No, I'm not. I'm sorry, but you're simply incorrect about that. I'm a historian by education and training, and I know my European history. Until the Council of Trent, the idea that there were only seven sacraments was one opinion and even at the Council of Trent, the idea face resistance. In particular, the French continued to insist until the abolition of their Monarchy, that the coronation of their King remained a separate sacrament and that was despite accepting the broad strokes of Trent.
Again, false. First, the Council of Trent influenced Anglican teaching and still does - even if only in opposition to it.
It is true that the Council of Trent did have some influence on Anglican teaching - but there is a difference between having some influence and it being in anyway binding or dogmatic on that Church.
The final form of the 39 Articles were only finalized in 1571
Correct. But the Act of Supremacy was in 1534, which was ten years prior to the beginning of the Council of Trent and it is from that moment onwards, that Catholic teachings had no binding relevance on Anglican teachings.
Thus, even Anglicanism officially denied that coronation was a sacrament
Not so. The list of five "Commonly called Sacraments" is not and was not intended to be exhaustive.
In a strict sense, it is the annointing with Holy Oil during the coronation ceremony that is the Sacrament. This is considered so special and holy that it is blocked from the view of those in the Abbey (and during the two filmed coronations of the twentieth century, cameras were also turned away from it.
Be thy Hands anointed with holy Oil.
Be thy Breast anointed with holy Oil.
Be thy Head anointed with holy Oil: as kings, priests, and prophets were anointed:
And as Solomon was anointed king by Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet, so be thou anointed, blessed, and consecrated Queen over the Peoples, whom the Lord thy God hath given thee to rule and govern, In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
The idea that this isn't a sacrament because it isn't included in a list of things "Commonly called sacraments" is rather absurd. It is extremely rare and available to one person, which is why it is not in a common list. But it is most definitely treated as a sacrament.
Note the specific word: and consecrated Queen.
Consecrated. Even in Catholicism, the word consecrated is treated as equivalent to ordained within the sacrament of Holy Orders. And that is the same context in which it is used within the Coronation.
The Queen did NOT DO what she was required to do as a Christian.
She upheld her Coronation Oath given to God, rather than break it, as you seem to think she should have. I'm not sure why you believe a Christian should forsake an Oath given to God - that would have accomplished nothing. It certainly would not have stopped the law taking affect.
She could simply have said no
Constitutionally, she could not.
Tell you what - when one of your Presidents stands up and outlaws abortion by Presidential Order, I'll start taking your moral outrage seriously. But they can't, can they? The constitution doesn't allow that.
Well, the British constitution does not allow the Queen to do what you want. It doesn't allow her to do what she wants.
No one was going to shoot Elizabeth.
The last time a King acted with such disdain for the constitution, he was, in fact, executed for high treason. Just for the record.
Even if she was torn away from the throne she would have still been a millionaire and a member of her family would still sit on the throne.
To me, this is where your argument really breaks down. This was 1967. If Her Majesty had abdicated, who would have become King?
It would have been her eighteen year old son, Charles, Prince of Wales. In fact, he hadn't even been formally invested as Prince of Wales yet (although he did hold the title). If you believe the Queen had some of duty to make a decision on this (which she didn't as I've said, but just allowing your argument for a moment) it would have been a profound cowardly act for a woman to lay that on a very young man who had barely finished school (he actually started university about the Bill passed Parliament.
The Queen abdicating would not have stopped the Bill. But the next four in line to the throne were a boy of 18 (the minimum age at which he could have taken the Crown without a Regency) and three actual children. Which one of them would you want to have signed it instead?
You keep failing at this. You clearly have no idea of what you’re talking about.
“Correct. But the Act of Supremacy was in 1534, which was ten years prior to the beginning of the Council of Trent and it is from that moment onwards, that Catholic teachings had no binding relevance on Anglican teachings.”
Marriage was already accepted by the UNIVERSAL CHURCH as a sacrament BEFORE that - INCLUDING IN ENGLAND. There were SEVEN sacraments in England BEFORE that. And coronation was not a sacrament. Full stop.
“Not so.”
Yes so.
“The list of five “Commonly called Sacraments” is not and was not intended to be exhaustive.”
In any case, no where in the official Anglican formative literature of the 16th century that you yourself brought up is coronation a sacrament. Anglicans held to two sacraments and neither one of those was coronation. You keep making these errors of fact and logic. If it wasn’t instituted by Christ, then it isn’t a sacrament - that’s part of the very definition of a sacrament. “Commonly called” is weasel words - just like Anglicanism is weasely on many subjects. Anglicans held to TWO sacraments and simply referred to the other five as “Commonly called”.
“Note the specific word: and consecrated Queen.”
It could say anything. Anglican churches are now marrying men to men and women to women. Are they actually married? No, of course not.
And the rest of what you post is a complete waste of time. Let’s recap:
You failed to show that marriage was not already held as a sacrament.
You failed to show that coronation was a sacrament held by the universal Church.
You failed to show that something done by a schismatic Protestant sect - which was persecuting the actual universal Church - is somehow normative and determinative.
You failed to show how Elizabeth II is a woman of deep faith yet could support the killing of innocent babies in the womb.
You failed in your attempt to use the Nuremberg defense of Elizabeth II and the fact that you used it at all shows exactly how morally bankrupt her actions and your defense of her really is.
You failed in your understanding of Trent, pre-Trent developments, the development of Anglican articles of faith, the Anglican understanding of sacraments and “Commonly called sacraments”.
You even failed in your understanding of sacraments. If it wasn’t instituted by Christ, then it’s not a sacrament.
Anglicanism was always a mess theologically - though quite attractive liturgically - and is dying as a result. The sooner it dies the better. People like you are ushering it into the grave by creating or propagating false theologies and indirectly defending indefensible sins like baby killing by insisting the constitution demands it. Christ didn’t die on the cross for that. No, instead, Christ died for the sinful things Elizabeth (and you and I) have done and yet you’re defending those sinful things and mocking Christ in the process.