Not to Be Served , but to Serve.

I think you just have to read the thread Mollygo As far as I'm concerned it is a theoretical discussion about someone who is head of the C of E, how his actions have conflicted with that role and if it is compatible with the teaching of the church.
I think you questioned me about my beliefs and I answered.

It is quite interesting that one of the rules for C of E clergy is that they should have the highest moral standards and vicars who commit adultery are suspended or dismissed.

Oh I see. It doesn’t suit you, so it’s wrong. That’s OK then.
The teachings of the church have changed over the years. It is no longer necessary to remain in a marriage where one or both parties are unhappy.

Mollygo

Oh I see. It doesn’t suit you, so it’s wrong. That’s OK then.
The teachings of the church have changed over the years. It is no longer necessary to remain in a marriage where one or both parties are unhappy.

I don't think that has been said by anyone. There are however certain restrictions on re-marriage in the C of E. which are dealt with earlier.

What do the rules for the clergy have to do with this discussion? Charles isn't a member of the clergy.

Smileless2012

What do the rules for the clergy have to do with this discussion? Charles isn't a member of the clergy.

Charles is head of the church, Supreme Governor to be exact. Surely standards should be applied equally to all ?

Your post @ 18.26 was about rules that apply to the clergy Glorianny. The role of the clergy is vastly different to the role of the head of the Church of England.

As Supreme Governor and Defender of the Faith, it is not Charles' role to preach the word of God. Standards are equally applied to all and it's because we are all fallible that Christians need and seek God's forgiveness.

As Jesus said 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'.

The Pope is infallible.

No one is infallible.

The Pope is not infallible.
All people sin. Sometimes we dont even know we have.

oops. Didnt read the post above one, from Smileless2012

Bizziebe

The Pope is infallible.

The Catholic dogma related to Papal infallibility is limited to the occasions when he is pronouncing on the Doctrine of the Church. It does not extend to his general behaviour, and most certainly does not mean that he cannot sin. Essentially, he remains a potentially fallible human being, even in the eyes of his own Church. His confession is regularly heard by sundry Catholic priests, often after major Church services such as the annual Lenten Penitential Festival.

Thank you NanaDana.

Of course anyone can sin, but shouldn't the concept of forgiveness apply equally across the church? Why should the clergy be dismissed for actions similar to those of Charles, but he be forgiven and permitted to remain as head of the church?

Glorianny

Of course anyone can sin, but shouldn't the concept of forgiveness apply equally across the church? Why should the clergy be dismissed for actions similar to those of Charles, but he be forgiven and permitted to remain as head of the church?

Glorianny, this looks like one of your famous diversions.
🤣🤣🤣

Yes. Annie would say rock bottom …

Charles was not Head of the Church when he sinned, so he has not been permitted to remain.

Everyone sins. Everyone can seek forgiveness.

eazybee

Charles was not Head of the Church when he sinned, so he has not been permitted to remain.

That's true eazybee
I think though that the same rules would apply to the appointment of clergy who were remarried to someone involved in the break up of their first marriage. They would not be forgiven and would not be able to become a vicar, but are apparently able to become head of the church. Which isn't as far as I can see equal forgiveness for equal sins but special treatment for Princes

Charles is not employed by the C of E Glorianny so disciplinary guidelines for members of the clergy do not apply. Our minister is married to her second husband and was divorced when she became ordained.

If a member of the clergy is dismissed due to misconduct, that does not mean they haven't been forgiven. God forgives, not the institution of the church.

Charles' role is one of a figure head. He formerly appoints high ranking members of the church, on the advice of the PM who will have been advised by the Crown Nominations Commission.

That is the extent of his role and influence.

Smileless2012

Charles is not employed by the C of E Glorianny so disciplinary guidelines for members of the clergy do not apply. Our minister is married to her second husband and was divorced when she became ordained.

If a member of the clergy is dismissed due to misconduct, that does not mean they haven't been forgiven. God forgives, not the institution of the church.

Of course there are divorced and remarried clergy. However as previously posted Charles could not be married in the church because of the involvement of Camilla in the breakdown of his first marriage. Which is a No-no for the church.
They have both apparently been forgiven.
But the church would not accept someone with the same background as clergy. So forgiveness is selective.

What is your authority for saying that the church would not employ a cleric with Charles’s marital background?

No, it has nothing to do with forgiveness being selective. The clergy preach to their congregation about among other things sin. Understandably, it would not go down very well if a vicar was talking about the sanctity of marriage if s/he had been an adulterer, it would be hypocritical.

There's nothing hypocritical about Charles being the Head of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith. His adultery doesn't preclude him from this role. How could it when an adulterous and divorced king established the C of E in the first place.

If Charles and Camilla have truly repented of their sin of adultery they will have God's forgiveness, the same as anyone else.

From the absolute core of the bedrock prayer of the Christian churches, whether they are Catholic, C.of E., High Anglican, Methodist, Unitarian, Baptist et al. :
"Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us."
Seems clear enough to me, even as a lapsed Catholic Agnostic, but there are still those here who clearly have no working understanding of how the core tenets of the Christian faith work in the everyday lives of those who have faith. Sadly, they also appear to have no capacity for true forgiveness, despite their protestations to the contrary. Hanging judges? No room for grey in their world. Everything is so black and white... only it never is... That's why it's so much safer for society to opt for the conciliatory, benevolent, redemptive option, rather than the vengeful, bitterly destructive one. That's actually the Christian message... For a non-believer to try to tell a practising Christian that it isn't so, is utterly pointless. Doesn't seem to stop them desperately trying to, though. Ah well.. A phrase containing heads and brick walls comes to mind.. or perhaps more of a "rock" than a brick wall in this case.. Matthew 16.18.

Germanshepherdsmum

What is your authority for saying that the church would not employ a cleric with Charles’s marital background?

Read the thread GSM I've already posted the rules for remarriage in the C ofE which Charles couldn't match. With a link to the document because they were questioned.