Archbishop of Canterbury - Page 2

ysbel · #21 10-25-2005, 02:30 PM

Before you get into more of a tizzy, you might want to check if the Archbishop actually said what The Daily Mail claims he said. Although a spirited argument CAN be a lot more fun without the facts. :p

So let's assume for argument's sake, the Archbishop did say exactly what they say he did. Now I agree with tiaraprin and Lady Marmalade, the Archbishop shouldn't keep his mouth shut just because Charles wants him to. But on the other hand, if the situation caused that much of a problem with his Christian conscience, he shouldn't have performed the marriage in the first place.

Which is why I've said before, I highly doubt he said it. Its pretty irresponsible to perform a ceremony against your conscience and then complain later that it was too hyped and overblown.

Lady Marmalade · #22 10-25-2005, 02:33 PM

I can see that...considering the source of who printed it..the Daily Mail..

BeatrixFan · #23 10-25-2005, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Before you get into more of a tizzy, you might want to check if the Archbishop actually said what The Daily Mail claims he said.

Well, this is the way I'm going to handle it. If it's untrue I shall take back 50% of what I said and stand by the rest. If it is true, the Archbishop will be getting a letter from me and I'll risk the wrath of Lambeth Palace.

(I don't for one moment think that the Archbishop or his court will give two hoots about what I think!)

ysbel · #24 10-25-2005, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel

if the situation caused that much of a problem with his Christian conscience, he shouldn't have performed the marriage in the first place.

Correction: I didn't have my facts straight. :o The Archbishop performed the blessing not the marriage. Mea culpa.

BeatrixFan, I think you're enjoying this too much to stick to the facts. :p

una · #25 10-25-2005, 03:18 PM

I''m with you Ysbel, I can't believe the Archbishop would say any of this publicly, especially that bit about never forgiving. If I remember, Richard Kay was the journalist that tricked James Hewitt into revealing his affair with Diana, by offering him a satellite phone to call home from the Gulf war on the eve of battle. Hewitt phoned his mother and then Diana.
I could imagine the Archbishop said this in a private conversation which Kay has somehow made public. If so, it may be what the Archbishop thinks.

tiaraprin · #26 10-26-2005, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

James, I'd rather have people agree with me on some things and be staunchly against me on others - it makes my life that bit more interesting!

I'm afraid Britain is no longer a Christian Society. If I had my way we'd all be looking to Rome for our spiritual guidance but certain people prevented that from ever being allowed to happen. I must disagree. I dont believe he showed bravery or integrity - he showed disobedience and a lack of respect for authority and the institutions that have kept this nation united through terrible terrible times.

So, we'll disagree on this one but we'll be brothers-in-arms on the subject of Prince and Princess Michael!
Thats my point. He should do as he's damn well told.

He should be told to do as he is damn well told?? You DO NOT speak to the Spiritual Head of the English church in that manner. He is a man of God and he answers to a higher power, higher than the Queen and the mere Prince of Wales.

You also now want to overthrow the Anglican church and bring all of England back to Rome?? I feel each individual has a right to choose what their religious belief is. No one has the right to tell others to go back to the fold of Rome if they do not wish to. Not one single citizen in any country has the right to tell others that they should follow him. They should follow what they believe to be the truth.

Lady Marmalade · #27 10-26-2005, 01:20 AM

I agree Tiaraprin....good job. :)

ksenia · #28 10-26-2005, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade

Um....boring......I must be old fashioned then as I just got married and view this marriage as my first and only. I married for love and only love.

I am guessing you are just being facetious.. :)

Or it must be the generation gap between our views.

i agree with you. there is this new concept that the first marriage is a " trial marriage". I think it is dangerous to go into relationships thinking in these terms. If you are not serious about making it work " as long as you both shall live" what is the point of taking the vows in the first place

tiaraprin · #29 10-26-2005, 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksenia

i agree with you. there is this new concept that the first marriage is a " trial marriage". I think it is dangerous to go into relationships thinking in these terms. If you are not serious about making it work " as long as you both shall live" what is the point of taking the vows in the first place

Exactly! Well said!!

**Warren** · #30 10-26-2005, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel

BeatrixFan, I think you're enjoying this too much to stick to the facts. :p

Do you think your statement may also apply to other threads Ysbel?
It might be a good idea if members keep a few grains of salt beside their keyboards.
Better still, stock up.

:) W

Margrethe II · #31 10-26-2005, 06:56 AM

I was Christend in the Protestant faith but to be honest cant really call myself a dedicated Christian. I dont go to church, probably dont speak to the "BIG GUY" upstairs as much as I should, have only read about one chapter out of the holy Book, I dont know the lords prayer & live a life (unchosen by me) that is frowned upon by much of our society (both socially and religiously). But, with all that going against me.lol. I still have my faith and keep it to myself.

"MII"

BeatrixFan · #32 10-26-2005, 08:09 AM

Quote:

He should be told to do as he is damn well told?? You DO NOT speak to the Spiritual Head of the English church in that manner.

Oh but I do and I have. I enjoyed many a dicussion with the former Archbishop and found him to be a brilliant man who had the right ideas on life and was loyal to his Queen, country and to his congregation.

Quote:

He is a man of God and he answers to a higher power, higher than the Queen and the mere Prince of Wales.

The Prince of Wales will be King one day - I don't see that as a mere position at all. The Archbishop may have to crown King Charles one day. I don't consider Rowan Williams to be worthy to crown our King at all.

Quote:

You also now want to overthrow the Anglican church and bring all of England back to Rome??

I said Rome wouldn't have created so many difficulties. Read into it what you will, but there was no talk of overthrowing anyone.

Quote:

Not one single citizen in any country has the right to tell others that they should follow him. They should follow what they believe to be the truth.

Thats a wonderful idea but it doesn't work. But I feel we're getting into political waters now so I'll drop it.

Quote:

If you are not serious about making it work " as long as you both shall live" what is the point of taking the vows in the first place

The Party and the new Hats

Royal Fan · #33 10-26-2005, 11:38 AM

I Agree the Duty of any Christian (in my view) is to God First and formost

**Elspeth** · #34 10-26-2005, 01:41 PM

Quote:

The Prince of Wales will be King one day - I don't see that as a mere position at all. The Archbishop may have to crown King Charles one day. I don't consider Rowan Williams to be worthy to crown our King at all.

I think the issue may be more a matter of whether the Archbishop of the time thinks Charles is worthy to be crowned. If the Archbishop is a stickler for marital fidelity and for the notion that Christian vows aren't made to be broken, you could have an interesting situation. I wonder if Archbishop Lang would have crowned a king with Charles's track record. I should imagine he'd have had a problem with having to crown Edward VIII if he'd married Mrs Simpson and stayed as king.

tiaraprin · #35 10-26-2005, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

I think the issue may be more a matter of whether the Archbishop of the time thinks Charles is worthy to be crowned. If the Archbishop is a stickler for marital fidelity and for the notion that Christian vows aren't made to be broken, you could have an interesting situation. I wonder if Archbishop Lang would have crowned a king with Charles's track record. I should imagine he'd have had a problem with having to crown Edward VIII if he'd married Mrs Simpson and stayed as king.

Exactly Elspeth. A monarch who only reigns has no power to force the Archbishop of Canterbury to do something he feels is morally repugnant.

BeatrixFan · #36 10-26-2005, 02:03 PM

Quote:

I think the issue may be more a matter of whether the Archbishop of the time thinks Charles is worthy to be crowned

I don't see it as his responsibility to decide whether he's worthy or not. That rests with the majority and the majority are now secular - the Church of England isn't the stuffy institution it once was holding the chains over us all - it shouldn't attempt to hold chains over the Royal Family.

tiaraprin · #37 10-26-2005, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

I don't see it as his responsibility to decide whether he's worthy or not. That rests with the majority and the majority are now secular - the Church of England isn't the stuffy institution it once was holding the chains over us all - it shouldn't attempt to hold chains over the Royal Family.

As Spiritual Head of the Anglican Church, the Archbishop has every right to refuse to crown someone he feels is not worthy. Even in the days when Kings ruled, Archbishops of Canterbury refused to crown individuals they felt unworthy until pressure was placed upon them.

BeatrixFan · #38 10-26-2005, 02:32 PM

Then my question is, what gives him that power? When Britain was very religious and followed the C of E strictly I could understand the loyalty to the Archbishop. But that isn't quite the way now. Prince Charles wants to be 'Defender of the Faiths'. Will this mean that a Catholic Cardinal could crown the King? Or a Muslim Imam?