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."
My hat's off to you, that was an excellent summery of the most turbulent of times when men like Fisher and More were killed for opposing Henry VIII and his enormous appetite for anything he personally wanted.
Henry VIII has always been a fascinating figure to me. On the one hand, he was a tremendous visionary and leader. After all, look at what he managed to get accomplished. On the other hand, I think he was very insecure. It bugged him that his father, the first English king in several centuries to not have the name Plantaganet, was always somewhat received as a usurper. I think this goes a long way to explain why Henry VIII consistently moved swiftly and ruthlessly to stamp out any hint of rebellion.
Henry's confrontation with Rome was many, many years in the making. The origins go at least as far back as the Magna Carta. The annulment question was simply the straw that broke the camel's back- much in the same way the murder of Franz Ferdinand was the spark that ignited WWI.
Henry was always a devoted Catholic (in mind if not always in body), but in his mind, England came first. In order to assure a smooth succession without another civil war, he needed male heir, and a queen who could provide one. Catherine of Aragon had grown too old, so things, however ugly (though routine throughout the middle ages), needed to be done for the sake of the realm.
If he hasn't done that yet, it's doubtful he ever will. How old is he?
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.