Deacon wrote:That really isn't true about the 'absolute' authority of the pope within the church.
Witness Pope Francis' issues today. The Synod of bishops still hold a great deal of power in the catholic faith. It is a common view that the Pope is absolute, but actually isn't. That said, it is pretty close to absolute. Given that most royals of the period are claiming divine right, I'm not sure that I find the argument of separation of powers all that compelling. It feels modern to me.
Acknowledged Jason you weren't making that claim, just that _if_ you wanted to make the claim that the Anglicans hark back to an older church, you'd need some basis for that and I don't see any. That said, history does rather suggest that the Irish can make the claim of being the real crucible of European Christiandom. As you mention, I'm not sure how much of that was known in the early 1700s.
I get it though. The Pope and France are very popular whipping boys in Glory. People like to score points off them. Not so different today, really
Okay in the period who is the religious authority of the Holy Roman Empire and its Emperor ... the Pope. And true my nations Emperor is holding authority by the wishes of God however there is Biblical precedent for a separation of some power for example in the Hebrew Nation one tribe are the Priests and Prophets speak for God while the Kings tended to the secular duties. I can go on. He is not a radical its there is one state church with the clergy tending to matters of faith and the Emperor heading the matters of secular concern protected by God and guided by God since the Ark of the Covenant is theirs after long ago a miracle of God. (They have story covering this in their Bible.)