the church of england has never crpwned a divorced King

Most from the rest of the world would not and always express great surprise

Remind me of how familiar most of us here on GN are with the 10 branches (if that’s the word) of Islam? The various denominations of Judaism? The three main branches of Buddhism - Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana ?
And they have the temerity to express surprise at varying degrees of churchmanship within the Anglican Communion.
Good grief!

Callistemon21

Lathyrus

Fleurpepper

Yes, you and a few probably can. Most from the rest of the world would not and always express great surprise.

No, no, Just that of course most of the rest of the world couldn’t tell the difference between C of E or RC liturgies. It’s not their religion.

It seemed a bit of a pointless observation to make

Well, I will agree.

Each version of Christianity differs.

However, the majority of people in the world claim to be Christian although of different variations.

That’s not quite right. Sorry. Christianity claims around 2,4 billion adherents out of a world population of over 7 billion.

It’s the largest religion but not the majority of people.

paddyann54

lathyrus are you saying ONLY the church of England should have a say on "Christian liturgy" .I've heard of and seen "english exceptionalism" at work but this remark takes it to a different level .Surelu christianity began outside of England and was bastardized by Henry the V111 for his own wants?
Roman Catholics are just as much christians and are the largest christian groups on earth thats not to say they are the only ones entitled to an opinion ...but then I'm not a christian so I'm not that bothered

Exactly- and so many other denominations. The Church of England was created under false premises for all the wrong reasons. Divorce was actually a minor one- greed much more important. Henry VIII could not bear that the Pope was above him in the pyramid- and by taking all the lands, Monastries, and riches of the Catholic Church could dish them about to his nobility to buy loyalty, as his claim to the Throne was quite weak in so many ways.

Yes, one of many Anglican Churches around the world, but the first one, without any shadow of doubt. Others followed in lands occupied by the British. And never a Protestant Church- and not recognised as such by all the Protestants around the world.

As paddyann, not a Christian, but the Power of the Anglican Church in the UK is far too strong and the official link should be severed asap, and religion return to being a private matter.

Lathyrus

Fleurpepper

Yes, you and a few probably can. Most from the rest of the world would not and always express great surprise.

No, no, Just that of course most of the rest of the world couldn’t tell the difference between C of E or RC liturgies. It’s not their religion.

It seemed a bit of a pointless observation to make

Well, I will agree.

Each version of Christianity differs.

However, the majority of people in the world claim to be Christian although of different variations.

Surelu christianity began outside of England and was bastardized by Henry the V111 for his own wants?

I did think it began with Christ but then, various RC Popes have changed the doctrine so many times to suit their own agenda.

Various religious leaders have done the same, including Martin Luther who removed books from his version of the Bible.

Fleurpepper

Yes, you and a few probably can. Most from the rest of the world would not and always express great surprise.

No, no, Just that of course most of the rest of the world couldn’t tell the difference between C of E or RC liturgies. It’s not their religion.

It seemed a bit of a pointless observation to make

Lathyrus

Most of the rest of the world?

What have they got to do with Christian liturgy?

Why drag them in?

I've being staying off this thread because I'm not interested in the topic, but good grief this made me laugh 🤣

paddyann 👏🏼

lathyrus are you saying ONLY the church of England should have a say on "Christian liturgy" .I've heard of and seen "english exceptionalism" at work but this remark takes it to a different level .Surelu christianity began outside of England and was bastardized by Henry the V111 for his own wants?
Roman Catholics are just as much christians and are the largest christian groups on earth thats not to say they are the only ones entitled to an opinion ...but then I'm not a christian so I'm not that bothered

A Broad Church

Septimia

Some Cof E churches are very High Church and almost Roman Catholic, others are very much inclined in the opposite direction with everything in between. I heard a fairly senior member of the clergy comment that there isn't one Church of England but a lot of churches grouped together.

That's right.
It's Broad Church in it's most literal sense.

Most of the rest of the world?

What have they got to do with Christian liturgy?

Why drag them in?

Callistemon21

No, I can tell the difference between a Roman Catholic service and a Church of England service.
The Church of England retains many customs and practices similar to those of the Catholic church but also embraced some ideas of the Protestant movement which was sweeping across Europe at the time.

The Church of Scotland veered further away, more towards Presbyterianism.

Confirmed into the Scottish Episcopal Church, too can tell the difference.
From what I could see attending mass with Paw who was a Catholic, RC services could also be very much “lower church” than some High Anglican services.

Yes, you and a few probably can. Most from the rest of the world would not and always express great surprise .

But I suppose I should defer to Fleurpepper’s superior knowledge as always.

High Anglicans, I'm one, are very much in step with Rome, just a few tweeks here and there to accommodate the marital complexities of Henry.V111th. Incense, holy water, candles, processions, statues, even three priests, bishops, you name it, it's a virtual copy of Rome, but on certain issues there differences. Henry V111th actual died a Catholic as did Charles 11nd.

Some Cof E churches are very High Church and almost Roman Catholic, others are very much inclined in the opposite direction with everything in between. I heard a fairly senior member of the clergy comment that there isn't one Church of England but a lot of churches grouped together.

Yes, you and a few probably can. Most from the rest of the world would not and always express great surprise.

No, I can tell the difference between a Roman Catholic service and a Church of England service.
The Church of England retains many customs and practices similar to those of the Catholic church but also embraced some ideas of the Protestant movement which was sweeping across Europe at the time.

The Church of Scotland veered further away, more towards Presbyterianism.

The CofE has always been strange, neither here, nor there. Any Protestant from any other area of the world (including Scotland) watching a ceremony or service at any High Church, be it at The Abbey or St Paul's, or King's in Cambridge, etc etc. - would think it was a Catholic Service, with all the signs present- bar the Pope
Apart from the fact that the Church of England is only one branch of the (worldwide) Anglican Communion, this is getting silly now.

Barmeyoldbat

I also remember Charles saying about never being head of the C OF E .

Yes, it was very clear. And as it cause a massive uproar, he had to fudge around and try and moderate what he said, somehow, as it would put his accession to the throne in jeopardy. But I truly think his meaning was quite clear.

The CofE has always been strange, neither here, nor there. Any Protestant from any other area of the world (including Scotland) watching a ceremony or service at any High Church, be it at The Abbey or St Paul's, or King's in Cambridge, etc etc. - would think it was a Catholic Service, with all the signs present- bar the Pope.

Why Coronation don’t need one other monarchies don’t. Charles want expensive costing £100 million. Thought he want to modernise Give it to the nurses instead they could use the money.

Abolish the monarchy a waste of space and money

So grandtanteJE65 a civil ceremony as a form of marriage between two baptised Christians is in the eyes of the Catholic church a valid legal marriage. Not both parties need to be baptised I was and Mr J was not and yet we were still married in a Catholic church because I was a practising Catholic at the time. No pressure was put on Mr J to become a Catholic or to be baptised in another Christian church. Our marriage was valid and legal in the eyes of the church and if it was not then we must have been living in sin for all these years!

Barmeyoldbat

I also remember Charles saying about never being head of the C OF E .

See my post of 10.11 today Barmeyoldbat for his exact words or if you want the link it’s
www.princeofwales.gov.uk/will-prince-wales-be-defender-faith-or-defender-faith

I don't think the Anglican Church will split over this coronation! The majority of people wouldn't care less or have much idea of the history of how the Anglican Church came into being anyway. No George 1Vth was not divorced from Caroline of Brunswick before he was crowned . He had tried to divorce her but she refused. He did however lock her out of the Abbey when she insisted on being included. He even tried to instigate an act of Parliament to secure a divorce, but that failed to go through. Caroline was very popular with the public and they perceived that she had been very badly treated. They were never divorced, Caroline died in 1821, much to her estranged husbands relief!

As the CofE is in rapid decline the effect of Charles becoming it's Head is pretty marginal. Hopefully we can dispense with loads of bishops sitting by right in the Lords.

So I thought that it would be interesting to see what the C of E said about divorced people joining the clergy. It's quite interesting, they are permitted to become vicars but only after the marriage has lasted 3 years. But one of the most important things to be considered when appointing a divorced person is the acceptance of the community. The church recognises that some communicants find divorce and divorced people unacceptable as clergy and says that church unity should be regarded as most important. So surely the problem is that Charles, as a divorced man marrying a divorced woman, whose husband is still alive, might split the church.

www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-10/Marriage%20after%20divorce%20and%20the%20ordained%20ministry.pdf

Lathyrus

Yammy

Anniebach

Charles did not marry Camilla in church as did Megan marry
Harry. Charles and Camilla had a civil marriage and a church blessing.

Camilla's first marriage to Andrew Parker Bowles was a Roman Catholic one and they have to be annulled by special dispensation which is why Charles did not marry her in church.
So if he Crowns her as his queen he is not married to a divorced woman but in the eyes of some Catholics a bigamist by Church law, though by Civil law she was divorced when she married Prince Charles.
A lot of legal work which I am sure theywill find a way round.

A divorced woman as Queen consort?

That’s nothing new. Eleanor of Aquitaine and Henry II. Queen Eleanor of England 1154AD.

Formerly wife of the King of France. The Catholic Church had no problem with that. Or Louis’ subsequent marriage either.

I have said this before, but shall say it again and go on saying it until all you people who do not belong to the Catholic church get it right!

A civil ceremony, if it is used as a form of marriage between two baptised Christians is in the eyes of the Catholic church a valid, legal marriage, so Charles and Camilla are legally married, as both were divorced prior to wedding each other.

If Camilla and Charles had wanted to be married in a Catholic church she would first have needed to obtain a Catholic ecclesiastical court's ruling that her previous marriage was for one or other of a fairly long list of reasons in Canon Law not valid, and therefore not a sacrament, in the eyes of the church. Charles as a widower would have needed no such ratification - the fact that he and his late wife had chosen not to remain married was of no account after her death.

But this is not the case, as far as I know with Charles and Camilla, so there cannot be any religious objection to them being crowned.

Actually, if there were, they could go right ahead and do the same as Napoleon I and Josephine - the pope refused to crown her, as she and Napoleon were married by a civil ceremony during the French Revolution.

Josephine broke down in tears, told the Pope that being married without the blessing of the Church had always worried her, and got her uncle, who most conveniently was a cardinal, no less, to marry her to Napoleon, whereupon the pope had no further objections to crowning her.

Please note, he did not object to crowning Napoleon who in his eyes was living in sin with a widow - only Josephine whom he regarded as Napoleon's mistress.

So, if objections are raised to Charles' and / or Camilla's coronation, they can and should find a parson to marry them, without further ado, and not make Henry VIII's mistake (if it was one) when he married Anne Boleyn and afterwards could neither find the officiating parson, a signed marriage register, nor the two witnesses required even in his day to the ceremony.

Matilda had been married and widowed before her marriage to William the Conqueror and no-one ever questioned her status as queen, Catherine of Aragon was regarded for years, as a virgin whose first husband died before they had consummated their marriage, athough the Papal dispensation that her careful father procured prior to her marriage to Henry, actually states that she was free to marry him, whether or not the former marriage had been consummated, Elizabeth was the widowed mother of sons before her marriage to Edward IV, so anyone who thinks that a queen to be crowned must have gone virgin to the king's bed is barking up the wrong tree!