Charles to marry Camilla

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Hemel

To me under this perspective it then becomes absolute - and if so, then I don't believe that blame or heart attitude are relevant factors

Ah, you need to read your Bible more, my friend (ps - so good to see you posting again!!) I think you would be hard put to say that heart attitude is not relevant to God. For a quick example off the top of my head, the cities of refuge concept in the OT for those who accidentally murdered - I mean, you end up with a dead body whether it's intentional or accidental, right? Yet God clearly treats the two situations differently.

Look up references to "heart" sometime in the Bible ...

[Hemel]

No. If the perspective is that that adultery is a sin, then it is a sin. There can be forgivenness for sins, of course (good grief, of course! ), and no one would deny that if there is a God then he can look into the heart of people and understand what happened and why. But that doesn't change the fact that a sin is committed and has to be redressed.

If however we're saying something like adultery is wrong ... then that could become relative. Adultery is wrong in one circumstance, can be excused in another ... it's then that questions of what was in someone's heart can be considered, and ideas of whether someone was an adulterer out of spite or love or reaction or whatever can be factored in.

Hope that makes sense

And thanks

[Rían]

Yes, it makes sense, and perhaps we're just not communicating well.

Adultery is a sin (at least you and I believe that! ) Both Charles and Diana committed adultery, and both committed sin in this area. What I'm referring to is the judgement for the sin, which God, as creator, has a right and obligation to perform. We see the concept of different levels of reward, as well as different levels of judgement, in the Bible. Just like in my example, there was judgment for a murder, no matter what type of murder it was, because murder is sin, yet there were separate levels of judgement for the different types of murder. And this, to me, seems right and fair and consistent with the character of God.

[Rían]

(wow, are we off-topic! We should prob. continue more discussion, if any, via PMs!)

Are Charles and Camilla getting married in St. Pauls, or will it just be a simple little wedding on one of their multi-million-dollar yachts?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

they are having a civil ceremony at windsor, followed by a blessing by the archbishop of canterbury at st pauls

[Hemel]

RÃ*an, thanks

Adultery is a sin (at least you and I believe that! ) Both Charles and Diana committed adultery, and both committed sin in this area. What I'm referring to is the judgement for the sin, which God, as creator, has a right and obligation to perform. We see the concept of different levels of reward, as well as different levels of judgement, in the Bible.

Mmmhmmm yes if we are talking judgement. Though of course there is also the concept of absolute forgivenness for sins through Jesus

But if we are talking 'heart' matters - ah, there's the rub for me. Of course God would know everything that is in a person's heart, and certainly, if there were to be a judgement from God, then those matters would be considered. No issue Where I have problems is when people attempt to do this kind of thing - saying things like, 'well, of course Charles was more in the wrong - and Diana she wasn't so much at fault'. I feel unhappy about this because firstly we simply can't know exactly what was in their hearts, and secondly and partly because of this my feelings are also that it is not for us to judge, ie to say such things. It is, I think, if we're talking spiritual things, then a matter just between them and their creator - with appropriate guidance if need be

Here's an interesting thought though - because I do get the impression that people tend to see Diana as more innocent. But on the face of it there could be constructed an argument that she was the greater sinner (as opposed to wrongdoer), for it wasn't just one lover she had while married ....

.... but ... better not to go down that route, I think!!

Anyway, I think you and I basically agree - and yes, certainly I agree we're wandering off topic!

So to leap back in again ...

.... yes, it's a civil ceremony at Windsor castle, followed by a blessing there in St George's chapel. I think the Queen Mum is buried there, so it's particularly appropriate because Charles thought a lot of her But what I'm wondering is how much public fuss there'll be about it - processions and carriages or just cars scuttling in? Certainly they seem to have kept a very low profile since the announcement, and I wonder if the wedding also will be very low key.

[Rían]

(I agree that we cannot judge accurately, and thank God that God can! And thank you - always a pleasure to talk with you )

What does the "blessing" thing mean? Is he blessing them, or the marriage, or what? Is it "ok" in the COE to marry after a divorce, or is that why it's a civil ceremony? (I think one of the Henrys had something to do with that ...)

Anyway, I wish them well - sorry for the snippy remark earlier.

[Hemel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

(I agree that we cannot judge accurately, and thank God that God can! And thank you - always a pleasure to talk with you )

What does the "blessing" thing mean? Is he blessing them, or the marriage, or what? Is it "ok" in the COE to marry after a divorce, or is that why it's a civil ceremony? (I think one of the Henrys had something to do with that ...)

Anyway, I wish them well - sorry for the snippy remark earlier.

For the wedding, as far as I know the CoE can now permit divorcees to remarry with a full church wedding. I have a feeling that this has only recently come in ... maybe a couple of years ago. The decision on whether to permit it happening depends, I think, on the person who is to conduct the ceremony. I think there were changes further back too, because at one stage I have a feeling divorcees weren't able to take communion either.

The Henry who was involved in divorces was Henry VIII - he was the one who created the break with Rome, because he wanted to rid himself of Katherine of Aragon and marry Anne Boleyn. The Pope wouldn't let him - there were all sorts of political reasons involved, so it wasn't just a spiritual matter. In the event I think Henry and Anne actually ended up marrying before the divorce was finalised! Anyway, he certainly made the most of it! He divorced Anne Boleyn too, before she was executed, divorced Anne of Cleves ... and then there was Katherine Howard ... I don't know but wouldn't be surprised if she was divorced too, before he killed her.

For the blessing - it's a sort of service after the wedding, where basically the couple are blessed and can even call on the help of God in this new marriage. It can have hymns, prayers, sermons, and even a space for penitence, if need be (it'd be interesting to see if either of the couple take this option up!). The rings are blessed, but there isn't the exchange as in a formal wedding ceremony. It is even possible to have a communion afterwards. The vows are similar to the wedding ones, though of course they can't do the bit about 'lawful wedded husband (or wife)' because they are already married, so it'd be more like 'you have taken x to be your husband (or wife)' but there are still bits about 'love and honour' and the officiant still emphasises the meaning of marriage.

I think that by taking this route Charles and Camilla have made the best of it ... I'm not entirely sure even yet whether a full wedding would have been acceptable to a lot of people. But this is something many people have already done, and has the benefit of keeping people within God's fold, if that is the way they feel and believe. Which perhaps is important especially for someone who is the head of the church ...


'snippy remark'? I didn't notice one

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by Hemel

The Henry who was involved in divorces was Henry VIII - he was the one who created the break with Rome, because he wanted to rid himself of Katherine of Aragon and marry Anne Boleyn. The Pope wouldn't let him - there were all sorts of political reasons involved, so it wasn't just a spiritual matter. In the event I think Henry and Anne actually ended up marrying before the divorce was finalised! Anyway, he certainly made the most of it! He divorced Anne Boleyn too, before she was executed, divorced Anne of Cleves ... and then there was Katherine Howard ... I don't know but wouldn't be surprised if she was divorced too, before he killed her.

Don't forget the little rhyme: "divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived". Of course it only works if you know the order of the wives though

As well as wanting a divorce, he wanted all the church's land and wealth too. Other countries got the Reformation because they believed the RC church needed spiritual reform; we got it because we had a greedy king

[Janny]

ABS isn't CHeaP.

Catherine of Aragon
Anne Boleyn
Jane Seymor
Anne of Cleeves
Catherine Howard
Catherine Parr

Now, someone tell me that's wrong...

[sun-star]

Looks OK to me, apart from the spelling, which varies anyway.

I've been reading LOTR too long - I was about to correct "Aragon" to "Aragorn"

[The Gaffer]

So, the Queen isn't going to attend her own son's wedding.

Do you believe me now that their values are not the same as ours (i.e. everybody else's)?

[sun-star]

Just to clarify: she's not going to the civil ceremony, but she will go to the service of blessing.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sun-star

Just to clarify: she's not going to the civil ceremony...

Why? She feels she can't be civil at the civil ceremony?

(ok, dumb ...)


(Note 1 - This is a certified 100% religion-free post)
(Note 2 - It's not a certified 100% dumb-free post)

[Janny]

Well, there are a few suggestions. The Telegraph did lead with news of a 'snub'. But other suggest that it might not be dignified for her to visit her local registry office, while others point to the fact that she's never been to a civil ceremony.

[The Gaffer]

Isn't it funny that no matter what the Queen does there is a host of self-appointed royal "experts" on hand to justify it on the telly and in the papers.

It must be to do with her official role as head of state and head of the Church of England. I reckon it could be to do with the potential legal problem: some people think that the wedding is illegal for some bizarre reasons. It's illegal for the monarch or heir to marry a Catholic, for example. Maybe it's also illegal for them to marry a divorcee. Who knows?

Why it should matter even if it was illegal, I have no idea. Maybe she'd have to excommunicate herself.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

apparently, it is illegal for a senior royal to get married in a civil ceremony, but the attorney general, whats his name , has since said that the marriage act of whenever it was overrides whatever law that prohibits charles marrying in a civil ceremony, and apparently there are "human rights" issues as well

[The Gaffer]

Easy answer: get married in Scotland, where the church will marry you if you're divorced.

[IronParrot]

If Charles and Camilla don't want to keep their relationship under wraps everywhere they go, more power to them - it makes everything less awkward, and one can only hope the tabloids will now shut up when they're "seen together" instead of making a huge kerfuffle about it.

As far as the monarchy goes, the solution's simple: skip Charles and go straight to William. He's the right age (Elizabeth was crowned in her twenties as well), sources allege that he may actually have a personality, and I sure as hell don't want his father on my coinage.

It's a poor reflection of the state of our society that tabloid magazines see it fit to comment on royalty. Have they no respect?

[sun-star]

I completely agree with your first and last paragraphs, but can't help thinking that the second would open up a can of worms. If we start choosing a monarch on the grounds of who is most popular, we'd have King David Beckham by 2010, because there is no longer any solid reason for to make someone king. If we pass over Charles just because he's not very well-liked, what's to stop us deciding after a few years that actually William isn't working out, let's have Harry instead? Then if he's not very good, we can have Zara Philips, because she's pretty and has a tongue stud. Personally I'd love to see William as king while he's still young, but only in the natural course of succession - unless Charles decides to step down, which seems unlikely.