Posted on 11/16/2006 6:07:11 PM PST by sionnsar
Prince Charles' hopes of a multi-faith coronation suffered a blow when the Church of England asserted the historic importance of a solely Christian service when he becomes King.
In a rebuke to the Prince's hopes of inviting Muslims, Hindus and others to take an equal role in Westminster Abbey, the Church declared that Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams will design the coronation service.
The highly unusual statement was the Church's first official pronouncement on how the coronation will be handled and it comes amid intensifying controversy over the role of non-Christian faiths and non-Anglican Christian denominations.
Charles has long made clear his yearning for a ceremony in which Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and Sikh beliefs take a place alongside the doctrines of the Church of England.
Dr Williams, however, has insisted that the Prince must restrain his interest in other faiths and stay within the 'constitutional framework' that makes him Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
The intervention from the Church made plain that Charles will be on his own if he tries to introduce other faiths into the religious coronation service at the Abbey.
The Church's leading lay official, General Synod Secretary General William Fittall said yesterday: 'The coronation service is conducted by the Archbishop of Canterbury, whose duty this has normally been since 1066.
"He, consequently, takes the lead in preparing the order of service for the approval of the sovereign."
Mr Fittall, a former senior civil servant at the Home Office who has led the CofE bureaucracy for four years, delivered his statement in reply to a request from a Synod member to 'clarify who decides the form of the next coronation service".
The statement follows remarks by two leading Anglican prelates in the past few days on the importance of the Christian monarchy.
Earlier this week, Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu told the Daily Mail that "the Church of England reminds the nation that in this country the Queen is Defender of the Faith, head of the Commonwealth and head of state."
He said of the relationship between Church and monarch: "You change it at your peril".
Dr Sentamu's comments came in the wake of an interview given at the beginning of the month by Bishop of Rochester Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, who said that "the coronation service is singularly Christian in its form" and added that the Prince's duty is to defend 'the historic faith of our Church".
Dr Sentamu, who is number two in the CofE hierarchy, and Dr Nazir-Ali are the two leading foreign-born bishops in the Church. It may not be coincidental that the Archbishop of York, from Uganda, and the Bishop of Rochester, from Pakistan, come from parts of the world where Christianity is under heavy pressure from Islam.
The official confirmation of Dr William's lead role in the service yesterday added weight to the growing view that the Prince will be compelled to accept a traditional and solely Anglican coronation.
Other faiths will get a look in only at a subsequent and symbolically less important event to be arranged later.
An article in the Spectator magazine last month said Charles wants a second ceremony at Westminster Hall, inside the Palace of Westminster, which would admit Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and Sikh beliefs alongside those of non-Anglican Christians. This would be held at a later date.
The Prince, who will take the title Defender of the Faith when he becomes King, said 12 years ago that he wished to be seen rather as a Defender of Faith.
His push for a shift to a multi-faith monarchy alarmed many churchmen and politicians who saw it undermining both longstanding constitutional practice and the monarch's position as Supreme Governor of the Church.
Charles is said to be determined to have a 'focused and telecentric' coronation that reflects a new era and a new kind of reign.
But Dr Williams delivered a warning against undermining the Christian monarchy when he went to Lambeth Palace nearly four years ago.
The Archbishop said early in 2003: "I am glad the Prince of Wales takes faith communities as seriously as he does but the actual title, there is a historical, constitutional framework for it which you don't just change by fiat."
Constitutional historian Professor Anthony Glees welcomed the Church's assertion of its role.
"I am pleased that the Church is drawing attention to the importance of Christianity in the coronation, which of course we all hope will be a long time coming," he said.
"We should remember Winston Churchill's "finest hour" speech in 1940, in which he said the Battle of Britain was about to begin and that on it depended "the survival of Christian civilisation".
"The reminder that this is a Christian country will be welcomed by many who fought to preserve it and those who remember them. They will be glad that the Archbishop of Canterbury has taken the point."
Some Christian groups remain unhappy that the Prince is thought to be considering a multi-faith event to follow the coronation.
Colin Hart of the Christian Institute think tank said: "There are huge obstacles to a multi-faith coronation service and the constitution would unravel if Charles tried to do something different.
"But I find it bizarre that he intends to take a Christian coronation oath and then stage a second ceremony at which he will declare loyalty to other faiths. That appears to be breaking his oath."
Rowan Williams does something he's not used to doing. My gracious lord of Canterbury puts his foot down.
Prince Charles’ hopes of a multi-faith coronation suffered a blow when the Church of England asserted the historic importance of a solely Christian service when he becomes King.
In a rebuke to the Prince’s hopes of inviting Muslims, Hindus and others to take an equal role in Westminster Abbey, the Church declared that Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams will design the coronation service.
The highly unusual statement was the Church’s first official pronouncement on how the coronation will be handled and it comes amid intensifying controversy over the role of non-Christian faiths and non-Anglican Christian denominations.Dr Williams, however, has insisted that the Prince must restrain his interest in other faiths and stay within the ’constitutional framework’ that makes him Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
The intervention from the Church made plain that Charles will be on his own if he tries to introduce other faiths into the religious coronation service at the Abbey.
Thanks to Jim.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. I nominate Charley for Upper Class Twit of the Year.
Why just for 'the Year'? Why not for the decade or the century?
The title 'Defender of the Faith' was awarded to the Tudor king, Henry VIII by Pope Leo X in 1521, back when Henry was still a Catholic. When the Catholic Church wouldn't grant him a divorce from his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, he started the Church of England, and was granted the title, Defender of the Faith, by an act of Parliament in 1544.
The whole thing about English kings and queens as defenders of the faith has been rather ridiculous from the start.
The whole church/state partnership was always an abomination.
Looks like he just can't wait to pull the plug on Mom...
They should really abolish the royal family already.
Sorry Charlie ... Only the best!
But he has well and truly lost it this time. He is nutz!
I have no problem if he wants to have a party after the coronation in which he can ask people of ther faiths to participate. Just like when people get married: the church wedding and the reception. The church wedding has to be a Christian wedding, not mixed ceremony. The reception, well, just like any other party, it can be anything (decent).
Amen, Lord, Please take the Prince utterly out of consideration and utterly out of public life at the earliest fitting moment and well before the Queen passes.
Hear our prayer, Dear Lord Jesus, in your Name.
Am I missing something? Isn't is Mother still alive and in no evidence of declining health? Isn't this rather bad form to be discussing his coronation while she's upright?
You are so correct in your assertion, HS.
The church of England has been progressively losing its power not just over the Monarchy but over Britain as a whole. To be sure, the "Divine Right of Kings" is a concept no longer in vogue(hasn't been for a long time). However, the English people will not stomach the trivialisation of "their" church or their monarchy by a would-be King. Tradition still means something in Great Britain, and if Charles tries to shun tradition his rulership will be in serious question before it has even begun. Most royals know, understand and accept that their power derives from God and not from people - unlike elected officials, they rule by the will of Almighty God often despite the will of the people. All we need to do is look to the Book of Common Prayer and to the prayer for the whole state of Christ's Church to find: "We beseech Thee also, so to direct and dispose the hearts of all Christian Rulers, that they may truly and impartially administer justice, to the punishment of wickedness and vice, and to the maintenance of Thy true religion, and virtue." I am sure the heir to the British throne will be soberly reminded that he rules by the will of the Almighty God: Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Charlie still has some growing up to do!
Un-fricken-believable!
King Henry pushed through Parliament two acts that severed the ties of not just the church, but the whole nation, to Rome. The Act of Restraint in Appeals ended the Pope's appellate jurisdiction over all legal cases in England. The Act of Supremacy returned to the king the ability to appoint bishops and other high officials of the English church (that power had belonged to king until the 4th Lateran Council). The fact that these monumental bills met less opposition in Parliament than Henry's tax policies speaks volumes about the regard in which the church was held back then.
Following those changes, King Henry then proceeded to squash attempts by several bishops to introduce English services, married clergy, Communion in both kinds and several other Protestant reforms.
It was Elizabeth I who dropped the title of "Supreme Head of the Church of England" and replaced it with "Governor General of the Church of England".
Couldn't Prince Charles and John Kerry get together and do something that would keep them both too busy to get into trouble? They must think exactly alike. And they both will be dangerous if they get any bit of power.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.