Meghan Markle: Citizenship and Religious Conversion

[Gaudete]

My point here is that, even if a legal requirement is not in place, there is an institutional expectation that the wife of a senior prince would convert. As I also mentioned before, Maxima Zorreguieta was the most signifcant example pf a royal bride who tested the effectivenes of the lack of a legal requirement when she openly declined to convert to the Dutch Reformed faith. Still, she was required to marry in the Protestant church (she diidn't have a Catholic wedding) and to baptize and raise her daughters in the PKN (Amalia is even attending a denominational High School now).

I totally agree with all you've said but I don't think there ever has been an institutional expectation in the British Royal Family, even prior to a change in the law. When Prince Alfred married the Grand Duchess Marie, there was no expectation that she would become an Anglican. Indeed, the pair were married in the Winter Palace and not an Anglican church. When Princess Marina married Prince George, there was no expectation that she would become an Anglican either. She remained Greek Orthodox, though she was married in an Anglican church. The present Duchess of Kent left the Anglican communion and became a Roman Catholic, a matter which caused no rift or division within the Royal Family because it wasn't seen as being a rule that she absolutely had to be a member of the Anglican communion.

Socially perhaps, years ago, that expectation existed from the general public. However nowadays, barely 1% of the population attend regular Anglican services and I don't think anyone among the Great British public really cares if Meghan is an Anglican or not. The Queen may, the Archbishop of Canterbury may, Prince Harry may. But it's not an obligation or expectation from the institution and never has been.

 

[jacqui24]

I think it's a choice. Even before the clarification of her parents' faith yesterday, there were some discussion of her religion as in we don't know what religion she belongs to. However, it wasn't ever seen as an issue that would raise public outcry or prevent them from getting married. I think if she wished to remain another religion and have an inter-faith wedding even, it might cause some ruffle, but at the end of the day, it'd be okay as long as all future children would be raised in CoE. It's clear that she choose to take this step.

 

[Denville]

she was, it was done in a non-mainstream Christian denomination using an improper (e.g. non-Trinitarian) formula, in which case the CoE, like the Roman Catholic church, would not recognize it as a valid baptism.


I find it hard to believe that someone who considers herself a Christian would not seek to be baptized at some point in 36 years of her life, especially if she attended services in a mainstream church. A non-baptized person could not receive communion for example in any mainstream church or participate in many aspects of church life, so it wouldn't really make sense for her to attend under those circumstamces. Therefore, I think we can safely assume that, unless Meghan was affiliated with some kind of unconventional , non-denominational Christian movement, Christianity was not an important part of her life, which is OK really as there is nothing wrong with being agnostic or non-religious. What is intriguing though is going so quickly from being non-religious to being baptized and joining a mainstream Christian church seemingly just because she is marrying into a family that is closely associated with the CoE.

Agree. if she was a part of a church, odds are that she would consider making a formal commitment which usually involves baptism. I thnk that it is likely that she wasnt', and is doig this to fit in. Nothing wrong with that, per se but i'd like to think that there si some spiritual "connextion" if she joins the C of E.

 

[jacqui24]

Agree. if she was a part of a church, odds are that she would consider making a formal commitment which usually involves baptism. I thnk that it is likely that she wasnt', and is doig this to fit in. Nothing wrong with that, per se but i'd like to think that there si some spiritual "connextion" if she joins the C of E.

I think someone has mentioned it earlier, but a lot of people do become more religious or think about this more carefully when they decide to have children and start a family. It puts a different perspective on things.

 

[tihkon2]

As I said in my very first post on the subject, I will not second-guess or judge Meghan's motivation. .

Eh...it seems to me you're in fact, doing that in every post you make on this subject. As is almost everyone else. In my opinion, it's none of our business. At all. It's between her and God.

 

[Gaudete]

I think someone has mentioned it earlier, but a lot of people do become more religious or think about this more carefully when they decide to have children and start a family. It puts a different perspective on things.

Any children Harry and Meghan have will be baptised as Anglicans so I can see how she would want to belong to the same church as the rest of her family. It makes good sense to me, especially as she has a Christian background. I hope that she takes comfort from it and feels at home. But then I hope that for her regardless of religion. It must be very difficult to be so far from home in a strange new land where everybody wants to know every minute detail about your life.

 

[Somebody]

Roman Catholics would be yes but not Anglicans who marry Roman Catholics. For example, Prince Michael is now back in the Line of Succession after such a long time of being barred from it. Meghan would never be in the line of succession anyway, only her children would be if they were raised as Roman Catholics and received into the church at any time. But my point was that if this were the case, this would be a matter for Rome to decide in terms of Meghan's private communion with the church. It wouldn't make any difference to her wedding according to the Anglican Rite in St George's Chapel.

Yes, that is exactly what I was saying I was just adding that piece of information as your post suggested that the only rule that was still in place was that the monarch him/herself needed to be Anglican but that was not the whole story. Glad to be in agreement ?

Legally there's no reason Harry couldn't have married her in an Anglican church service had she been a Catholic - or an Orthodox Christian, Muslim or Jew for that matter. Legally there is no requirement for the bride to be a member of the Anglican communion nor is there a social expectation that she should be either.

Not sure about the 'social expectation' - probably depends on who you'd ask. And the Catholic church would most likely have an issue with a Catholic marrying an Anglican - as that would require dispensation and a promise to raise their children Catholic (one that Máxima couldn't make - but still they 'allowed' her to marry and have a reformed church blessing service and remain Catholic - and one that someone in Harry's position wouldn't be able to make either).

 

[Gaudete]

Not sure about the 'social expectation' - probably depends on who you'd ask. And the Catholic church would most likely have an issue with a Catholic marrying an Anglican - as that would require dispensation and a promise to raise their children Catholic (one that Máxima couldn't make - but still they 'allowed' her to marry and have a reformed church blessing service and remain Catholic - and one that someone in Harry's position wouldn't be able to make either).

That's a good point. Most regular worshippers in the Church of England tend to be over 65 and I imagine they'd feel that they did want any new royal bride to be a member of "the Queen's church" but outside of that, the UK really is so secular now and Christian religious observance tends to be the domain of the Catholic Church or the smaller evangelical/pentecostal churches in the inner cities.

I agree with you on the dispensation - I wonder what the context of that would be in this hypothetical situation? Presumably it wouldn't be so pressing as Harry's children will never be King or Queen so Rome would be less likely to make an exception on that rule even if a dispensation was given for an Anglican/Catholic wedding to take place.

 

[Lady Nimue]

At some point I suspect this conversation will be 'cleaned up' though my wish would be that it not be. There are many significant issues embedded in this topic.

I am not here to claim I have the ultimate insight into religious matters. I only offer my perspective, which is limited by my own failings. I was educated by Jesuits (however, I may not have been as attentive 100% of the time to make me a worthy debate partner on doctrinal matters), but the merest mention of the Jesuits would for many (evangelicals in particular) make me the 'spawn of the devil'. What that reference to the Jesuits does mean is that I am in the liberal stream of the Catholic Church, which would include things like 'liberation theology' and respect for individuals like Dorothy Day, etc.

Following Vatican Council II in the early 60's there was a significant push back against the liberal stream in the Church. Conservatism has reigned in the Catholic Church since the late 60's, until we reach the present pope.

I present the above to give context to politicized Catholicism/Christianity as distinct from the essence of the New Testament teachings. What is occasionally referred to as 'churchianity' is precisely the kind of 'doctrinal' hair splitting that has plagued christian sects and denominations for centuries. thank fully we have not engaged in religious wars over the differences in recent times.

So saying, I just want to clarify some wordage I used.

Sorry, but you are quite wrong on that definition. Christianity solely centers around Jesus Christ and worship of him and his divinity. "Christos" is a Greek word that translates as "to anoint". That is from a translation of a Hebrew word מָשִׁיחַ (mashiyach), which also means "anointed". It's where we also get the word Messiah to refer to Jesus. A person very much has to utter the name of Jesus in order to profess belief in the faith. Otherwise, it's not Christianity, it's just a generic religion. Read Romans 10:9.

If you're referring to love, perhaps you meant the Greek word "agape", which is defined as a holy, all-encompassing kind of love from us to God and from God to us.

There is so much in this. Yes, Christos is from the Greek. When one references 'the Christ' one is referencing 'the anointed one' (the divinity that incarnated into the human Jesus). There is an esoteric substrate as to why Jesus is linked to 'the anointed one'. The Christos is the divinity of Jesus (and now one gets into a doctrinal issue that split the protestants and the Catholics 600 years ago. The divine aspect is a hot potato: the splice-and-dice is around Jesus being human, a good man, but the Christos descending at the Baptism in the Jordan, thus creating 'Christ Jesus', a human merged with divinity).

Declaring that 'A person very much has to utter the name of Jesus in order to profess belief in the faith.' is what is called a materialist stance. Speaking a word is empty. The essential 'message' of the Christ Jesus is Love (not just agape as you are defining it). The message was revolutionary in it's time, shattering the ancient world's framework: love ye one another. Equality. The transformation of the religious/spiritual/social fabric out of the ancient pagan world stems from this, as incoherently and imperfectly as it has been across the centuries. It remains a work in progress.

Meghan's experience with liberal Catholicism, and the essential Christian message of 'love thy neighbor' and 'do unto others', via parental guidance, school culture, university political/economic activism, is unknown in any detail, but there is enough already out there for us to recognize the christianity of her up-bringing. But anyone's actions in the world ('By their works you shall know them') are the determining factors that make her (or anyone) a member of the 'mystical body of Christ'. (not Jesus, but Christ).

True, Christos or the Christ is a Greek word which means the anointed one. it is certainly not "love" and Jesus is at the cenetre of Christianity...

Here I would amend: Love is the center of Christianity. Jesus is the great human initiate who was able to sustain the Christ into his being at the Baptism in the Jordan.

Making christianity about an individuality is snag. It is limiting.

Again I would stress the importance of words like "conversion". Meghan is (and supposedly always has been) a Christian, she's simply being received into a new Christian communion. This is reception, not conversion. The same would be true if she was an Anglican becoming a Catholic. The Duchess of Kent didn't convert to Roman Catholicism, she was received into the Roman Catholic Church as she was already a Christian by practise if not by sacraments recognised as valid by Rome. If Meghan was Jewish or Muslim however then yes, she would be converting.

I like your phrase 'into a new Christian communion'. In practical terms there is only one Christian communion we are all a part of, but there are varying physical representations of that communion.

It might interest people (maybe) to know that the Christ Being is recognized by every major religion or spiritual discipline that I know of. Pir Vilayat Inayat Khan (when alive), Head of the Sufi Order in the West, mentioned the Christ Consciousness one enters in meditation. The Dali Llama has mentioned the Christ Being one meets at a certain juncture in meditation. In esoteric parlance the Christ Being is known as the Greater Guardian of the Threshold. This Being is significant, and the Divinity expresses as pure love, not as doctrinal niceties, not as a word that must be spoken. JMO. As I understand it.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Lady Nimue-

I enjoy your posts so much and admire you as well, so it pains me to disagree with you on the rare occasions that I do. I will try to stick to the important points so as not to veer too far off topic.

It's okay, we can disagree. All good. It is the mind which is the battleground in our modern times after all (tangled up with emotions).

Anglicans and Catholics have a similar outward appearance in ritual and liturgy. But the few differences that do exist are profound game changers...how many Sacraments and what do they mean, ordination of female priests, the nature of the priesthood, the Mass, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the biggest sticking point of all ... the Primacy of the Roman See.

Here I will rely on my Jesuit education in these matters (keeping in mind that I come from the liberal stream of Catholicism, that has been eclipsed in recent decades by the conservatives). Most all of what you mention are not essential doctrines of the Catholic Church. Most arose out of political expediency and have become ingrained traditions.

It's true that the two Churches have come far since the Reformation, but we have miles to go. I am a little confused about "fixing" papal infallibility and what you mean by that. It is certainly not a "new addition". It was formally defined at Vatican I in 1870 but has been a belief of the Church from the very beginning. St Augustine referred to it as far back as the 5th century...."Roma Locuta Est-Causa Finita Est" (Rome has spoken, the matter is finished).

Can't get into the history of this (obviously) but in no way is the pope infallible, and you can be a 'good Catholic' without accepting that piece of political theater. There is this little slight-of-hand about speaking 'ex cathedra' but most all of these accretions of power to the pope are rooted in political/military/economic history related to the fact that Christians took over the structure of the Roman Empire's administrative network.

The current Pope Francis is a good Jesuit, but I doubt if even he will be able to resolve the fundamental differences that have separated the Anglican and Catholic communions for the last 500 years.

Yes, he's good, but not good enough, as he's not going up against the conservative element regarding women priests, and married clergy. Maybe he knows the limits he can push. (BTW unmarried clergy pertains only to the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, and a sprinkling of others; John Paul II forced the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church to dispense with married clergy in the 80's).

I'm acquainted with issues between the two churches and the differences are minor. Again, doctrinal hair-splitting. IMO.

I agree that Meghan Markle has demonstrated a spirit of generosity and goodwill from the little that I know of her, but that does not mean she has lived a Christian life. The Dalai Lama-one of my heroes-has those qualities and is not a Christian and my(beloved) quasi-atheistic landlady does as well. Those are human qualities, admirable ones true-but not necessarily limited to followers of Christ.

I would offer that anyone who has encountered the Christ Being (entered the Christ Consciousness) is Christian. You will 'know' such by their actions (and words are actions of a kind). You will know them by their manifest love. A true Christian is not bound by doctrines and 'correct words and practices', mental constructs. It is this very earth-bound material thinking and doing that the Christ came to release, into a global cosmopolitanism.

As another poster stated-a true Christian lives a Christocentric life with Jesus Christ and the reality of the Incarnation at the foundation of all he/she believes and the guide for the way they conduct their lives.

A 'true Christian' is not for me to judge, that I know. My 'job' is to love and accept others with compassion, recognizing that the Christ appears in all garbs: when I was hungry you fed me, when I was homeless you housed me, when I was lonely you sat with me. The Christ is in all of us and is not limited by a word, a name, a doctrinal nicety. JMO.

 

[Somebody]

(...) My point here is that, even if a legal requirement is not in place, there is an institutional expectation that the wife of a senior prince would convert. As I also mentioned before, Maxima Zorreguieta was the most signifcant example of a royal bride who tested the effectiveness of the lack of a legal requirement when she openly declined to convert to the Dutch Reformed faith. Still, she was required to marry in the Protestant church (she diidn't have a Catholic wedding) and to baptize and raise her daughters in the PKN (Amalia is even attending a denominational High School now).

I fully agree with all that you said (shorted it for readability), just a small correction on/addition to your final point. The school that Amalia attends is not officially linked to a specific denomination. It is 'Christian' (which should be interpreted as protestant - but there are various protestant churches in the Netherlands although the PKN is the largest) but not in any formal way linked to the PKN.

 

[jacqui24]

Is it really that big of a deal if a girl just decided she wants to join her husband's faith? I mean really?

 

[Somebody]

I totally agree with all you've said but I don't think there ever has been an institutional expectation in the British Royal Family, even prior to a change in the law. When Prince Alfred married the Grand Duchess Marie, there was no expectation that she would become an Anglican. Indeed, the pair were married in the Winter Palace and not an Anglican church. When Princess Marina married Prince George, there was no expectation that she would become an Anglican either. She remained Greek Orthodox, though she was married in an Anglican church. The present Duchess of Kent left the Anglican communion and became a Roman Catholic, a matter which caused no rift or division within the Royal Family because it wasn't seen as being a rule that she absolutely had to be a member of the Anglican communion.

Socially perhaps, years ago, that expectation existed from the general public. However nowadays, barely 1% of the population attend regular Anglican services and I don't think anyone among the Great British public really cares if Meghan is an Anglican or not. The Queen may, the Archbishop of Canterbury may, Prince Harry may. But it's not an obligation or expectation from the institution and never has been.

If the Queen, the head of the institution expects it, wouldn't that be the very definition of an institutional expectation?

I do think the situation in previous times was a little different from nowadays. Previously the expectation was that they married someone of royal blood - and that automatically meant that they wouldn't be Anglican. As the Catholic vs Anglican had been a huge issue in the past, it was explicitly forbidden to marry a Catholic (to ensure that the family would remain Anglican!) - only very recently has the ban on 'marrying' a Catholic been lifted but the family is still expected to be Anglican and joining the Catholic church still means exclusion from the line of succession. So, while it is now allowed to marry a Catholic (which Meghan isn't), the ideal is still that a bride or groom joins the Anglican Church - I would call that an expectation.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

It's important to note that whilst the Catholic church may have recognised any baptism Meghan may have had as a child (and we know now she has never been baptised, at least not in the trinitarian tradition), she would only have been allowed to receive communion if she was confirmed according to the Roman Rite - that is, she had been given all the Sacraments of Initiation as defined in the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church.

You have your sacraments confused.

In the Catholic Church one must have made their First Penance & Reconcilation (Confession) and First Holy Communion prior to participating in the Eucharist at Mass regularly.
Those take place generally in 2nd or 3rd grade.

Confirmation can occur between ages 7 and 16 but usually around age 12 or 13, but is not necessary to take communion.

 

[Somebody]

Any children Harry and Meghan have will be baptised as Anglicans so I can see how she would want to belong to the same church as the rest of her family. It makes good sense to me, especially as she has a Christian background. I hope that she takes comfort from it and feels at home. But then I hope that for her regardless of religion. It must be very difficult to be so far from home in a strange new land where everybody wants to know every minute detail about your life.

Culturally she might have a Christian background (and some people indeed think that everyone in Europe and North and South American must be Christian as that is the dominant religion) but as she has never been even a member of a church, it seems wishful thinking to say that she has a Christian background. Her background is non-religious - growing up within a culture that is/was dominated by Christianity; that would be a more accurate description in my book.

And whether Meghan joins the CoE out of conviction or out of respect for tradition; I am quite sure a lot of people do the last - and in my recent talks with an Anglican priest that was his expectation: they (the younger generation) come to church for the rituals and maybe a few will at some point in their lives become active believers and church-goers - and he was perfectly fine with that...

 

[Gaudete]

You have your sacraments confused.

In the Catholic Church one must have made their First Penance & Reconcilation (Confession) and First Holy Communion prior to participating in the Eucharist at Mass regularly.
Those take place generally in 2nd or 3rd grade.

Confirmation can occur between ages 7 and 16 but usually around age 12 or 13, but is not necessary to take communion.

Apologies, I should have been more clear in my post, I meant confirmation for those baptised in another Christian denomination as a form of reception into the church. One can be baptised a protestant but be confirmed in the Roman Catholic Church as a form of initiation.

If the Queen, the head of the institution expects it, wouldn't that be the very definition of an institutional expectation?

No. For one thing we don't know that she expects it but the Queen has no authority over doctrine within the Church of England. She may expect it as a grandmother, as head of the family and that's about all the weight it carries. If it was expected by the institution, George V would have insisted Princess Marina become an Anglican. Victoria would have insisted Grand Duchess Marie become an Anglican. Whilst personally they may have indicated a preference, formally they set no obligation.

 

[Lady Reem]

She will be baptised and confirmed in the Chuch of England. Before I was confirmed in my early teens I couldn't receive the sacrament at my local church, an extraordinarily important part of the Anglican service. Nor presumably could Kate, who did not seek to be confirmed until she was in her late 20s and about to become engaged.

Bet she and other royal brides weren’t subjected to the same aggressive nagging questions about their religious habits. Or motivations for marrying into royalty. Or why they sought to get confirmed just as they were about to get engaged and married and not before.

 

[Pranter]

Bet she and other royal brides weren’t subjected to the same aggressive nagging questions about their religious habits. Or motivations for marrying into royalty. Or why they sought to get confirmed just as they were about to get engaged and married and not before.

In all fairness yes it was discussed as I recall about Kate...however I don't think the BRF have been in this situation for a long time. The new bride not being baptized or confirmed both. For some folks it's kinda shocking. Everyone will settle down once it sinks in.


LaRae

 

[Somebody]

No. For one thing we don't know that she expects it but the Queen has no authority over doctrine within the Church of England. She may expect it as a grandmother, as head of the family and that's about all the weight it carries. If it was expected by the institution, George V would have insisted Princess Marina become an Anglican. Victoria would have insisted Grand Duchess Marie become an Anglican. Whilst personally they may have indicated a preference, formally they set no obligation.

I thought we were talking about the institution of the monarchy (previous posters also mentioned other royal families where the same mechanisms applied) - not of the Church of England. Of course the CoE cannot make any demands on the future members of the family - they can refuse to marry someone to someone but that's about it.

Expectations change over time The current expectations (which is very different from an obligation - so maybe we just look at from a different angle as you consider an expectation an obligation and I consider it a strong preference - and a 'personally indicated preference from the queen' is rather hard to ignore I would imagine, unless you have very good reasons to do so; and I am sure she would be interested to learn more about them) aren't the same as 50 years ago or 100 years ago; they evolve over time and the members and future members 'respond' to the expectations of their time - whether explicitly expressed or implied.

What other 'institutional expectations' can we think of that Meghan most likely will adhere to (or that she might question)?

 

[Gaudete]

Personally speaking, I don't much care whether she's a Christian, a Hindu or a Jedi Knight. As long as she makes Prince Harry happy and the Queen approves of their marriage then that's all I really need to know about her. She seems very intelligent, very kind and very eager to get to know her new country and it's customs. I'll be very proud to see her marry into the Royal Family.

 

[Somebody]

Personally speaking, I don't much care whether she's a Christian, a Hindu or a Jedi Knight. As long as she makes Prince Harry happy and the Queen approves of their marriage then that's all I really need to know about her. She seems very intelligent, very kind and very eager to get to know her new country and it's customs. I'll be very proud to see her marry into the Royal Family.

I think she ticked both boxes

 

[Gaudete]

She absolutely has. I think it's very sad (but to be expected of course) that she is being put under such scrutiny. There's a definite air of inverted snobbery in some corners of the British press which I find a very sad reflection of the British people- and not really very representative. Certainly everybody I have spoken to couldn't be more delighted for them and she seems to have impressed most folks with her interview appearance.

 

[jacqui24]

She absolutely has. I think it's very sad (but to be expected of course) that she is being put under such scrutiny. There's a definite air of inverted snobbery in some corners of the British press which I find a very sad reflection of the British people- and not really very representative. Certainly everybody I have spoken to couldn't be more delighted for them and she seems to have impressed most folks with her interview appearance.

I actually haven't seen that much of a controversy over her being baptized and confirmed in CoE in the media. They reported it, but not in their typically snobbery way for the most part. Honestly, for the mainstream, the fact that she has the backing of the royal family now has definitely changed some tunes to more positive. There are still some snobbery, but not nearly as noticeable as before.

 

[Lady Nimue]

She's not giving up her American citizenship--she plans to have dual citizenship.

I like that. Means her children will have dual citizenship. How nice.

P.S. I say 'ont'. I have always found the 'ant' an outlier.

 

[Somebody]

I like that. Means her children will have dual citizenship. How nice.

P.S. I say 'ont'. I have always found the 'ant' an outlier.

Is that automatic or do you need to apply for American citizenship if one of your parents is a US citizen and you are born on foreign soil?

 

[Moonmaiden23]

It's okay, we can disagree. All good. It is the mind which is the battleground in our modern times after all (tangled up with emotions).



Here I will rely on my Jesuit education in these matters (keeping in mind that I come from the liberal stream of Catholicism, that has been eclipsed in recent decades by the conservatives). Most all of what you mention are not essential doctrines of the Catholic Church. Most arose out of political expediency and have become ingrained traditions.



Can't get into the history of this (obviously) but in no way is the pope infallible, and you can be a 'good Catholic' without accepting that piece of political theater. There is this little slight-of-hand about speaking 'ex cathedra' but most all of these accretions of power to the pope are rooted in political/military/economic history related to the fact that Christians took over the structure of the Roman Empire's administrative network.



Yes, he's good, but not good enough, as he's not going up against the conservative element regarding women priests, and married clergy. Maybe he knows the limits he can push. (BTW unmarried clergy pertains only to the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, and a sprinkling of others; John Paul II forced the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church to dispense with married clergy in the 80's).

I'm acquainted with issues between the two churches and the differences are minor. Again, doctrinal hair-splitting. IMO.



I would offer that anyone who has encountered the Christ Being (entered the Christ Consciousness) is Christian. You will 'know' such by their actions (and words are actions of a kind). You will know them by their manifest love. A true Christian is not bound by doctrines and 'correct words and practices', mental constructs. It is this very earth-bound material thinking and doing that the Christ came to release, into a global cosmopolitanism.





A 'true Christian' is not for me to judge, that I know. My 'job' is to love and accept others with compassion, recognizing that the Christ appears in all garbs: when I was hungry you fed me, when I was homeless you housed me, when I was lonely you sat with me. The Christ is in all of us and is not limited by a word, a name, a doctrinal nicety. JMO.

Everything thing I mentioned (with the exception of the ordination of women and married clergy which as you correctly posited are Traditions) are indeed essential doctrines of the Catholic Faith, taken directly from Scripture and the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church. They are certainly not my subjective opinions.

The Mass is at the center of Catholic life, as is belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Once a person who calls himself Catholic rejects those things he can still call himself a Christian, but not a Catholic Christian. This is, again, not my subjective opinion ..it is the official teaching of the Church.

I think your explanation about the nature of Christ is interesting (where is it from?)but again...it is not something that I can locate in Scripture, the Catechism, or the teachings of the Early Church Fathers.(Cyprian,Polycarp, Augustine, John Chrysostom..a few of whom were taught directly by the Apostles themselves.)

According to all of the above, Christ-the Eternal Word of God-came into the world to reconcile all men to God and make it possible for them to share in eternal life.

I was not born when Vatican II began and so I have no memory of the pre Vatican II Church. I consider myself a John Paul II Catholic-to the left of center or liberal on many social matters, but conservative religiously.

This is because I have come to recognize the utter mayhem that has resulted out of Vatican II...confusion about what the Church teaches, rotten catechesis , the emptying out of seminaries and convents and the laity leaving the Church in droves to decide for themselves what Christianity means to them.

(not to say that some very good things did not come out of the Council as well).

Anyway, this is a fascinating subject but I realize that I have veered too far off topic. I apologize in advance to anyone who is offended.

 

[Biri]

I like that. Means her children will have dual citizenship. How nice.

P.S. I say 'ont'. I have always found the 'ant' an outlier.

Autumn Philips has retained her Canadian citizenship, so Meghan can do it also with her American.

 

[jacqui24]

Just to clarify the dual citizenship reporting. The initial reporting was somewhat confusing due to interpretation by reporters. However, the later reporting by them are pretty uniform that it's unclear whether or not she'll keep dual citizenship. She'll remain a US citizen while waiting for her British citizen. I believe different news outlet have said the later official clarification is it hasn't been decided at this point.

 

[Osipi]

To put all of this discussion into a neat little nutshell, there's a saying that I've found to be a truism. "When the student is ready, the Teacher shall appear".

This is what really matters. Meghan has decided, of her own free will, that she wishes to be baptized and confirmed in the Church of England. She isn't doing this without conscious thought. Its her time, on her own personal journey, to focus on her own spirituality and make a commitment not only to Harry in marriage but to her Creator. its beautiful.

I've also noticed that reading through several pages that has appeared since I decided to actually get some sleep, that its been a very respectful, intelligent back and forth discussion between a lot of people that had one thing in mind. The Christos. The beliefs and how it all works together. And.... we know what is said about that kind of thing too. Wherever two or more.....

Maybe we're doing what more in this world should be doing. No matter what, one thing is self evident. When all of us are watching Harry and Meghan take their vows at the altar, we can pretty much be assured that the blessing will be a real one that will hopefully always be a part of Harry and Meghan's married life and be their "strength and stay" through the better or worse, richer or poorer, in sickness and in health.

 

[Somebody]

Autumn Philips has retained her Canadian citizenship, so Meghan can do it also with her American.

A relevant difference to me is that Canada is one of the realms within the Commonwealth of which the Queen is also Head of State. So, it would have been an affront to ask a new member of the Royal Family of Canada to give up her Canadian citizenship.