Not to Be Served , but to Serve.

I assume the fact that both their Majesties took Holy Communion during the Coronation Service means that their sins are forgiven in the eyes of the Church and God.
LAMB of God, that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us.
O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us.
O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world, grant us thy peace.

It may be hard to see Glorianny but that doesn't mean there hasn't been reparation and penance.

God knows what's in Charles' heart and as far as his faith, reparation and penance are concerned, it's God that he'll be ultimately answerable too, not us.

Reparation and penance have no place in the modern CofE (those concepts belong to earlier centuries) but repentance does. Charles has a private chaplain and I have no doubt, from what I have seen of him and heard him say, that he has repented. You seem to want to condemn him to eternal damnation. There is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents …

Excellent post NanaDana

Glorianny

Oh I believe in forgiveness (as long as it’s on my terms).
There is no limit on God’s forgiveness. If you want to be stingier than that, and hold a grudge against someone who hasn’t harmed you, so be it.

I understand the concept of forgiveness of sins NanaDana and if some things are regarded as sins I can see that position makes no difference as far as God is concerned. But the factors involved in forgiveness surely involve reparation, and an act of penance. It's hard to see what Charles' penance is, or what reparation he has made.
There is also the fact that others in the church who have roles far inferior to his will find themselves unable to maintain that position, if they commit a similar sin. Which may well suit God but seems rather unfair.
I really don't care what C&C get up to in their lives. It just seems to me that another nail has been driven into the whole concept of the Church of England, by someone who should have known better, possibly because he is just so used to getting his own way.

Yes, excellent post NanaDana.

Excellent post NanaDana.

Glorianny, Sorry, but it's not as though you just keep moving the goalposts, you've actually got them on the back of a flatbed truck which you're driving non-stop around the touchline. You appear to be struggling with understanding how religion addresses the reality of the essential fallibility of humankind. The concept of sin is central to every religion on Earth. Where Christianity is concerned, the New Testament accepts the Judaic interpretation that sin is the breaking of God's commandments, but goes on to explain that although humankind is both individually and collectively sinful, Jesus came into the world to bring healing to that condition and to promote the possibility of redemption and forgiveness. There was no "silver bullet" cure, and sinfulness remains, which is why the central Christian message of "forgiveness" is so significant. You are also clearly under the misapprehension, perhaps because of your fixation about hierarchy, that there is some sliding scale of sinfulness, whereby the sins of those with power outweigh the identical sins of those without it. Wrong again. As a lapsed, but very well schooled Catholic, I can tell you that the stain on the soul which a specific sin produces is the same for both Prince and Pauper. So I repeat, what Charles has or has not done in the past most certainly does not disbar him from being considered as being "deeply religious", not when the central tenet of "Christian forgiveness" is applied to the equation. You may choose not to believe that, but that makes the tenet no less true within a truly Christian context. I'll leave it at that, as I suspect that further discussion may be rather pointless.

I think you’d have got on well with Oliver Cromwell Glorianny.
Repent your sins and go your separate ways no matter how great your love for one another.

Oh I believe in forgiveness but I believe the teaching of the church is that a sin has not only to be repented, but you have to stop doing it.
Arguably both Charles and Camilla have continued a relationship which not only caused both their marriages to fail, but which caused a public outcry, and damaged their family and other people. The sole reason for that being that they wanted to be together. Which is where personal demands over rules the church . Which may be perfectly fine for an ordinary member of the congregation (although it could be argued that even from them some self-sacrifice is required) but not for someone who is head of a church.

As for my personal beliefs I'm more inclined to karma, but I really don't see what that has to do with this case.

No GSM you’re not.
Now Glorianny, since you’re so keen on the teachings of the Christian church, or even if you’re not, do you believe in forgiveness or do you always hold a grudge?

Glorianny

Anniebach

Christians don’t take the moral high ground.

But the Christian church has rules doesn't it? Are its members (and perhaps its head) not expected to abide by those rules?

To err is human, to forgive divine.

I agree Greenfinch.

Good post NanaDana

^I find the way morality is sometimes stretched, to meet the demands of the individual, by those who profess to be religious quite

Understandable.

Some rather pointless and specious argument here, suggesting that you can't be "deeply religious" if you have sinned. Wrong. In fact a very good friend of mine who was an Army Chaplain once reminded me that "we are all flawed", and he made a point of including himself in that assessment. Christians may strive to follow the teachings of Christ, but often fall short because of innate human failings. In the Catholic and the High Anglican churches, that fallibility is recognised through the availability of the sacrament of confession. Bottom line is that I personally have no problem with Charles being described as "deeply religious". He's also a human being. I say all this as an Agnostic.

We know why they couldn’t get married in church. How has morality been stretched to meet anyone’s demands? Do you find it amusing that although a Christian, after almost a quarter of a century of an abusive marriage before my husband left, I was divorced and eventually remarried in a civil ceremony? Is that stretching morality? Am I stretching morality when I say I am pleased that the king and queen seem to be very happy together and I am pleased that they were able to marry?

Anniebach

Christians don’t take the moral high ground.

But the Christian church has rules doesn't it? Are its members (and perhaps its head) not expected to abide by those rules?

Christians don’t take the moral high ground.

The discussion was about Charles' position as head of church and remarriage in the church GSM. Personally I couldn't give a flying F what they do.
Just explaining why they couldn't get married in church.

I find the way morality is sometimes stretched, to meet the demands of the individual, by those who profess to be religious quite amusing.

Probably, yes. What’s your problem? Would you prefer them to be ‘living in sin’?

Callistemon21

^The advice given to the clergy about remarriage would probably rule Charles and Camilla out^

Do you have a link to that advice, please? Does the general public have knowledge of it or was it private?
Probably is very vague and could mean anything at all.

It could just mean "I think that"

Here's the link www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-10/marriage%20in%20church%20after%20divorce.pdf
Passed by the General synod in 2002. So applicable when C&C married. And probably why they had a civil ceremony,

Probably is very vague and could mean anything at all.

It could just mean "I think that"

🤣🤣🤣 It probably does.

The advice given to the clergy about remarriage would probably rule Charles and Camilla out

Do you have a link to that advice, please? Does the general public have knowledge of it or was it private?
Probably is very vague and could mean anything at all.

It could just mean "I think that"

Whoops Glorianny

Their marriage was blessed in church