.

Trying to avoid the "two-headed" figure above, which is the logical conclusion of the "visible-invisible heads" image, Pope Pius XII states an even greater blasphemy, that the Pope and Christ are one, that the Pope is Christ made visible:

Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head

Which would then explain why a RC priest once said that the Pope is also present in the host, which again, is a logical conclusion of such statement. So, according to RC eclesiology, either the Body of Christ has two heads, or the Pope and Christ are one.

[ialmisry]

Actually, as an Ecumenist I see the Church, the Body of Christ, as unbroken, undivided, totally in tact. That is neither changed nor challenged by the fact that human beings, with all their failures and flaws, are unable to put aside their differences and co-operate, having instead divided the Body's administration and leadership. That is a sin, but the division there is merely human, not celestial or metaphysical.

Theology is the expression of the individual/group experience of God. Different theologies mean they are having very different experiences. Not the same God.

What makes you believe that? The few occasions in which I believe to have had 'experiences of God' had nothing to do with the complex theological matters which the churches are divided over. In all my 'spiritual experiences', it was love, dependance and submission which I felt always brought me closer to God; not an ontological understanding of the technical Christology of the Incarnation, nor whether the head of the church is the Ecumenical Patriarch or the Pope. These differences really can be put aside.

The fact that you posit the EP or the pope of Rome as Head of the Church just shows that you have not grapsed their differences, which cannot be put aside.

[ialmisry]

This is a real question... isn't the King/Queen of England the head of the Anglican church worldwide? Or has that changed?

No, the Queen of England is not the head of the Anglican Communion.  It is, indeed, like EO in that the various members are like the national jurisdictions and the Archbishop of Canterbury is the "First among equals".

So your little picture is not accurate nor true. 

With respect,

With regret

Albeit the king's Majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme head of the Church of England, and so is recognized by the clergy of this realm in their convocations, yet nevertheless, for corroboration and confirmation thereof, and for increase of virtue in Christ's religion within this realm of England, and to repress and extirpate all errors, heresies, and other enormities and abuses heretofore used in the same, be it enacted, by authority of this present Parliament, that the king, our sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall be taken, accepted, and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England, called Anglicans Ecclesia; and shall have and enjoy, annexed and united to the imperial crown of this realm, as well the title and style thereof, as all honors, dignities, preeminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities to the said dignity of the supreme head of the same Church belonging and appertaining; and that our said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, record, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offenses, contempts and enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any manner of spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed, repressed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained, or amended, most to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of virtue in Christ's religion, and for the conservation of the peace, unity, and tranquility of this realm; any usage, foreign land, foreign authority, prescription, or any other thing or things to the contrary hereof notwithstanding.

The Act of Supremacy
http://www.britainexpress.com/History/tudor/supremacy-henry-text.htm

[PeterTheAleut]

The image provided for Catholics is inaccurate. Christ is seen as the head of the Catholic Church and the pope is merely a vicar or steward. Have you not seen The Lord of the Rings?

I have seen Pope Pius XII Encyclical of 1943

40. But we must not think that He rules only in a hidden[59] or extraordinary manner. On the contrary, our Divine Redeemer also governs His Mystical Body in a visible and normal way through His Vicar on earth. You know, Venerable Brethren, that after He had ruled the "little flock"[60] Himself during His mortal pilgrimage, Christ our Lord, when about to leave this world and return to the Father, entrusted to the Chief of the Apostles the visible government of the entire community He had founded. Since He was all wise He could not leave the body of the Church He had founded as a human society without a visible head. Nor against this may one argue that the primacy of jurisdiction established in the Church gives such a Mystical Body two heads. For Peter in virtue of his primacy is only Christ's Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisible, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through Church rested not on Him alone, but on Peter too, its visible foundation stone. That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter him who is His representative on earth. After His glorious Ascension into heaven this Unam Sanctam;[61] and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same.

41. They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.

And yet, St. Ignatius exhorts us to look upon the bishop as we would look upon Christ Himself.  (Epistle to the Ephesians, Chapter VI)

Trying to avoid the "two-headed" figure above, which is the logical conclusion of the "visible-invisible heads" image, Pope Pius XII states an even greater blasphemy, that the Pope and Christ are one, that the Pope is Christ made visible:

Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head

That doesn't say that the Pope is Christ made visible.  Besides, don't we Orthodox understand the priest to be making Christ visibly present when he acts as liturgical minister of the sacramental mysteries?

Which would then explain why a RC priest once said that the Pope is also present in the host,

You're making this up, right?

which again, is a logical conclusion of such statement. So, according to RC eclesiology, either the Body of Christ has two heads, or the Pope and Christ are one.

Or else you're torturing Latin ecclesiology to make it fit your twisted polemics.  Like you, I don't agree with the Latin doctrine of the Church and its preaching of papal sovereignty, but I think you owe it to your opponent to make sure you understand him correctly so that your polemical arguments actually make cogent sense.  Right now you're just setting up a straw man so you can make it appear you're knocking something down.

[Ebor]

The "Act of Supremacy" is an historical document that does not apply today and has certainly not applied in the United States since the 18th Century.  So the head of the Anglican Communion is not Her Majesty Elizabeth II. 

[deusveritasest]

This is a real question... isn't the King/Queen of England the head of the Anglican church worldwide? Or has that changed?

No, the Queen of England is not the head of the Anglican Communion.  It is, indeed, like EO in that the various members are like the national jurisdictions and the Archbishop of Canterbury is the "First among equals".

So your little picture is not accurate nor true. 

With respect,

With regret

Albeit the king's Majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme head of the Church of England, and so is recognized by the clergy of this realm in their convocations, yet nevertheless, for corroboration and confirmation thereof, and for increase of virtue in Christ's religion within this realm of England, and to repress and extirpate all errors, heresies, and other enormities and abuses heretofore used in the same, be it enacted, by authority of this present Parliament, that the king, our sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall be taken, accepted, and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England, called Anglicans Ecclesia; and shall have and enjoy, annexed and united to the imperial crown of this realm, as well the title and style thereof, as all honors, dignities, preeminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities to the said dignity of the supreme head of the same Church belonging and appertaining; and that our said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, record, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offenses, contempts and enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any manner of spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed, repressed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained, or amended, most to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of virtue in Christ's religion, and for the conservation of the peace, unity, and tranquility of this realm; any usage, foreign land, foreign authority, prescription, or any other thing or things to the contrary hereof notwithstanding.

The Act of Supremacy
http://www.britainexpress.com/History/tudor/supremacy-henry-text.htm

That only applies to the Church of England, not the entire Anglican Communion.

[ialmisry]

The "Act of Supremacy" is an historical document that does not apply today and has certainly not applied in the United States since the 18th Century.

Our founding document is also an historical document, known as the New Testament, which has applied in all lands since the 1st century. Sorry your founding document didn't make three centuries.

  So the head of the Anglican Communion is not Her Majesty Elizabeth II. 

As far as the Anglicanism has a head, and can be called a communion, it's her majesty, the heir and successor spoken of in the Act with that "full power and authority."

[ialmisry]

This is a real question... isn't the King/Queen of England the head of the Anglican church worldwide? Or has that changed?

No, the Queen of England is not the head of the Anglican Communion.  It is, indeed, like EO in that the various members are like the national jurisdictions and the Archbishop of Canterbury is the "First among equals".

So your little picture is not accurate nor true. 

With respect,

With regret

Albeit the king's Majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme head of the Church of England, and so is recognized by the clergy of this realm in their convocations, yet nevertheless, for corroboration and confirmation thereof, and for increase of virtue in Christ's religion within this realm of England, and to repress and extirpate all errors, heresies, and other enormities and abuses heretofore used in the same, be it enacted, by authority of this present Parliament, that the king, our sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall be taken, accepted, and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England, called Anglicans Ecclesia; and shall have and enjoy, annexed and united to the imperial crown of this realm, as well the title and style thereof, as all honors, dignities, preeminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities to the said dignity of the supreme head of the same Church belonging and appertaining; and that our said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, record, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offenses, contempts and enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any manner of spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed, repressed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained, or amended, most to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of virtue in Christ's religion, and for the conservation of the peace, unity, and tranquility of this realm; any usage, foreign land, foreign authority, prescription, or any other thing or things to the contrary hereof notwithstanding.

The Act of Supremacy
http://www.britainexpress.com/History/tudor/supremacy-henry-text.htm

That only applies to the Church of England, not the entire Anglican Communion.

Pray tell, under what definition of "Anglican Communion."

[deusveritasest]

This is a real question... isn't the King/Queen of England the head of the Anglican church worldwide? Or has that changed?

No, the Queen of England is not the head of the Anglican Communion.  It is, indeed, like EO in that the various members are like the national jurisdictions and the Archbishop of Canterbury is the "First among equals".

So your little picture is not accurate nor true. 

With respect,

With regret

Albeit the king's Majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme head of the Church of England, and so is recognized by the clergy of this realm in their convocations, yet nevertheless, for corroboration and confirmation thereof, and for increase of virtue in Christ's religion within this realm of England, and to repress and extirpate all errors, heresies, and other enormities and abuses heretofore used in the same, be it enacted, by authority of this present Parliament, that the king, our sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall be taken, accepted, and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England, called Anglicans Ecclesia; and shall have and enjoy, annexed and united to the imperial crown of this realm, as well the title and style thereof, as all honors, dignities, preeminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities to the said dignity of the supreme head of the same Church belonging and appertaining; and that our said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, record, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offenses, contempts and enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any manner of spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed, repressed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained, or amended, most to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of virtue in Christ's religion, and for the conservation of the peace, unity, and tranquility of this realm; any usage, foreign land, foreign authority, prescription, or any other thing or things to the contrary hereof notwithstanding.

The Act of Supremacy
http://www.britainexpress.com/History/tudor/supremacy-henry-text.htm

That only applies to the Church of England, not the entire Anglican Communion.

Pray tell, under what definition of "Anglican Communion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Communion#Provinces_of_the_Anglican_Communion

Note that the Church of England constitutes only one of these 38 provinces.

[ialmisry]

This is a real question... isn't the King/Queen of England the head of the Anglican church worldwide? Or has that changed?

No, the Queen of England is not the head of the Anglican Communion.  It is, indeed, like EO in that the various members are like the national jurisdictions and the Archbishop of Canterbury is the "First among equals".

So your little picture is not accurate nor true. 

With respect,

With regret

Albeit the king's Majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme head of the Church of England, and so is recognized by the clergy of this realm in their convocations, yet nevertheless, for corroboration and confirmation thereof, and for increase of virtue in Christ's religion within this realm of England, and to repress and extirpate all errors, heresies, and other enormities and abuses heretofore used in the same, be it enacted, by authority of this present Parliament, that the king, our sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall be taken, accepted, and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England, called Anglicans Ecclesia; and shall have and enjoy, annexed and united to the imperial crown of this realm, as well the title and style thereof, as all honors, dignities, preeminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities to the said dignity of the supreme head of the same Church belonging and appertaining; and that our said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, record, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offenses, contempts and enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any manner of spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed, repressed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained, or amended, most to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of virtue in Christ's religion, and for the conservation of the peace, unity, and tranquility of this realm; any usage, foreign land, foreign authority, prescription, or any other thing or things to the contrary hereof notwithstanding.

The Act of Supremacy
http://www.britainexpress.com/History/tudor/supremacy-henry-text.htm

That only applies to the Church of England, not the entire Anglican Communion.

Pray tell, under what definition of "Anglican Communion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Communion#Provinces_of_the_Anglican_Communion

Note that the Church of England constitutes only one of these 38 provinces.

From your source (which is from the "Anglican Communion" web site)

Instruments of Communion
As mentioned above, the Anglican Communion has no international juridical organisation. The Archbishop of Canterbury's role is strictly symbolic and unifying; and the Communion's three international bodies are consultative and collaborative, their resolutions having no legal effect on the independent provinces of the Communion. Taken together, however, the four do function as "instruments of communion", since all churches of the communion participate in them. In order of antiquity, they are:
1. The Archbishop of Canterbury (ab origine) functions as the spiritual head of the Communion. He is the focus of unity, since no church claims membership in the Communion without being in communion with him. The present incumbent is Dr Rowan Williams.

2. The Lambeth Conference (first held in 1867) is the oldest international consultation. It is a forum for bishops of the Communion to reinforce unity and collegiality through manifesting the episcopate, to discuss matters of mutual concern, and to pass resolutions intended to act as guideposts. It is held roughly every ten years and invitation is by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

3. The Anglican Consultative Council (first met in 1971) was created by a 1968 Lambeth Conference resolution, and meets usually at three year intervals. The council consists of representative bishops, clergy, and laity chosen by the thirty-eight provinces. The body has a permanent secretariat, the Anglican Communion Office, of which the Archbishop of Canterbury is president.

4. The Primates' Meeting (first met in 1979) is the most recent manifestation of international consultation and deliberation, having been first convened by Archbishop Donald Coggan as a forum for "leisurely thought, prayer and deep consultation."

The Queen appoints 1., who calls 2., runs 3., and chairs 4.

[deusveritasest]

This is a real question... isn't the King/Queen of England the head of the Anglican church worldwide? Or has that changed?

No, the Queen of England is not the head of the Anglican Communion.  It is, indeed, like EO in that the various members are like the national jurisdictions and the Archbishop of Canterbury is the "First among equals".

So your little picture is not accurate nor true. 

With respect,

With regret

Albeit the king's Majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme head of the Church of England, and so is recognized by the clergy of this realm in their convocations, yet nevertheless, for corroboration and confirmation thereof, and for increase of virtue in Christ's religion within this realm of England, and to repress and extirpate all errors, heresies, and other enormities and abuses heretofore used in the same, be it enacted, by authority of this present Parliament, that the king, our sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall be taken, accepted, and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England, called Anglicans Ecclesia; and shall have and enjoy, annexed and united to the imperial crown of this realm, as well the title and style thereof, as all honors, dignities, preeminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities to the said dignity of the supreme head of the same Church belonging and appertaining; and that our said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, record, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offenses, contempts and enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any manner of spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed, repressed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained, or amended, most to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of virtue in Christ's religion, and for the conservation of the peace, unity, and tranquility of this realm; any usage, foreign land, foreign authority, prescription, or any other thing or things to the contrary hereof notwithstanding.

The Act of Supremacy
http://www.britainexpress.com/History/tudor/supremacy-henry-text.htm

That only applies to the Church of England, not the entire Anglican Communion.

Pray tell, under what definition of "Anglican Communion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Communion#Provinces_of_the_Anglican_Communion

Note that the Church of England constitutes only one of these 38 provinces.

From your source (which is from the "Anglican Communion" web site)

Instruments of Communion
As mentioned above, the Anglican Communion has no international juridical organisation. The Archbishop of Canterbury's role is strictly symbolic and unifying; and the Communion's three international bodies are consultative and collaborative, their resolutions having no legal effect on the independent provinces of the Communion. Taken together, however, the four do function as "instruments of communion", since all churches of the communion participate in them. In order of antiquity, they are:
1. The Archbishop of Canterbury (ab origine) functions as the spiritual head of the Communion. He is the focus of unity, since no church claims membership in the Communion without being in communion with him. The present incumbent is Dr Rowan Williams.

2. The Lambeth Conference (first held in 1867) is the oldest international consultation. It is a forum for bishops of the Communion to reinforce unity and collegiality through manifesting the episcopate, to discuss matters of mutual concern, and to pass resolutions intended to act as guideposts. It is held roughly every ten years and invitation is by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

3. The Anglican Consultative Council (first met in 1971) was created by a 1968 Lambeth Conference resolution, and meets usually at three year intervals. The council consists of representative bishops, clergy, and laity chosen by the thirty-eight provinces. The body has a permanent secretariat, the Anglican Communion Office, of which the Archbishop of Canterbury is president.

4. The Primates' Meeting (first met in 1979) is the most recent manifestation of international consultation and deliberation, having been first convened by Archbishop Donald Coggan as a forum for "leisurely thought, prayer and deep consultation."

The Queen appoints 1., who calls 2., runs 3., and chairs 4.

Yet:

-1 does not actually have authority over 2, 3, or 4; they make their decisions by voting.

-The quote itself says: "The Archbishop of Canterbury's role is strictly symbolic and unifying".

-It also says: "and the Communion's three international bodies are consultative and collaborative, their resolutions having no legal effect on the independent provinces of the Communion".

[ialmisry]

This is a real question... isn't the King/Queen of England the head of the Anglican church worldwide? Or has that changed?

No, the Queen of England is not the head of the Anglican Communion.  It is, indeed, like EO in that the various members are like the national jurisdictions and the Archbishop of Canterbury is the "First among equals".

So your little picture is not accurate nor true.  

With respect,

With regret

Albeit the king's Majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme head of the Church of England, and so is recognized by the clergy of this realm in their convocations, yet nevertheless, for corroboration and confirmation thereof, and for increase of virtue in Christ's religion within this realm of England, and to repress and extirpate all errors, heresies, and other enormities and abuses heretofore used in the same, be it enacted, by authority of this present Parliament, that the king, our sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall be taken, accepted, and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England, called Anglicans Ecclesia; and shall have and enjoy, annexed and united to the imperial crown of this realm, as well the title and style thereof, as all honors, dignities, preeminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities to the said dignity of the supreme head of the same Church belonging and appertaining; and that our said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, record, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offenses, contempts and enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any manner of spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed, repressed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained, or amended, most to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of virtue in Christ's religion, and for the conservation of the peace, unity, and tranquility of this realm; any usage, foreign land, foreign authority, prescription, or any other thing or things to the contrary hereof notwithstanding.

The Act of Supremacy
http://www.britainexpress.com/History/tudor/supremacy-henry-text.htm

That only applies to the Church of England, not the entire Anglican Communion.

Pray tell, under what definition of "Anglican Communion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Communion#Provinces_of_the_Anglican_Communion

Note that the Church of England constitutes only one of these 38 provinces.

From your source (which is from the "Anglican Communion" web site)

Instruments of Communion
As mentioned above, the Anglican Communion has no international juridical organisation. The Archbishop of Canterbury's role is strictly symbolic and unifying; and the Communion's three international bodies are consultative and collaborative, their resolutions having no legal effect on the independent provinces of the Communion. Taken together, however, the four do function as "instruments of communion", since all churches of the communion participate in them. In order of antiquity, they are:
1. The Archbishop of Canterbury (ab origine) functions as the spiritual head of the Communion. He is the focus of unity, since no church claims membership in the Communion without being in communion with him. The present incumbent is Dr Rowan Williams.

2. The Lambeth Conference (first held in 1867) is the oldest international consultation. It is a forum for bishops of the Communion to reinforce unity and collegiality through manifesting the episcopate, to discuss matters of mutual concern, and to pass resolutions intended to act as guideposts. It is held roughly every ten years and invitation is by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

3. The Anglican Consultative Council (first met in 1971) was created by a 1968 Lambeth Conference resolution, and meets usually at three year intervals. The council consists of representative bishops, clergy, and laity chosen by the thirty-eight provinces. The body has a permanent secretariat, the Anglican Communion Office, of which the Archbishop of Canterbury is president.

4. The Primates' Meeting (first met in 1979) is the most recent manifestation of international consultation and deliberation, having been first convened by Archbishop Donald Coggan as a forum for "leisurely thought, prayer and deep consultation."

The Queen appoints 1., who calls 2., runs 3., and chairs 4.

Yet:

-1 does not actually have authority over 2, 3, or 4; they make their decisions by voting.

-The quote itself says: "The Archbishop of Canterbury's role is strictly symbolic and unifying".

-It also says: "and the Communion's three international bodies are consultative and collaborative, their resolutions having no legal effect on the independent provinces of the Communion".

Yet

 So the head of the Anglican Communion is not Her Majesty Elizabeth II.  

As far as the Anglicanism has a head, and can be called a communion, it's her majesty, the heir and successor spoken of in the Act with that "full power and authority."

Btw, have you read "Leviathan?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book)

[deusveritasest]

This is a real question... isn't the King/Queen of England the head of the Anglican church worldwide? Or has that changed?

No, the Queen of England is not the head of the Anglican Communion.  It is, indeed, like EO in that the various members are like the national jurisdictions and the Archbishop of Canterbury is the "First among equals".

So your little picture is not accurate nor true.  

With respect,

With regret

Albeit the king's Majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme head of the Church of England, and so is recognized by the clergy of this realm in their convocations, yet nevertheless, for corroboration and confirmation thereof, and for increase of virtue in Christ's religion within this realm of England, and to repress and extirpate all errors, heresies, and other enormities and abuses heretofore used in the same, be it enacted, by authority of this present Parliament, that the king, our sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall be taken, accepted, and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England, called Anglicans Ecclesia; and shall have and enjoy, annexed and united to the imperial crown of this realm, as well the title and style thereof, as all honors, dignities, preeminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities to the said dignity of the supreme head of the same Church belonging and appertaining; and that our said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, record, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offenses, contempts and enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any manner of spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed, repressed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained, or amended, most to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of virtue in Christ's religion, and for the conservation of the peace, unity, and tranquility of this realm; any usage, foreign land, foreign authority, prescription, or any other thing or things to the contrary hereof notwithstanding.

The Act of Supremacy
http://www.britainexpress.com/History/tudor/supremacy-henry-text.htm

That only applies to the Church of England, not the entire Anglican Communion.

Pray tell, under what definition of "Anglican Communion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Communion#Provinces_of_the_Anglican_Communion

Note that the Church of England constitutes only one of these 38 provinces.

From your source (which is from the "Anglican Communion" web site)

Instruments of Communion
As mentioned above, the Anglican Communion has no international juridical organisation. The Archbishop of Canterbury's role is strictly symbolic and unifying; and the Communion's three international bodies are consultative and collaborative, their resolutions having no legal effect on the independent provinces of the Communion. Taken together, however, the four do function as "instruments of communion", since all churches of the communion participate in them. In order of antiquity, they are:
1. The Archbishop of Canterbury (ab origine) functions as the spiritual head of the Communion. He is the focus of unity, since no church claims membership in the Communion without being in communion with him. The present incumbent is Dr Rowan Williams.

2. The Lambeth Conference (first held in 1867) is the oldest international consultation. It is a forum for bishops of the Communion to reinforce unity and collegiality through manifesting the episcopate, to discuss matters of mutual concern, and to pass resolutions intended to act as guideposts. It is held roughly every ten years and invitation is by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

3. The Anglican Consultative Council (first met in 1971) was created by a 1968 Lambeth Conference resolution, and meets usually at three year intervals. The council consists of representative bishops, clergy, and laity chosen by the thirty-eight provinces. The body has a permanent secretariat, the Anglican Communion Office, of which the Archbishop of Canterbury is president.

4. The Primates' Meeting (first met in 1979) is the most recent manifestation of international consultation and deliberation, having been first convened by Archbishop Donald Coggan as a forum for "leisurely thought, prayer and deep consultation."

The Queen appoints 1., who calls 2., runs 3., and chairs 4.

Yet:

-1 does not actually have authority over 2, 3, or 4; they make their decisions by voting.

-The quote itself says: "The Archbishop of Canterbury's role is strictly symbolic and unifying".

-It also says: "and the Communion's three international bodies are consultative and collaborative, their resolutions having no legal effect on the independent provinces of the Communion".

Yet

 So the head of the Anglican Communion is not Her Majesty Elizabeth II.  

As far as the Anglicanism has a head, and can be called a communion, it's her majesty, the heir and successor spoken of in the Act with that "full power and authority."

You're just restating your own opinion. That proves nothing. It is more clear that the Anglican Communion actually has no head, though the particular province known as the Church of England itself does in the Queen of England.

Btw, have you read "Leviathan?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book)

No, why?

[ialmisry]

This is a real question... isn't the King/Queen of England the head of the Anglican church worldwide? Or has that changed?

No, the Queen of England is not the head of the Anglican Communion.  It is, indeed, like EO in that the various members are like the national jurisdictions and the Archbishop of Canterbury is the "First among equals".

So your little picture is not accurate nor true.  

With respect,

With regret

Albeit the king's Majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme head of the Church of England, and so is recognized by the clergy of this realm in their convocations, yet nevertheless, for corroboration and confirmation thereof, and for increase of virtue in Christ's religion within this realm of England, and to repress and extirpate all errors, heresies, and other enormities and abuses heretofore used in the same, be it enacted, by authority of this present Parliament, that the king, our sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall be taken, accepted, and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England, called Anglicans Ecclesia; and shall have and enjoy, annexed and united to the imperial crown of this realm, as well the title and style thereof, as all honors, dignities, preeminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities to the said dignity of the supreme head of the same Church belonging and appertaining; and that our said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, record, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offenses, contempts and enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any manner of spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed, repressed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained, or amended, most to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of virtue in Christ's religion, and for the conservation of the peace, unity, and tranquility of this realm; any usage, foreign land, foreign authority, prescription, or any other thing or things to the contrary hereof notwithstanding.

The Act of Supremacy
http://www.britainexpress.com/History/tudor/supremacy-henry-text.htm

That only applies to the Church of England, not the entire Anglican Communion.

Pray tell, under what definition of "Anglican Communion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Communion#Provinces_of_the_Anglican_Communion

Note that the Church of England constitutes only one of these 38 provinces.

From your source (which is from the "Anglican Communion" web site)

Instruments of Communion
As mentioned above, the Anglican Communion has no international juridical organisation. The Archbishop of Canterbury's role is strictly symbolic and unifying; and the Communion's three international bodies are consultative and collaborative, their resolutions having no legal effect on the independent provinces of the Communion. Taken together, however, the four do function as "instruments of communion", since all churches of the communion participate in them. In order of antiquity, they are:
1. The Archbishop of Canterbury (ab origine) functions as the spiritual head of the Communion. He is the focus of unity, since no church claims membership in the Communion without being in communion with him. The present incumbent is Dr Rowan Williams.

2. The Lambeth Conference (first held in 1867) is the oldest international consultation. It is a forum for bishops of the Communion to reinforce unity and collegiality through manifesting the episcopate, to discuss matters of mutual concern, and to pass resolutions intended to act as guideposts. It is held roughly every ten years and invitation is by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

3. The Anglican Consultative Council (first met in 1971) was created by a 1968 Lambeth Conference resolution, and meets usually at three year intervals. The council consists of representative bishops, clergy, and laity chosen by the thirty-eight provinces. The body has a permanent secretariat, the Anglican Communion Office, of which the Archbishop of Canterbury is president.

4. The Primates' Meeting (first met in 1979) is the most recent manifestation of international consultation and deliberation, having been first convened by Archbishop Donald Coggan as a forum for "leisurely thought, prayer and deep consultation."

The Queen appoints 1., who calls 2., runs 3., and chairs 4.

Yet:

-1 does not actually have authority over 2, 3, or 4; they make their decisions by voting.

-The quote itself says: "The Archbishop of Canterbury's role is strictly symbolic and unifying".

-It also says: "and the Communion's three international bodies are consultative and collaborative, their resolutions having no legal effect on the independent provinces of the Communion".

Yet

 So the head of the Anglican Communion is not Her Majesty Elizabeth II.  

As far as the Anglicanism has a head, and can be called a communion, it's her majesty, the heir and successor spoken of in the Act with that "full power and authority."

You're just restating your own opinion. That proves nothing.

It proves you are missing the point.

It is more clear that the Anglican Communion actually has no head,

Actually it has more a head than it does a communion. That's the point.

though the particular province known as the Church of England itself does in the Queen of England.

Upon which the existence of a "Anglican Communion" depends. It otherwise has no raison d'etre.  The Anglican "communion" ceased when Mary ascended the throne and when Cromwell otherthrew the throne: it came back into existence with the Restoration. The "Church of Ireland," the "Scottich Episcopal Church" and the "Church in Wales" all owe their existence to being united to the English Crown. Until 1784 anyone in communion with the King of England not in the British Isles was under the jurisdiction of the bishop of London.  No English Crown, no Anglican communion.

So the Queen has no authority.  Neither does the Archbishop of Centebury, the Book of Common Prayer (no longer held in common), the Bible, Apostolic Tradition etc.

Btw, have you read "Leviathan?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book)

No, why?

If you had, you'd know.

[Fabio Leite]

I have seen Pope Pius XII Encyclical of 1943

40. But we must not think that He rules only in a hidden[59] or extraordinary manner. On the contrary, our Divine Redeemer also governs His Mystical Body in a visible and normal way through His Vicar on earth. You know, Venerable Brethren, that after He had ruled the "little flock"[60] Himself during His mortal pilgrimage, Christ our Lord, when about to leave this world and return to the Father, entrusted to the Chief of the Apostles the visible government of the entire community He had founded. Since He was all wise He could not leave the body of the Church He had founded as a human society without a visible head. Nor against this may one argue that the primacy of jurisdiction established in the Church gives such a Mystical Body two heads. For Peter in virtue of his primacy is only Christ's Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisible, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through Church rested not on Him alone, but on Peter too, its visible foundation stone. That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter him who is His representative on earth. After His glorious Ascension into heaven this Unam Sanctam;[61] and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same.

41. They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.

And yet, St. Ignatius exhorts us to look upon the bishop as we would look upon Christ Himself.  (Epistle to the Ephesians, Chapter VI)

"You're like a father to me" and "You are my father" are two very different concepts. What St. Ignatius says, if you are quoting him correctly is to look at the bishop as we would look upon Christ. What Pius XII said was in the same line of the second sentence: "The Pope and Christ are one" and not "The Pope is like Christ". Even if he was stating the second, by attributing exclusively to the Pope what is common to all bishops, he would be in mistake.

Trying to avoid the "two-headed" figure above, which is the logical conclusion of the "visible-invisible heads" image, Pope Pius XII states an even greater blasphemy, that the Pope and Christ are one, that the Pope is Christ made visible:

Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head

That doesn't say that the Pope is Christ made visible.  Besides, don't we Orthodox understand the priest to be making Christ visibly present when he acts as liturgical minister of the sacramental mysteries?

Because they are like Christ and because the bread and wine actually become the flesh and blood of Christ. So yes, that bread and that wine are one with Christ, and not visible symbols of Him. What Pius XII is claiming for his chair is such a sacramental union, though he does it analytically and not synthetically.

Which would then explain why a RC priest once said that the Pope is also present in the host,

You're making this up, right?

No. It was told me by a convert priest. It is a radical statement, but a perferctly acceptable conclusion of the idea that the pope and Christ are just one head. If the Pope *is* the visible head of the Body of Christ how could he not be present in the Eucharist, or is it a headless Body of Christ?

which again, is a logical conclusion of such statement. So, according to RC eclesiology, either the Body of Christ has two heads, or the Pope and Christ are one.

Or else you're torturing Latin ecclesiology to make it fit your twisted polemics.  Like you, I don't agree with the Latin doctrine of the Church and its preaching of papal sovereignty, but I think you owe it to your opponent to make sure you understand him correctly so that your polemical arguments actually make cogent sense.  Right now you're just setting up a straw man so you can make it appear you're knocking something down.

Peter, I'm sorry, but I think you're the one who does not understand Latin doctrine. It is far worse than an exalted perspective of a Patriarch. Papism, in the strict sense, is what it is. Not all RCs are actuall worshippers of the Pope but in what they consciouslly or uncounsciouslly deviate from that, they deviate from the synthesis of Latin doctrine.

See, for example, the ex-cathedra myth. The Pope is infallible only he speaks dogmatically ex-cathedra. When required to define what ex-cathedra means and to give examples of ex-cathedra statements, ambiguity ensues and the number of such statements varies from source to source. This is point one.

Point two consists of the many callings to obedience even to the non-ex-cathedra statements for various reasons.

A natural consequence of these two points, and which is never stated, is that, after all you should obey the Pope and the Pope alone in everything as it were a proclamation of God Himself. He is not God, but should be treated as if he was because he is "one with Him".

Latin apologetics is filled with these incomplete sylogisms. They say "every man is mortal", they say "Socrates is a man", and when someone points "Socrates is mortal" they shout "we never said that!" but get very glad when someone acts according to the conclusion.

Now, 1) the Body of Christ has a visible (the Pope) and an invisible head (Christ);  2) because there cannot be two heads, these two heads are one, what is torturing logic is the claim that the statement that the Pope is Christ made visible is iconic like in Orthodox theology which, by no means follows from 1 and 2.  Sure thing, that the Pope not only is an icon of Christ but is blasphemously usurping the role of Holy Spirit as Spirit of Truth, source of the Sacraments and revealer of Christ cannot be ever openly said, for the expression of this linguistically would defuse the madness that RC is, just like in any psychoanalysis.

[Papist]

Which would then explain why a RC priest once said that the Pope is also present in the host, which again, is a logical conclusion of such statement. So, according to RC eclesiology, either the Body of Christ has two heads, or the Pope and Christ are one.

I am sorry but this is just stupid and you know it. If anyone declared that the pope was present in the host, you know that such a person would be declared an idolatrous heretic. You are reading your own prejudiced view into the teachings of the Catholic Church and are demonstrating that your views cannot be taken seriously.

[Fabio Leite]

Which would then explain why a RC priest once said that the Pope is also present in the host, which again, is a logical conclusion of such statement. So, according to RC eclesiology, either the Body of Christ has two heads, or the Pope and Christ are one.

I am sorry but this is just stupid and you know it. If anyone declared that the pope was present in the host, you know that such a person would be declared an idolatrous heretic. You are reading your own prejudiced view into the teachings of the Catholic Church and are demonstrating that your views cannot be taken seriously.

blahblahblah, "I don't like it, so it's all prejudice, I won't hear it."

The priest who said it wasn't. Plus since when logical syllogisms are "prejudices"?

1) The Pope is the visible head of the Church and Christ is the invisible head;
2) The Pope and Christ are one;

Which one follows?

3a) The relation of Pope and Christ is iconic as per Orthodox eclesiology for bishops, therefore "Pope and Christ are one" is just a figure of speech;

or

3b) The relation of the Pope and Christ is *more than* iconic and more intimate than that;

If 3a) and the Pope is just iconically Christ, so his sovereignity over the Church is also iconic, a symbol, "primus inter pares" and not substantial allowing actual government and intervation; that is the actual Orthodox Catholic eclesiology about the Primate.

If 3b) and the Pope is *more* iconic than the other bishops, if his relation is more intimate than the other bishops, than RC eclesiology would be right, for it would be *through* him that the others would have his legitimacy; *This* is the actual claim of RCs, that he is shepard of shepards, that he is the one who conveys legitimacy to sacraments. Now, is there something in between A is B and A represents B? Can something have more than close resemblance without being identity? Because if there were, "Pope and Christ are one" would still be a figure of speech pointing to this alternative. If there isn't, as I believe it is the case, then "Pope and Christ are one" is literall, which if it were true, would justify RC eclesiology and acts.

What is it? Which one follows from

1) H = C; (on heaven)
2) H = P; (on earth)

3) P = C (on earth)?

or

3) P = (an icon of) C?

[ialmisry]

Which would then explain why a RC priest once said that the Pope is also present in the host, which again, is a logical conclusion of such statement. So, according to RC eclesiology, either the Body of Christ has two heads, or the Pope and Christ are one.

I am sorry but this is just stupid and you know it. If anyone declared that the pope was present in the host, you know that such a person would be declared an idolatrous heretic. You are reading your own prejudiced view into the teachings of the Catholic Church and are demonstrating that your views cannot be taken seriously.

He is quoting someone whom your much vaunted magisterium put in a position to teach.  Evidently, we can't take your magisterium seriously.

"See, for example, the ex-cathedra myth. The Pope is infallible only he speaks dogmatically ex-cathedra. When required to define what ex-cathedra means and to give examples of ex-cathedra statements, ambiguity ensues and the number of such statements varies from source to source. This is point one.

Point two consists of the many callings to obedience even to the non-ex-cathedra statements for various reasons.

A natural consequence of these two points, and which is never stated, is that, after all you should obey the Pope and the Pope alone in everything as it were a proclamation of God Himself. He is not God, but should be treated as if he was because he is "one with Him".

Latin apologetics is filled with these incomplete sylogisms. They say "every man is mortal", they say "Socrates is a man", and when someone points "Socrates is mortal" they shout "we never said that!" but get very glad when someone acts according to the conclusion."

Fabio nailed it.

[Papist]

Which would then explain why a RC priest once said that the Pope is also present in the host, which again, is a logical conclusion of such statement. So, according to RC eclesiology, either the Body of Christ has two heads, or the Pope and Christ are one.

I am sorry but this is just stupid and you know it. If anyone declared that the pope was present in the host, you know that such a person would be declared an idolatrous heretic. You are reading your own prejudiced view into the teachings of the Catholic Church and are demonstrating that your views cannot be taken seriously.

He is quoting someone whom your much vaunted magisterium put in a position to teach.  Evidently, we can't take your magisterium seriously.

"See, for example, the ex-cathedra myth. The Pope is infallible only he speaks dogmatically ex-cathedra. When required to define what ex-cathedra means and to give examples of ex-cathedra statements, ambiguity ensues and the number of such statements varies from source to source. This is point one.

Point two consists of the many callings to obedience even to the non-ex-cathedra statements for various reasons.

A natural consequence of these two points, and which is never stated, is that, after all you should obey the Pope and the Pope alone in everything as it were a proclamation of God Himself. He is not God, but should be treated as if he was because he is "one with Him".

Latin apologetics is filled with these incomplete sylogisms. They say "every man is mortal", they say "Socrates is a man", and when someone points "Socrates is mortal" they shout "we never said that!" but get very glad when someone acts according to the conclusion."

Fabio nailed it.

And the problem is that you are joining him in your bias. Do you think "one with Jesus" means onotoligcally one? Of course not and you know it. You just want to score points in your attack against the Catholic Church.

[Papist]

Which would then explain why a RC priest once said that the Pope is also present in the host, which again, is a logical conclusion of such statement. So, according to RC eclesiology, either the Body of Christ has two heads, or the Pope and Christ are one.

I am sorry but this is just stupid and you know it. If anyone declared that the pope was present in the host, you know that such a person would be declared an idolatrous heretic. You are reading your own prejudiced view into the teachings of the Catholic Church and are demonstrating that your views cannot be taken seriously.

blahblahblah, "I don't like it, so it's all prejudice, I won't hear it."

The priest who said it wasn't. Plus since when logical syllogisms are "prejudices"?

1) The Pope is the visible head of the Church and Christ is the invisible head;
2) The Pope and Christ are one;

Which one follows?

3a) The relation of Pope and Christ is iconic as per Orthodox eclesiology for bishops, therefore "Pope and Christ are one" is just a figure of speech;

or

3b) The relation of the Pope and Christ is *more than* iconic and more intimate than that;

If 3a) and the Pope is just iconically Christ, so his sovereignity over the Church is also iconic, a symbol, "primus inter pares" and not substantial allowing actual government and intervation; that is the actual Orthodox Catholic eclesiology about the Primate.

If 3b) and the Pope is *more* iconic than the other bishops, if his relation is more intimate than the other bishops, than RC eclesiology would be right, for it would be *through* him that the others would have his legitimacy; *This* is the actual claim of RCs, that he is shepard of shepards, that he is the one who conveys legitimacy to sacraments. Now, is there something in between A is B and A represents B? Can something have more than close resemblance without being identity? Because if there were, "Pope and Christ are one" would still be a figure of speech pointing to this alternative. If there isn't, as I believe it is the case, then "Pope and Christ are one" is literall, which if it were true, would justify RC eclesiology and acts.

What is it? Which one follows from

1) H = C; (on heaven)
2) H = P; (on earth)

3) P = C (on earth)?

or

3) P = (an icon of) C?

There is a difference between being one with some one in that some one is in communion with another, as all Christians are united to Christ. The Pope is one with Christ in this sense, and also through his authority.

Then there is onotological oneness. As in the identity a=a. The Pope is not one with Christ in this sense.

The fact that you cannot see or that you refuse to see this is a clear demonstration of your deep seated and irrational prejudice against the Catholic Church. You are creating staw men for the sake of scoring points in your attack on the Catholic Faith. Unfortunatley Isa has joined you in this and I find it really disappointing.