A cabinet minister has called for progress to be made on ending the 300-year old legal ban on Roman Catholics succeeding to the throne.

[lizaanne]

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7774839.stm

Ok - can someone please help me understand how this could POSSIBLY happen???

The Monarch is the head of the Church of England. They hold the title - Fidei Defensor - Defender of the Faith.

Now how in the world can you have a Catholic holding that title, defending the CofE???

What am I missing here there all these politicians never seem to mention?

~Liza

 

[Dale_M]

Ok - can someone please help me understand how this could POSSIBLY happen???

The Monarch is the head of the Church of England. They hold the title - Fidei Defensor - Defender of the Faith.

Prince Charles announced he is considering changing the translation to Defender of Faith (dropping the word “the”). His intent is to make the title reflect the multicultural nature of Britain. If this new translation were to become official the monarch would be defending all faiths, not just Anglicanism or even just Christianity.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4253003.stm

 

[Lujack]

Defender of the Faith actually referred to Catholicism, believe it or not. It was the Pope who gave King Henry that title for suppressing Lutheranism, and the King just never bothered to drop it.

A Catholic monarch would actually be using that title for its intended purpose.

 

[lizaanne]

Defender of the Faith actually referred to Catholicism, believe it or not. It was the Pope who gave King Henry that title for suppressing Lutheranism, and the King just never bothered to drop it.

A Catholic monarch would actually be using that title for its intended purpose.

Yes - fair point, historically you are correct.

I did not know that Prince Charles was considering changing the title of the Monarchy. That is very interesting indeed.

~Liza

 

[lizaanne]

Actually - now that I think of this some more, and DH points out to me, changing that small bit of the Monarch’s title still does not resolve the issue that the Monarch IS the head of the CofE!!!

How is this going to be resolved? If the Monarch is no longer the head of the CofE, then who will be? A Catholic - or I would presume anyone of any other faith - can not be the head of the CofE.

This still is not making sense to me. I have to be missing something.

~Liza

 

[Lujack]

Actually - now that I think of this some more, and DH points out to me, changing that small bit of the Monarch’s title still does not resolve the issue that the Monarch IS the head of the CofE!!!

How is this going to be resolved? If the Monarch is no longer the head of the CofE, then who will be? A Catholic - or I would presume anyone of any other faith - can not be the head of the CofE.

This still is not making sense to me. I have to be missing something.

~Liza

I imagine that even if a Catholic becomes king, there will still be an Anglican somewhere in the royal family. I don’t think it would be out of the question for the king/queen to delegate the role to the highest Anglican in the line of succession. It is a purely symbolic role at this point, anyway, so it wouldn’t be like the king is appointing someone who’ll be issuing doctrines.

 

[Eucharisted]

I suppose the Catholic could convert the Church of England

 

[lizaanne]

I imagine that even if a Catholic becomes king, there will still be an Anglican somewhere in the royal family. I don’t think it would be out of the question for the king/queen to delegate the role to the highest Anglican in the line of succession. It is a purely symbolic role at this point, anyway, so it wouldn’t be like the king is appointing someone who’ll be issuing doctrines.

What makes you think it is symbolic? Doesn’t the Monarch appoint Bishops in the CofE!?? The FACT is that the Monarch IS the head of the CofE. This would have to change if others were to ascend the throne. And if it were to change, then who would take that place?

~Liza

 

[Lujack]

What makes you think it is symbolic? Doesn’t the Monarch appoint Bishops in the CofE!?? The FACT is that the Monarch IS the head of the CofE. This would have to change if others were to ascend the throne. And if it were to change, then who would take that place?

~Liza

The monarch does appoint the bishops, but nowadays pretty much leaves doctrines to the theologians. Like many things the monarch does, too, I’m sure the majority of the decisions are made by others. It would be relatively easy to say that King So-and-So will be delegating his functions as head of the Church of England to Crown Prince Such-and-Such.

 

[lizaanne]

The monarch does appoint the bishops, but nowadays pretty much leaves doctrines to the theologians. Like many things the monarch does, too, I’m sure the majority of the decisions are made by others. It would be relatively easy to say that King So-and-So will be delegating his functions as head of the Church of England to Crown Prince Such-and-Such.

First of all, what makes you think that it would be “relatively easy” to just completely reorganize the entire structure of the Anglican Communion?

You can delegate responsibility, but not ownership of the role.

Your comments are all totally brushing aside the FACT = a Catholic (or any other faith person) can NOT be the head of the CofE. Period!! Even logic dictates this - why in the world would the CofE (or ANY faith for that matter) want a person as their head when that person does not even believe what they believe???!!!

Unless you are saying that the entire structure is to be completely reorganized, then allowing non-Anglicans to become Monarch will not work, and I have yet to hear a plausible explanation of how it possibly could. Saying that the Monarch would just have someone else do it is not a solution. That is like saying you will have your kid decide where you go on vacation - it still doesn’t make them a parent!

~Liza

 

[Contarini]

Actually - now that I think of this some more, and DH points out to me, changing that small bit of the Monarch’s title still does not resolve the issue that the Monarch IS the head of the CofE!!!

Not head. That is a title that Henry VIII used, and Catholics like to pretend that it’s still in use because it makes for nice polemic.

But yes, the monarch does have some authority over the Church of England (not over the Anglican Communion as a whole, be it noted). The proposed measure might be a step on the road to disestablishment. However, the fact is that James II, the last Catholic monarch, held the same position at a time when it meant a lot more. Of course, that is one of the reasons why he was the last Catholic monarch–Anglicans didn’t much like a “Papist” playing a role in choosing their bishops, etc. But still, there were actually quite a few cases (back when state churches were taken seriously) where monarchs were of a different confessional allegiance than the state church of the country they ruled.

Edwin

 

[lizaanne]

Not head. That is a title that Henry VIII used, and Catholics like to pretend that it’s still in use because it makes for nice polemic.

But yes, the monarch does have some authority over the Church of England (not over the Anglican Communion as a whole, be it noted). The proposed measure might be a step on the road to disestablishment. However, the fact is that James II, the last Catholic monarch, held the same position at a time when it meant a lot more. Of course, that is one of the reasons why he was the last Catholic monarch–Anglicans didn’t much like a “Papist” playing a role in choosing their bishops, etc. But still, there were actually quite a few cases (back when state churches were taken seriously) where monarchs were of a different confessional allegiance than the state church of the country they ruled.

Edwin

Thanks Edwin -

So, with all the talk about allowing Catholics to ascend the throne, how do they propose to get around this point? In all the articles I’ve read, I don’t ever see any mention to this at all?

Calling all Brits to help with this!!! (My DH not included, he has no interest in the topic. )

~Liza

 

[Contarini]

Thanks Edwin -

So, with all the talk about allowing Catholics to ascend the throne, how do they propose to get around this point? In all the articles I’ve read, I don’t ever see any mention to this at all?

I thought I addressed this. It’s not unprecedented at all. It may seem odd, and Anglicans may not like it, which may lead to disestablishment, but there is nothing intrinsically contradictory about the monarch having some nominal authority over the state church while not belonging to it. If people in the 17th century could put up with this (and they often did, even if it was a rather unstable situation), it shouldn’t cause too many problems in an era when the state church means relatively little and the authority of the monarch much less.

That being said, I oppose this measure unless it is part of a recognition that our differences with Rome are (at least on our side) fairly trivial. In other words, that a Roman Catholic can reasonably play some role in the governance of the C of E because of the close relationship between our Communions. I fear that it’s simply an expression of what old-fashioned Catholics would call “indifferentism.”

Edwin

 

[lizaanne]

Thank you for your clarification - I’m sorry if I didn’t “get it” the first time.

~Liza

 

[Della]

I think the monarchy ought to give up being the head of the CofE and just hand it over to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Problem solved. :coffeeread:

 

[GKC]

Not head. That is a title that Henry VIII used, and Catholics like to pretend that it’s still in use because it makes for nice polemic.

But yes, the monarch does have some authority over the Church of England (not over the Anglican Communion as a whole, be it noted). The proposed measure might be a step on the road to disestablishment. However, the fact is that James II, the last Catholic monarch, held the same position at a time when it meant a lot more. Of course, that is one of the reasons why he was the last Catholic monarch–Anglicans didn’t much like a “Papist” playing a role in choosing their bishops, etc. But still, there were actually quite a few cases (back when state churches were taken seriously) where monarchs were of a different confessional allegiance than the state church of the country they ruled.

Edwin

Since 1559, and the Parlimentary Act of Supremacy, the monarch is the supreme Governor of both Church and State.

Note that nowadays, that means little, as to either realm.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Defender of the Faith actually referred to Catholicism, believe it or not. It was the Pope who gave King Henry that title for suppressing Lutheranism, and the King just never bothered to drop it.

A Catholic monarch would actually be using that title for its intended purpose.

Historically, not exactly accurate, though indeed the
*Defensor Fidei * title was originally given to Henry by Leo X (after a long campaigning job on Henry’s part), for a number of reasons. But the title as it is now is attached to the throne as the result of an act of Parliament. The original one was Henry’s personally, and didn’t flow to his offspring. Or to the monarchy in general.

GKC

 

[Jimmy_B]

Defender of the Faith actually referred to Catholicism, believe it or not. It was the Pope who gave King Henry that title for suppressing Lutheranism, and the King just never bothered to drop it.

A Catholic monarch would actually be using that title for its intended purpose.