Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 6      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,437
Reply with quote  #31 
Well, if he does that then by law he will be unable to succeed. But I wouldn't worry, he's not going to do that and there has never been the slightest indication that he would want to. I agree that these days Britain would have nothing to fear from a Catholic, or Orthodox, or Muslim, or Hindu monarch. But that would not fit in with the tradition of the country, and when it comes to the monarchy I'm all for tradition.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #32 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Well, if he does that then by law he will be unable to succeed. But I wouldn't worry, he's not going to do that and there has never been the slightest indication that he would want to. I agree that these days Britain would have nothing to fear from a Catholic, or Orthodox, or Muslim, or Hindu monarch. But that would not fit in with the tradition of the country, and when it comes to the monarchy I'm all for tradition.

The British monarch being allowed to convert to Catholicism or Orthodox Christianity will not prevent the Church of England from remaining the established church of England. The Church of England remained the established church of England during the reign of King James II and VII.
I don't support upholding traditions, which are based on religious bigotry. 
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,437
Reply with quote  #33 
And as I've been patiently explaining, the tradition is not based on religious bigotry. It is based on history, when there was a genuine danger from Catholicism to the established faith of the land. Still, I suppose it's a slight improvement that you are no longer arguing that, Protestantism being an inferior form of Christianity, the Church of England should be disestablished forthwith. Which, when you were making that argument, was not really all that religiously tolerant of you.
VivatReginaScottorum

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 365
Reply with quote  #34 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Vivat,

Yes, Peter is correct, I meant the fellow who was banned, Pallavicini. I don't even think of you as a leftist and I have high opinion of you as a poster. I recall you saying you lent towards market socialism or something of that sort. I myself am firmly in the vaguely Distributist camp, if I can be forgiven the inconsistency of expression.

Thank you for confirming that, I must have missed the clash between Pallavicini and Azadi. I didn't mean to come across as oversensitive or defensive, and apologise if I did so; I appreciate both you and Peter expressing respect for me as a poster, and I very much reciprocate the sentiment. I did mention that I'm sympathetic, in theory, to market socialism and the cooperative movement, which is fairly similar in practice to what a lot of distributists support; but for various reasons in real life I'm more inclined towards German-style social market capitalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Just guessing here, but I suspect Wessexman meant Pallavicini. I wouldn't think he would be so rude as to refer to you as 'that leftist fellow', considering you are an active and respected member. Pallavicini who is no longer a member he absolutely couldn't stand, though. An atheist who feels, for what it's worth (not much I am sure), that Protestantism is a much more rationally-based approach to Christianity than that of the ancient Churches with their freighting of accretions over the last 1900 years or so, I have no wish at all to see the Church of England disestablished and in fact would actively oppose that, mainly because of the symbolic and ceremonial role you speak of, which could not be satisfactorily replaced by any kind of secular event.

Yes, the former Pope's views are as irrelevant as anything could be to how Anglicans view their own church and faith. As for Jacobitism, I understand your view but it is not mine. I support the Protestant Succession from 1689 on; 1689 because that is when it was established by law, though I would have been there cheering at the Glorious Revolution the year before. This is nothing to do with anti-Catholicism, it is because James II and VII was such a dreadfully bad monarch.

I agree with you that James was a poor monarch, but from a legitimist perspective that doesn't justify his deposition. William of Orange was a much more impressive leader but I'm not a great fan of his either, not just because of the murky legality of his accession to the throne but because of his policies in Scotland and Ireland, particularly his abolition of the Scottish episcopacy and involvement in the Glencoe Massacre. 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi
Vivat Regina Scottorum claimed that abolishing the Anglican coronation will reduce the British monarch to little more than a hereditary president. This claim implies that the continental European monarchs are little more than hereditary presidents.  

What I actually said was that "stripped of its sacral role, the monarchy would be reduced to little more than a hereditary presidency," a statement I stand by. I didn't say that any monarchy that does not carry out coronations isn't really a monarchy, that's plainly nonsense. My point is that, practically speaking, the religious elements of the monarchy and its connection to a higher power are part of what distinguishes it from, and elevates it above, a mere magistracy. I do believe that by sacrificing the coronation rite and replacing it with a secular investment ceremony, most European monarchies have lost one of the things that made them different from their republican neighbours and become rather more pedestrian institutions in the process. I don't want to see a similar loss of dignity by the British monarch. 

__________________
That which concerns the mystery of the King's power is not lawful to be disputed; for that is to wade into the weakness of Princes, and to take away the mystical reverence that belongs unto them that sit in the throne of God. - James VI and I of England, Scotland and Ireland
Murtagon

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 155
Reply with quote  #35 
Was it not possible for the then-Prince of Wales (the eventual Old Pretender) to have been proclaimed King, if his father had been thought to have had abdicated? I know that James II had taken his son with himself, but still.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,437
Reply with quote  #36 
Not really. I don't think it was ever even discussed. Had the then Prince of Wales been left behind, it would have had to have been, but he wasn't. How would things have possibly been managed when the King, who had never been in Britain since he was a tiny infant and had been brought up in exile, tutored in opposition to the people actually running the country in his name, came to his majority? Would we have had a permanent King Over The Water, in name monarch but in practice never allowed to come near the place he was monarch of? I think the times had enough complications without introducing another one of such proportions.
MonarchistKaiser

Registered:
Posts: 6
Reply with quote  #37 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Well, if he does that then by law he will be unable to succeed. But I wouldn't worry, he's not going to do that and there has never been the slightest indication that he would want to. I agree that these days Britain would have nothing to fear from a Catholic, or Orthodox, or Muslim, or Hindu monarch. But that would not fit in with the tradition of the country, and when it comes to the monarchy I'm all for tradition.

I have to somewhat disagree over that. Christianity at large was and plays to this day great part of the Englishmen culture and history. But comparing conversions from different branches of the same religion isn't like comparing different religions with different mentalities. The United Kingdom has history of background of different monarchs of Christian faiths from Catholicism to different approaches to Anglicanism. Judaism, for example, has way more gain and influence in England's history than Islam or Hinduism or any other religion that is not Christianity since the establishment of the Kingdom of England in the 800's, but it doesn't make it more reasonable to have a monarch of one minority religion than other minorities. The whole deal of monarchy is not falling to popular whim and I obviously contest the "diversity" religion professed by the media as one can clearly understand from my sayings. I do not oppose royal members being of different racial background like Meghan Merkel, but I think one has to embrace the culture and religion of that monarchy. I wouldn't think of Qatar monarchy having Hindu monarch, although there are many Hindus there that I think even form majority not speaking about cases like Japan having Confusian monarch etc etc...
However, the Omani monarch embracing Sunni Islam instead of Ibadi Islam that is long thriving there with long history, is not like him embracing Christianity or any other religion that isn't Islam.
(Edited)

Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,822
Reply with quote  #38 
I think the elephant in the room here is the present state of the Church of England, and the Anglican Church more broadly. This has changed radically in the last fifty years. We are no longer dealing with traditional Anglicanism, whatever one thinks of that. For any traditional Christian, the CoE today must leave them scratching their heads. This is why I am becoming more and more sympathetic to the idea the monarch be allowed to convert. The CoE itself barely exists in the traditional sense anymore, so why should the monarch be chained to the monstrosity coming to take its place? Any traditional magisterial Christian, as mainstream and High Church Anglicans still are, believes in apostolic succession. I don't agree with the Roman Church that the CoE never had apostlic succession, but it is endangering it today, in any traditional sense, by accepting female priests and bishops. There simply is no such thing in traditional Christianity. Once there are enough female bishops and a female archbishop of Canterbury, it would be hard for any traditional, magisterial Christian to accept the CoE even exists as a proper Church anymore. I wouldn't want Charles or any other monarch or heir to be tied to the residual.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,437
Reply with quote  #39 
Responding to MonarchistKaiser, I don't necessarily disagree with the thrust of what you say. My post to which you responded acknowledged to Azadi that nowadays there would be nothing to fear from having a Catholic monarch, in contrast to the days when there genuinely was. And, by extension, that a monarch of any other faith would also be no threat. But did go on to say that the traditional (and legal) requirement for the monarch to be a Protestant in communion with the Church of England should remain in law because, like the monarchy itself, it is rooted in history.

I am uninterested in the (former) Pope's views on whether the Church of England is a 'real' church or not. But Benedict XVI presumably does not read these threads. I won't be so impolite as to say to Wessexman's face that I'm uninterested in his opinion on the matter. But I do think that the Church of England is an autocephalous national church, and it is not for anyone but itself to determine its doctrines and conduct of its business as a church. As an established church certain aspects of the latter are subject to law, but no outside Christian body does or should exercise supervision over it. Which includes concerned laymen. If you disagree with its doctrines or conduct, you have a simple option; don't worship there. But better, I would suggest, not to walk away proclaiming that it is no longer a church at all.

I have never understood the fuss about apostolic succession. No one has a documented chain of consecrations going back to the apostles. No one at all. But I suppose apostolic succession is like God himself; no one can prove he exists, but just the same they believe in him. And no can prove they actually have an apostolic succession, but just the same they and others believe in that too.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,822
Reply with quote  #40 
The obvious problem with that response is where is the limiting principle? What can't the Church hierarchy decide to change? What happens if they embrace Arianism or Gnosticism or even Islam and register this as the CoE's doctrine?

On the apostolic succession, with all due respect, as an atheist I wouldn't necessarily expect you to understand its importance. I'm not sure that it's quite correct to say that there is no good evidence for the chains of transmission. We surely have good reason to believe that the most ancient sees were generally established by the apostles. We also have some evidence for other sees. I think that as far as we accept any evidence of the early Church we can accept the bulk of this. And obviously Christians do accept it. But more importantly, for magisterial Christians apostolic succession matters. It isn't something trivial or quaint, but the heart of the sacramental mission of the Church. Even mainstream Anglicans have long accepted this doctrine. This is one why the CoE is sometimes not considered a Protestant or fully Protestant church and the reason it has spent so much time defending its succession and sacraments from the Catholic Church, going back at least as far as the end of the Sixteenth Century. Otherwise, we could have just shrugged our shoulders, like the radical Protestants for whom the Church requires no chain of apostolic succession. This issue is actually far more important than some of the moral issues that the hierarchy has taken unChristian positions on. In isolation one could say that those aren't enough to consider the CoE nearly subverted. But apostolic succession is essential to a magisterial Christian. The appointing of women priests and, especially, bishops changes the very nature of the Church. It is almost like embracing Arianism. At the very least, it is like changing the theology of the Church radically.

When I say it isn't a church that is not quite simply in the sense it has endangered apostolic succession. I don't deny that more Protestant churches are churches. That comment was based on why the Church has changed its doctrine, which is according to the combination of sentimentalism and left-liberal ideology that dominates liberal Christianity. It was not based on any meaningful appeal to Christian teaching, only at best a few passages of the New Testament wrenched entirely out of context and given a dubious interpretation. The rest is contemporary mores and ideology. I give radical Protestants more credit than that. They at least make a lot better use of the Scripture, tradition, Fathers, etc.

Anyway, my point is that requiring monarch to be a member of the CoE rather implies there is something definite and static in what the CoE believes and stands for. If that Church can radically change, I don't think it makes sense to bind the monarch to it by law.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,437
Reply with quote  #41 
Your first paragraph makes a fair point, but there is no suggestion the C of E is going to do any of these things. Worry about it when they do (which they almost certainly never will) would be my attitude. On your second, certainly as an atheist I'm not telling Christians what they should or shouldn't believe about their faith. They get enough of that from each other without bemused outsiders joining in. But you do acknowledge that not all Christians believe in the necessity or even existence of apostolic succession, many of them regarding believers as having a direct link with God and therefore no need of a mediating hierarchy. It's tradition that the ancient sees were founded by apostles; no as such evidence of this exists in any case I know of. Women's ordination is a battle I've been in before. I believe I'll pass this time, a few bruises having just given me a reminiscing twinge.

ETA: While I was writing this, you were writing two further paragraphs. I'll skip over the third, and just say again on the fourth that I'll consider the question when the C of E actually does make a completely polarising and radical change in doctrine. Which it won't necessarily ever do.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,822
Reply with quote  #42 
The traditions go back to the first three to five centuries of the Church, or even before, in many cases. That is evidence, as is what we know about the relationship between the Apostolic Fathers and their Church and the apostles. It isn't perhaps proof enough to sway someone who doesn't accept the tradition and Church as a whole, but it is evidence.

Anyway, yes, certainly, there are Christians who are not magisterial and reject the need for apostlic succession. But the point is this not the position of mainstream Anglicanism historically. There was a minority of such people in the CoE, and many periodically left to become Non-Conformists when they could, but the great divines of the Church from the days of Elizabeth and James to the earlier twentieth century have affirmed that the Anglican Church is a magisterial and sacramental Church. To give up on that is to change the nature of the Anglican Church completely. It is essentially to change its ecclesiology from historical Anglicanism to radical Protestantism.

I made an edit of my last post, by the way, to emphasise that it is not such Protestantism I am calling not or barely Christian. It is the arguments of the CoE hierarchy, which are barely Christian. They are that mush of sentimentalism and left-liberal ideology, with barely a nod in the direction of the Scripture or Church tradition (and then only to a few passages from the NT wrenched out of context and given a dubious interpretation), that is the hallmark of liberal Christianity. I would give radical Protestants more credit than that. I could respect fire and brimstone Congregationalism a lot more than Archbishop Welby and his troop.
AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 526
Reply with quote  #43 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter

I have never understood the fuss about apostolic succession. No one has a documented chain of consecrations going back to the apostles. No one at all. But I suppose apostolic succession is like God himself; no one can prove he exists, but just the same they believe in him. And no can prove they actually have an apostolic succession, but just the same they and others believe in that too.


Catholics and Orthodox hold that sacred tradition itself is authoritative. I agree that there's no definitive documented proof connecting any priests/bishops today to the apostles, but the sacred tradition holds among Catholicism and Orthodoxy that there is an unbroken line, and that this was at all times and everywhere believed in the Church, and thus we must assent. 

I don't expect this to hold any weight with you, but this is an explanation of why we believe what we believe. 
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,437
Reply with quote  #44 
It's perfectly reasonable from your perspective. Which, it is true, is the only perspective it needs to be reasonable from.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #45 
Crown Princess Sophie of Liechtenstein, the wife of Crown Prince Alois of Liechtenstein, is the heir to the Jacobite claim to the English and Scottish thrones. Her son Joseph Wenzel is both the heir to the throne of Liechtenstein and the heir to the claim to the Jacobite claim to the English and Scottish thrones.
I support electing a child of Crown Princess Sophie of Liechtenstein King of Ireland. 
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.