Prince Charles as religious leader?

[Spawn]

Chuck is a divorced man about to be married to a divorced woman.

As the heir to the throne of England and as such is in line to be the titular head of the Anglican church, does he have the moral authority to hold such a position?

[Wimsey]

While many Christians will debate divorce and remarriage, I think we would all agree that adultery is wrong, and that has been a big part of this relationship, from all sides.

That doesn't mean that such a sin is worse than any other; it just means that it needs to be repented of in order to be forgiven. Do we see any sign of faith and repentance there?

[Petunia]

I still haven't gotten over the suspicion that he may have had princess Di killed.

[Spawn]

I'm suspicious that his son might be the "you know what."

[Philip]

After killing Christians, did St Paul have the moral authority to be the Apostle to the Gentiles?

[Spawn]

After killing Christians, did St Paul have the moral authority to be the Apostle to the Gentiles?no - but after his conversion experience he did. :)

[Macrina]

I just read that Charles and Camilla are to formally repent of their sins during the blessing ceremony. How does that affect this discussion?

[Spawn]

I just read that Charles and Camilla are to formally repent of their sins during the blessing ceremony. How does that affect this discussion?

speaking words does not make a change of heart.

My issue is with a man who has a history of disreguarding the teachings of the church potentially leading that same church. I mean would you elect John Kerry pope??

[Letalis]

I just read that Charles and Camilla are to formally repent of their sins during the blessing ceremony. How does that affect this discussion?
Repenting of wrongdoing is one thing, leading an entire church is another. The man isn't fit to be a religious leader (IMO).

[Petunia]

The man isn't fit to be a religious leader (IMO).
Amen.

[Petunia]

...
http://members.aol.com/gapes4444/princecharles.gif

[PaladinValer]

Spawn, he is NOT going to be the head of my Anglican Church.

Please learn what Anglicans actually believe and teach before you assume next time and post falsehoods about us.

[katherine2001]

Repenting of wrongdoing is one thing, leading an entire church is another. The man isn't fit to be a religious leader (IMO).

Someone else brought up the matter of Paul. Paul participated in the murder/martyrdom of the first deacon in the Church, Stephen. Paul was one of the main leaders of the Early Church. By this reasoning, this should never have been. God can't change people?

[Spawn]

Spawn, he is NOT going to be the head of my Anglican Church.

Please learn what Anglicans actually believe and teach before you assume next time and post falsehoods about us.The monarch of England is the titular head of the anglican church. I know what you teach and what you believe - and I have NOT posted anything false. :P

[Spawn]

Someone else brought up the matter of Paul. Paul participated in the murder/martyrdom of the first deacon in the Church, Stephen. Paul was one of the main leaders of the Early Church. By this reasoning, this should never have been. God can't change people?how long after his conversion did Paul languish before he was allowed to act? Why?

[PaladinValer]

Spawn, oh how wrong you are...

[gitlance]

The English monarch is not the "titular head" of the Church. She/He is the "supreme governor" and the "defender of the faith" of the Church, but not the head. Our Church is run by Bishops in Apostolic Succession, not by the monarch of England. We have no papal figure. Our only supreme head of the Church is Jesus Christ.

You are incorrect to call the monarch the "titular head".

[Father Rick]

The English monarch is not the "titular head" of the Church. She/He is the "supreme governor" and the "defender of the faith" of the Church, but not the head. Our Church is run by Bishops in Apostolic Succession, not by the monarch of England. We have no papal figure. Our only supreme head of the Church is Jesus Christ.

You are incorrect to call the monarch the "titular head".To add to this...

The English Monarch is ONLY the 'supreme governor' of the Church of England.

The Church of England is only one branch of the Anglican Communion. The Anglican communion is made up of many different churches (or communions) from around the world. There are also branches of the Anglican Church that are not part of the formal Anglican Communion for various reasons.

Then there are also entire Communions/churches, such as the Utrecht Union of Old Catholic Churches, that are completely separate and parallel to the Anglican Communion, yet are in full communion with the Anglican Communion and frequently worship together--sometimes even sharing the same facilities/altars.

Unfortunately, it appears that you really misunderstand the entire structure of the Anglican Churches.

[PaladinValer]

The monarch hasn't been the "tetular head" since Queen Elizabeth I, who abolished the idea.

[Petunia]

After killing Christians, did St Paul have the moral authority to be the Apostle to the Gentiles?
Paul was wrong in what he did.. but he thought he was doing it for God! He was fighting for the tradition and Laws of ancient Judaism.. and thought that Christianity was a threat to those laws and teachings. He thought he was putting a stop to heresy! He found out later that the God he was fighting for and the God of the Christians were one and the same.

Prince Charles can't be compared to Paul. The man was an adulterer. Someone Paul probably would have had put to death by reason of the ancient Jewish laws. Paul always had his heart set on God and His laws. Prince charles has had his heart set on Camilla. :D

But you're right.. there is forgiveness. And he isn't the only leader who has done such things.

[Macrina]

Thanks to the Anglicans who shared about your church's polity and the relationship of the Crown to the Church. That helps me understand things better.

So, from the perspective of those of you who belong to the Church of England -- do you believe that Prince Charles is suited to take on that role?

edit: By "that role," I mean not the titular head but the defender of the faith role that he would have as king.

[gitlance]

Thanks to the Anglicans who shared about your church's polity and the relationship of the Crown to the Church. That helps me understand things better.

So, from the perspective of those of you who belong to the Church of England -- do you believe that Prince Charles is suited to take on that role?

edit: By "that role," I mean not the titular head but the defender of the faith role that he would have as king.

Well, while I am a part of the Anglican Communion, I do not reside in England, so I am not part of the Church of England. However, I personally don't know that I care for Prince Charles all that much. Then again, it isn't up to me to judge.

[Inge87]

There really hasn't been an English monarch truly involved in the affairs of the church since the Tudors and Stuarts. The defender of faith role is all but gone.

[PaladinValer]

Mainly ceremonial title...agreed.

Still, it'd be nice if he'd truly repent to actually be fit for said title.

[benedictine]

agreed.

[Spawn]

The English monarch is not the "titular head" of the Church. She/He is the "supreme governor" and the "defender of the faith" of the Church, but not the head. Our Church is run by Bishops in Apostolic Succession, not by the monarch of England. We have no papal figure. Our only supreme head of the Church is Jesus Christ.

You are incorrect to call the monarch the "titular head".

http://aacblog.classicalanglican.net/archives/000250.html

http://www.centreforcitizenship.org/church1.html

http://www.centreforcitizenship.org/monarchy/mon6.html

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/United_Kingdom

[MsAnne]

I certainly have no authority to say who is "morally suited" to hold any office. I just can't picture Charles being the leader of anything right now.

[PaladinValer]

Spawn, give it a break. You've been caught and now its time to drop it.

Otherwise, I'd like this thread to be moved to the STR forum, as it deals with a primarily Anglican aspect.

[Spawn]

actually, it's a current events thing with Chuckie getting married.

Besides, if you move it over there you silence all debate. Do you really want to do that?

[Spawn]

BTW - caught in nothing - I offered an anglican source, an encylopedia source and a history source. ALL three label the British monarch as the titular head of the anglican church. NOT the anglican communion, but the anglican church.

[MichaelFJF]

He and Camilla could be the leaders of "famous dog-face couples."

[PaladinValer]

Dude, I'm sorry, but you've gone too far.

1. Anglican Church=Anglican Communion. Same difference.
2. The Act of Supremecy was DROPPED BY ELIZABETH I. No Act=No tetular head, PERIOD.

I will NOT sit here and let you spread false information about MY church.

[CSMR]

Repenting of wrongdoing is one thing, leading an entire church is another. The man isn't fit to be a religious leader (IMO).
Charles if he becomes King, barring a change in the relation between church and state, will be Supreme Governor of the Church of England. To say however that he will lead the church is not accurate; just as it would be to say that he will rule the country. That is not to say there is no question of whether he is fit to be king, or to hold the titles of Governor of the Church and Fidei Defensor (he suggested he would want instead to be defender of faiths instead, shocking!).

[Petunia]

He and Camilla could be the leaders of "famous dog-face couples."

Love is blind!
http://members.aol.com/gapes4444/loveisblind.jpg

[LiberatedChick]

BTW - caught in nothing - I offered an anglican source, an encylopedia source and a history source. ALL three label the British monarch as the titular head of the anglican church. NOT the anglican communion, but the anglican church.

You want to quote links...then why don't you use an official one. This is a link to the Queens role in the Church of England on the official royal website.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page434.asp

As you can see it states that Henry the VIII broke away from Rome and declared himself the Supreme Head of the Church of England. However, it then goes on to state that the monarch is now described as the Supreme Governor and the Defender of Faith. They are no longer called the Head.

Also the monarch here is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, any authority they have within the Church of England doesn't exist in any other country. The Church of England is Anglican but the fact the monarch is Supreme Governor of the Church of England doesn't mean they are Supreme Governor of the entire Anglican Church.

[babbred]

Look, folks, I don't know what all this fuss is about, parsing words and all. I do know one thing, though. I live in England, and when the wedding was announced, there was HUGE controversy here. One of the arguments against the marriage was that Charles "wasn't fit to be head of the Anglican Church." The debate was played out in the media here.


Now I'm not sure I understand all this about "defender" and "head" and what not, but I can tell you that most people in Britain think that he's the leader. In fact, I literally just turned around and asked my British husband, "Don't the Royal Family have something to do with the Anglican Church?" His EXACT quote was, "Yes, they're head of the church." So whatever Charles' technical role is, people see him as the head. The question I would ask, then, is Charles setting a good example for his people? Will they think worse of the church when they see him become king?

Both my husband and I have mixed feelings about the situation, so I don't think I can vote.

[Strong in Him]

I voted not sure, although maybe I shouldn't have voted at all. I voted as I did mainly on the grounds that I do not feel I have the right to say whether he is fit for something or not.

It's true there was great unease when he announced his wedding to Camilla, and some people haven't forgiven how he treated Diana. It's true also that he gave an interview many years ago in which he said he would rather be known as defender of faiths, rather than defender of the faith.
But he has married Camilla, and which of us knows his heart and can say for a fact that publicly repenting of his sin has had no effect on him? Also, he is not yet king. When or if he does become so, it will be up to him to decide if he can really say, and mean, the words 'defender of the faith'. If he were to refuse to do so, I'm not sure what would happen - maybe the church would become disestablished? I'm not too sure about this though. I was an anglican for many years, but am now a member of the Methodist church, (another reason why I may have no right to comment.)

[PaladinValer]

If that was Charles' actual words, then he needs to go back to Sunday school...

He will not be head of the church.

[cygnusx1]

I don't think Charles will get too many votes , his history and his "faith" is blighted , better to have William , even then it is going to be very difficult .... perhaps The Monarchy has had it's day , I hope not.:(

[Spawn]

You want to quote links...then why don't you use an official one. This is a link to the Queens role in the Church of England on the official royal website.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page434.asp

As you can see it states that Henry the VIII broke away from Rome and declared himself the Supreme Head of the Church of England. However, it then goes on to state that the monarch is now described as the Supreme Governor and the Defender of Faith. They are no longer called the Head.

Also the monarch here is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, any authority they have within the Church of England doesn't exist in any other country. The Church of England is Anglican but the fact the monarch is Supreme Governor of the Church of England doesn't mean they are Supreme Governor of the entire Anglican Church.

Is there an entire Anglican Church or is there a fellowship of different Anglican churches? If you guys view the Anglican communion as a single church - okay, but I would not describe it that way as an American - I would not even describe the Episcopal Church as a single church.

If I was in error in referring to the Church of England as the Anglican Church - which to me they say the same thing just different ways, I apologize. I know that Charles would not be head of the Anglican Communion, but he will be head of the Church of England albeit a titular and not an ACTUAL head.

[gitlance]

Is there an entire Anglican Church or is there a fellowship of different Anglican churches? If you guys view the Anglican communion as a single church - okay, but I would not describe it that way as an American - I would not even describe the Episcopal Church as a single church.

If I was in error in referring to the Church of England as the Anglican Church - which to me they say the same thing just different ways, I apologize. I know that Charles would not be head of the Anglican Communion, but he will be head of the Church of England albeit a titular and not an ACTUAL head.

There is ONE Anglican Church. The Anglican Church is a communion of national provinces, unified by bishops, primates, and our first-among-equals: the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The Church of England is one province within the Anglican Church. The Episcopal Church in USA is another province within the worldwide Anglican Church. We are all unifed together in our formal ties to the See of Canterbury. The English monarch is NOT our head.

[Spawn]

There is ONE Anglican Church. The Anglican Church is a communion of national provinces, unified by bishops, primates, and our first-among-equals: the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The Church of England is one province within the Anglican Church. The Episcopal Church in USA is another province within the worldwide Anglican Church. We are all unifed together in our formal ties to the See of Canterbury. The English monarch is NOT our head.

If the Anglican church is so united, why the problems with the Episcopal church and the Anglican church in Canada over homosexuality? There is talk of Schism in the Eposcopal church - I know because Pittsburgh is one of the diocese who is most vocally opposed to that guy in NH.

The monarch of Britain is still the titular head of the church of England - who happens to have the power and authority to appoint the Archbishop of Canterbury.

[gitlance]

Do you usually tell other people what they believe?

[PaladinValer]

Is there an entire Anglican Church or is there a fellowship of different Anglican churches? If you guys view the Anglican communion as a single church - okay, but I would not describe it that way as an American - I would not even describe the Episcopal Church as a single church.

That may be your opinion, but it is incorrect.

The Anglican Church, usually called the Anglican Communion, is the worldwide body of all Anglican provinces united together through the Archbishop of Canterbury, primate of the Province of the Church of England and first-among-equals in the Anglican Church.

The ECUSA is the official province of the Anglican Communion in the US. Our primate is ++Griswold.

If I was in error in referring to the Church of England as the Anglican Church - which to me they say the same thing just different ways, I apologize. I know that Charles would not be head of the Anglican Communion, but he will be head of the Church of England albeit a titular and not an ACTUAL head.

The true spiritual head of the Church of England is the Archbishop of Canterbury, +++Rowan Williams.

If the Anglican church is so united, why the problems with the Episcopal church and the Anglican church in Canada over homosexuality?

The Anglican Communion is run autocephalously, just like how the Eastern Orthodox Church is. Each province is self-run, with its own canons and constitutions, though all agree for the most part in the Lambeth canons as well.

There is talk of Schism in the Eposcopal church - I know because Pittsburgh is one of the diocese who is most vocally opposed to that guy in NH.

Having talked with the bishop of my diocese, I have heard, from the "horse's mouth" as if it were, that the vast majority of the diocean bishops, including primate Griswold, are united in discussion, healing, and dialogue. The vast majority of the diocean bishops signed the Covenant Statement on March 15th.

The threat of schism is largely overemblished by hungry newsources and by a few arch-conservatives who wish to have no discussion or dialogue.

The monarch of Britain is still the titular head of the church of England - who happens to have the power and authority to appoint the Archbishop of Canterbury.

1. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the leader of the Church of England. Because of Elizabeth I's action of nullifying the Act of Supremecy, the English monarch hasn't been the "head" of the Church of English since her reign.

2. The practice of enthrowning the new archbishop is ceremonial-only. The real power resides in the college that elects him.

[CSMR]

Some college puts forward two choices to the Prime Minister, who recommends one to the Queen. He can reject both candidates; I don't know if that has ever happened. Or something like that.

[Simon_Templar]

I read a news article on the web a few weeks ago which basicly stated that Charles was either on the verge, or had already converted to Orthodox Christianity, and had made several pilgrimages to one of the oldest orthodox monasteries.. I can't remember the name now.

[CSMR]

Yes I had remembered correctly:
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/office/appointmentprocedures.html

[pmcleanj]

http://www1.christianforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=31232&stc=1This is an official moderator post.

This thread has been moved in from another forum. The preceding posts therefore did not come under Anglican forum rules, and the posters in those preceding posts have become guests in this forum involuntarily. Please extend to them all the courtesy due to guests, and avoid contentious responses to their previous posts.

Now that this thread is in our forum, however, all posts subsequent to this one must conform to Anglican forum rules: http://www.christianforums.com/t713425-scripturetraditionreason-anglican-forum-rules.html

[Fish and Bread]

I'd be in favor of disestablishing the Church of England. No nation's government should have a say in electing the leaders of a religion. Quite frankly, as an Episcopalian, I find the selection process for determining who the Archbishop of Canterbury is to be an embarassment. That is not to say anything against the present ABC, Prime Minister of the UK, the Queen, or Prince Charles -- I just think the process of selection itself is flawed.

John

[TomUK]

That is not to say anything against the present ABC, Prime Minister of the UK, the Queen, or Prince Charles -- I just think the process of selection itself is flawed.

How so? Admittedly it is totally to any form of 'election' you have in America but i think the system works very well. If Michael Howard were to be elected this election (fingers crossed! ;) ) then that opens up a different debate, but currently i like how things are.

In regards to disestablishing the Church of England, what is it exactly that you mean as i think there are many different ways of understanding your comment.

Send her victorious, happy and glorious. Long to reign over us; God save the Queen!

[Oblio]

I read a news article on the web a few weeks ago which basicly stated that Charles was either on the verge, or had already converted to Orthodox Christianity, and had made several pilgrimages to one of the oldest orthodox monasteries.. I can't remember the name now.

M. Vatopedi (http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/Athos/Monastery/vatopedi.html)

[julian the apostate]

his dad is greek orthodox,, btw

[murron]

There is ONE Anglican Church. The Anglican Church is a communion of national provinces, unified by bishops, primates, and our first-among-equals: the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The Church of England is one province within the Anglican Church. The Episcopal Church in USA is another province within the worldwide Anglican Church. We are all unifed together in our formal ties to the See of Canterbury. The English monarch is NOT our head.
I certainly don't want to hijack the thread, but I feel I must point out that there is more than one Anglican church. Not all Anglican churches are provinces under Canterbury. Some are independent communions with completely different leadership than that of Canterbury.

[Fish and Bread]

How so? Admittedly it is totally to any form of 'election' you have in America but i think the system works very well. If Michael Howard were to be elected this election (fingers crossed! ;) ) then that opens up a different debate, but currently i like how things are.

One thing that I think I should establish from the onset is that the United States was established with seperation of church and state as one it's foremost principle, a principle which hasn't historically been nearly so important in the United Kingdom. So, admittedly, I have a cultural bias that no doubt plays into my thinking.

That said, I think there are many solid logical reasons why civil authority should be not charged with selecting religious authorities. The first and most obvious is that civil authorities are rarely experts on religion. A country may happen to have a leader with a side interest in religion who "knows his (or her) stuff", but that is not typically their foremost field of interest or inquiry. Some civil leaders may not even really have a particular interest in religion. This could lead to an ineptly chosen religious authority.

It's also possible that one day someone openly hostile to religion may become the Prime Minister of King/Queen of England given the increased trend towards secularization in western Europe. A monarch or elected official is responsible to his or her constituants who may or not be religious or of the partial variety of religion as that leader represents. Under this scenario, someone could even hypothetically deliberately put in place someone incompetant or who does not share the religious views of his church as Archbishop of Canterbury.

Thirdly, it is important to note that the question isn't simply why we shouldn't have government officials play a role in selecting church leadership, but why we should. What advantage is there to it relative to other selection methods? I would say none. The entire system of the monarch approving the selection is predicted on an outdated theology of the divine right of Kings that hasn't been in vogue since the middle ages, even amongst the monarchs themselves at times, and the idea of the Prime Minister playing a role is predicated on the idea that he will be the representative of a country made up primarily of active members of the Church of England, which is not statistically the case. Essentially, the system is a man elected predominently by non-Church of England members, who doesn't necessarily have any formal religious training, selecting the leader of the Church of England! Then that choice is approved by a monarch who is in place because she is distantly related to someone who many centuries ago was able to raise a strong army and seize power. What logical sense does that make? It's something that made sense centuries ago, but history has made the system illogical and obselete for present day use.

To me a much more logical system would be to have the either the British House of Bishops vote on the ABC, the people of the diocese of Canterbury, the people of the Church of England, the Lambeth Conference, the Primates Meeting, or some combination therefore. It makes sense that in some respect the people who make up the church should have control over who it's leader is or at least the episcophate, which clearly has some manner of expertise and interest in church affairs. :-)

I would say this becomes especially more important as the idea of the ABC taking a more active role outside of the UK is discussed -- he must be considered to have the proper moral authority to do so, and that will be questioned as long as he is selected in the manner that he is. He'll also have to become more representative of the entire communion if any power is to be ceded to him internationally. Honestly, my preference would be to have the ABC selected by the Lambeth Conference if I were to be allowed to determine the issue.

In regards to disestablishing the Church of England, what is it exactly that you mean as i think there are many different ways of understanding your comment.

I would favor abolishing any formal authority in choosing leadership or governing church affairs of the Church of England by the United Kingdom's civil leadership that supercedes the level of authority they ultilize in dealing with other religions within their borders. I have no problem with the Church of England being the official religion of England, public funding of the CoE, or even the Queen participating in some church ceromonies in a purely ceromonial way, though.

John

[Spawn]

One thing that I think I should establish from the onset is that the United States was established with seperation of church and state as one it's foremost principle

Completely untrue. America was founded with the idea that freedom of religion should be the rule and that the church should be protected from state control and interference.

[gitlance]

Completely untrue. America was founded with the idea that freedom of religion should be the rule and that the church should be protected from state control and interference.

And what you just said is the definition of separation of Church and State.

[Spawn]

And what you just said is the definition of separation of Church and State. Since when? Separation of church and state is to keep the church out of government. . . um hum . . . yup. those eveil Christians should not be allowed to say under God.

[gitlance]

Since when? Separation of church and state is to keep the church out of government. . . um hum . . . yup. those eveil Christians should not be allowed to say under God.

Yes, to keep the CHURCH out of government. That does not mean, however, that CHRISTIANS cannot be in government. ;)

[PaladinValer]

Spawn,

1. I do hope, firstly, that you understand your error in your opinions about our church.
2. The Constitution is interpreted as to keep government out of religion and religion out of government in the form of influencing government operation. That means no teaching what religion is right or wrong in public schools, no official religion, and no 10 Commandments without other religious and/or secular codes together in places of government/state control or property.

To all, can we please get back to the subject? ;)

Fish and Bread, I would agree that the disestablishment of the Anglican Communion with the state in England should be done. With all due respect to my English Anglican friends here, I believe it to be outdated and reletatively useless. If I remember correctly, +++Rowan Williams himself is a strong proponent of said separation, as it would allow, I believe, a closer connectiveness between the provinces.

[Cozmo]

Closed per OP request.