Not to Be Served , but to Serve.

apologies for getting your name wrong holcombemummy.

Where are the double standards holcombemoney? If the Pope had agreed to annul Henry's marriage to Kathryn, he wouldn't have had to divorce her and wouldn't have broken with Rome and established the Church of England.

I have already posted that the C of E will marry divorcees whose former spouse still lives and that is more common than it used to be.

As you say Callistemon the coronation wasn't a private occasion, it was a state one.

knspol

Coming from someone, who we're told, has someone put the toothpaste on his toothbrush, it counts for very little.
We can only hope.

Oh, not that old chestnut. 😂

Have you ever had a broken arm, a dislocated shoulder or similar injury?

If so you'd know just how difficult some tasks can be.

If I were King or Queen I'd have a weekly audience with my elected Prime Minister which is what the Head of a Constitutional Democracy does.

Coming from someone, who we're told, has someone put the toothpaste on his toothbrush, it counts for very little.
We can only hope.

If i were king/queen, i would look how i can serve the country and invest in them, not waste money on unnecessary pompous ceremonies

Glenco

Just putting my two pennyworth in.
Why did Charles not at least contribute to the cost of his Coronation, since he has so much wealth? What happens to all the Royal wealth since it appears never to be used?
As Charles is presumably now head of the Church of England, how will he uphold the late Queen's belief that divorce is not allowed since he is divorced or was that just the Queen's idea? I never understood how it could be the rules of the C of E anyway, since the C of E was only formed so that Henry V111 could get divorced. Please enlighten me if possible.

Why did Charles not at least contribute to the cost of his Coronation, since he has so much wealth?

Because this was a State, not a private occasion.

I don't understand why people cannot tell the difference between the two 🤔

Hithere

Isn't nhs on a crisis? Less money on education?
Meanwhile, there is a coronation - those funds have much better purposes

It doesn't have to be one or the other.

There would be funds for all, if politics allowed.

holcombemummy60

I still fail to see how someone who is divorced can become the head of the Church of England talk about double standards c of E won’t marry divorced couples even if they are the innocent party but will charge you a fortune for a blessing. Really and yes Diane did break her vows in the end but as she put it there was always 3 of us in this marriage . I think that says it all. He used her as a brood mare for heirs as Camilla wasn’t going to provide that for him. I will never forgive that woman or man . Yes I have been cheated on and hoodwinked so prehaps more bitter than some

The Church of England has allowed divorced people to marry in church for over 20 years.

There is no fee to attend confession,

grandtanteJE65
Thanks for your post. Very helpful to me.

Anniebach

If you think you know the answer why ask the question

Anniebach I've just said, to see what other Christians think/believe.

Fortunately they don’t need your forgiveness.

I still fail to see how someone who is divorced can become the head of the Church of England talk about double standards c of E won’t marry divorced couples even if they are the innocent party but will charge you a fortune for a blessing. Really and yes Diane did break her vows in the end but as she put it there was always 3 of us in this marriage . I think that says it all. He used her as a brood mare for heirs as Camilla wasn’t going to provide that for him. I will never forgive that woman or man . Yes I have been cheated on and hoodwinked so prehaps more bitter than some

Glorianny

I've never understood how deeply religious people can pick and choose which bits of the religion suit them and ignore any that don't.
So a couple of examples - an inability to keep the vows he made when he got married the first time
and then the statement about wealth "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Wouldn't a seriously religious man have problems with his wealth?
As for the statement wasn't it suggested that we should all make a pledge to him? And wasn't the word allegiance included which means others would be below him. so he is being served.
In other words it's a load of tosh!

I agree with you that we should not pick and choose the bits of a religion that suit us and ignore the rest.

However, a significant teaching in Christianity and indeed in a number of other religions is that the wrong we do we may be forgiven if we are sorry that we did it. In religious language repent it.

Neither you or I know whether the King has repented the wrong things he has done, nor do we know whether religion always was a part of his life, or has come to play an important part as he grew more mature /older, or maybe even because he realised at some point that he had behaved less than perfectly.

I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he has been, perhaps still is, sorry that he could not keep the vows he made earlier, but sincerely intends to keep the ones he has made since he became king.

To my mind, Christian charity and, more importantly Christ's teachings make it my duty not to judge others, but to leave them and their conscience to God.

Regarding your other points, Christ certainly said that it is harder for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.

What precisely he meant has been a matter of debate ever since he said it. If as Francis of Assisi did you assume it means that you should give all your possessions away to the poor in order to serve Christ properly, then most of us do have a problem.

On the other hand, those who do take the statement so literally, have to beg for their living, thus making the rest of us pay for their support.

I believe, and others with me, that this saying is to be taken in the context of what the rich person actually does with their wealth, whether they use it beneficially or not, rather than that wealth itself is evil.

And even if others vow allegience to the king, he can still serve them, doing the job he in religious parlance has been called upon by God to do to the best of his ability.

Isn't nhs on a crisis? Less money on education?
Meanwhile, there is a coronation - those funds have much better purposes

All words. Let’s see some action and more support of those n need.

maddyone I too struggle with the wealth of the Monarchy and Christian ideals. I also struggle with the wealth and trappings of the Church of England for the same reason. I find it impossible to reconcile the humility shown and service given by Jesus Christ with the overdressed people living in palaces - both Monarchy and Church.

I wont add much more to this thread.
I dont tend to argue points.

The way I read the Bible is that we can separate.

We can divorce if the other person has commited adultery.
Lust over another person is seen as adultery too.

Job was the richest man on earth. And the most obedient to God at that time.

Wealth is not a straightforward question and answer.

We most certainly are supposed to pay our taxes.

The Queen followed the teachings of the Church on divorce

Glenco

Just putting my two pennyworth in.
Why did Charles not at least contribute to the cost of his Coronation, since he has so much wealth? What happens to all the Royal wealth since it appears never to be used?
As Charles is presumably now head of the Church of England, how will he uphold the late Queen's belief that divorce is not allowed since he is divorced or was that just the Queen's idea? I never understood how it could be the rules of the C of E anyway, since the C of E was only formed so that Henry V111 could get divorced. Please enlighten me if possible.

I think you'll find that the Church's view on divorce has changed somewhat. I was divorced but allowed to make my marriage vows to my new husband in Church.

The C of E teaches that marriage is for life but does recognise that marriages fail and in some circumstances will marry someone whose divorced while their former spouse is still living.

The Queen's sister and 3 of her children were divorced. She may not have approved but clearly didn't disallow it.

Just putting my two pennyworth in.
Why did Charles not at least contribute to the cost of his Coronation, since he has so much wealth? What happens to all the Royal wealth since it appears never to be used?
As Charles is presumably now head of the Church of England, how will he uphold the late Queen's belief that divorce is not allowed since he is divorced or was that just the Queen's idea? I never understood how it could be the rules of the C of E anyway, since the C of E was only formed so that Henry V111 could get divorced. Please enlighten me if possible.