Episcopal Presiding Bishop Michael Curry to preach at Henry and Meghan's Wedding

  • Thread starter Thread starter ComplineSanFran
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I see where you are coming from, but Jesus himself during his time publicly admonished, condemned, and judge the religious leadership of his day. It wasn’t being mean but seen as a way to correct their behavior for the sake of their soul. Following His example, the Church did and acted this way all the way up until relatively recent time. Catholics for centuries understood and accepted this. They also knew about the dangers of the sin of scandal, which is at the very least what this ceremony did.
 
That was Jesus.

I am neither God nor Jesus.

Scandal to us (possibly, not that it affects me personally). Not to them. They don’t care what the Catholic Church thinks. 😉
 
Last edited:
You are right we don’t know the details around Meghan’s first marriage. From what I’ve seen her first husband, and we don’t know if Meghan was Christian at that time. So at best we have a valid marriage if there even was one. But my point is if you are going to have a very public ceremony involving two public and influential people then to avoid the sin of scandal I feel that a decree of nullity should have been declare first to avoid the sin of scandal. I understand that divorced people aren’t an issue for marriage in the C of E, but do we really believe what Jesus said in the Gospels about marriage? If so then I think we should follow how the Church has handled these situations. Trust me I hope for their sake her first marriage wasn’t even a valid marriage so they could have a valid and sacramental marriage. That would bring about graces for both of them.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)


Landed gentry are not royalty. Never have been.

See how knights are considered nobility as well? But they are not royal, either.

If they have the title bestowed because they are the child of the monarch (like Andrew and Edward) or of the heir (William, Harry), they hold royal status because they are the child of the monarch or the heir.

Now I actually am out. I’m also muting the thread.
 
Last edited:
themonk86 said:
You’re right we don’t know for certain, and that is part of the problem. If you are going to have such a publicized marriage ceremony of two famous people then I feel the whole annulment process, if one was done, should have been declared so we avoid the sin of scandal. If you are going to have this huge publicized wedding then those details do matter since so many people are watching, but to be honest most people don’t care because most people don’t see the problem with divorce and remarrying.
Click to expand...
Or, you could just come on CAF and declare the wedding a sham without knowing any of the facts. I guess there is that.

Of course, I am being sarcastic. But you see what the problem is? When you make declaritive statemets like you did in your previous post, you sound like you know what you are talking about. Come to find out, you don’t. That’s not good.
 
themonk86 said:
From what I’ve seen her first husband, and we don’t know if Meghan was Christian at that time.
Click to expand...
She was baptized recently. So it might be that she never was before. I don’t know that it was a conditional baptism.
 
Sorry but from what we know publicly about her first marriage and the marriage ceremony today isn’t just guessing. I’ve taken the facts as we know them, and due to the fact this ceremony was done publicly it can warrant public criticism. That’s not good to just sit there and pretend for them just because it feels good, and we don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings. Look I truly believe what Jesus said about marriage. I also know that marriage today is looked down by so many today.
 
I don’t think there needed to be any declarations. We don’t know the details, but as the wedding went ahead, we can assume the best. No need for all the speculation suggesting otherwise (not aimed at you personally, just in general).
 
Yeah I think her first husband is a Jew. So I would say at best their marriage was valid.
 
exnihilo said:
Yes, as I understand he had a civil marriage and a church blessing. The Queen did not attend the civil marriage. It’s quite a mess. Divorce always is.
Click to expand...
She was also in a weird position I’m sure. I wouldn’t have wanted to have been her that day for certain.
 
I would agree Lou if the ceremony was done in private. I would be the first to shut up and give them the benefit of the doubt, but when you are going to do a ceremony publicly like they did for literally millions to see without any clarification about her first marriage then you are at least inviting the sin of scandal. The current catechism in paragraph 2285 speaks about how serious the sin of scandal is.
 
Decree of nullity.

. Haven’t said that in quite a while. I do love the oldies but goodies.

You had it more correctly, just above.
 
Last edited:
No, I don’t think there was any need to clarify her first marriage. We aren’t privy to all the details because it’s not our business to know them. I am sure the relevant procedures were followed by the Church of England before the marriage took place, so I don’t think there’s any need to suggest scandal has been caused.
 
how does all that apply to the marriage of Charles and Camilla? i see some problems with the list and their relationship.
 
“I don’t think there’s any need to suggest scandal has been caused.”

Is that cause for most Christians and Catholics we have accepted how much marriage has been downgraded trampled on that we don’t take it as serious as we should? I think its sad just how many Catholics, leaders included, have just accepted what has happened to this sacrament. We’ve allowed the world to tarnish it so much that when something like this happens it doesn’t even make most people bat an eye at how scandalous this appears.
 
Well, I’m agnostic so that may account for the difference in our views. But I do disagree that scandal has been caused. It’s no-one’s business as to the state of Meghan’s first marriage other than her, Harry and the religious authorities making the decision to marry them.
 
And there it is Lou…your right since you’re agnostic then yeah we will just have to agree to disagree. Good conversation, and I always appreciate hearing different POVs.
 
7_Sorrows said:
how does all that apply to the marriage of Charles and Camilla? i see some problems with the list and their relationship.
Click to expand...
They were not married in the C of E, strictly speaking - they did an act of penance, but weren’t “married” by the Church. They were married in a civil ceremony and had the union blessed by the Church.

I agree - it’s weird. My British husband and I talk about that a lot (or I should say have lately, given this most recent wedding - LOL we are more interesting than that!), because if I were a Brit, it would bug me.
 
Last edited:
I appreciate you taking the time to explain your point of view, too. Thanks for staying civil!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top