Clarence House confirmed today that Prince Charles is going to be present in St Peter’s Square on 13 October 2019 when Pope Francis canonises Cardinal Newman, making him the first English non-martyr saint since the reformation.
Prince of Wales to attend Newman canonisation
- Thread starter Rob2
- Start date
- Status
A
angel12
Guest
Wonderful!
H
HeDa
Guest
It is common that the Head of State or a representative from the saint´s country attend the canonisation. The Catholic bishop of the saint´s diocese attends as well as other bishops, priests, deacons and as many lay people that can travel from the saint´s country. Sometimes Orthodox and other Christian denominations send their representatives.
D
Dan_Defender
Guest
This is surprising to me. Will the Church of England criticize him? Has a CoE representative attended a Catholic canonization before?
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I hope Prince Charles acquits himself well at this momentous event.
L
Londoner
Guest
Possibly among some of the weird fundamentalists who are barely Anglican themselves.
Interesting question. Not that I know of. When the Forty Martyrs of England and Wales were canonised in 1970 the archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey, opposed the canonisation on the grounds that he felt it was likely to damage the advances made in ecumenical relations between the Anglican and Catholic Churches. I cannot imagine there being any such fears today, and I am sure that most Anglicans will greet the canonisation with pleasure or at worst indifference.
@Rob2 @HeDa @Tis_Bearself I wonder whether the Queen herself would have attended were she able to. (Now 93, she reportedly decided to give up international travel four years ago, although she remains remarkably active and continues to travel widely in England and Scotland.)
What I find curious is that even when the Queen was considerably younger than she is now there were events which it seemed rather odd that she did not attend in person, choosing to send the Prince of Wales as a representative instead. One such event was the state funeral of Ronald Reagan in 2004. Given that she made a state visit to the United States in 2007, it cannot be that she was unable to travel. It seems odd to me that, as one of the world’s longest serving and most highly respected heads of state, she would not wish to travel to the United States for the funeral of one of the most important world leaders since the Second World War. Margaret Thatcher not only attended, but also delivered a eulogy, albeit prerecorded, despite being even older than the Queen and suffering from dementia. In 2005 she missed the funeral of Pope John Paul II. I cannot help wondering whether this was because it was considered not quite appropriate for the Supreme Governor of the Church of England to attend the funeral of a pope. In 2011 the UK was represented by David Cameron and John Major at the funeral of Václav Havel, but as far as I know no representative of the royal family attended. Again, the Queen was still travelling internationally then, and it seems odd that she wouldn’t want to be there.
G
graciew
Guest
It makes sense that the Queen doesn t attend funerals unless she is close , Londoner. It would be distracting, and you do not want to draw attention away from the person who has passed.
It is about making others feel comfortable. That is etiquette…
It is about making others feel comfortable. That is etiquette…
Last edited:
The Church of England warmly welcomes the announcement by Pope Francis that John Henry Newman is to be canonised .
Newman, who was beatified by Pope Benedict XVI in 2010, is also commemorated in the calendar of the Church of England on the date of his death – 11 August.
Newman, who was beatified by Pope Benedict XVI in 2010, is also commemorated in the calendar of the Church of England on the date of his death – 11 August.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I find it a bit odd that the C of E commemorates a number of people whom they vilified during the person’s actual life. I don’t mind that they do it, but I don’t understand it.
J
JulianN
Guest
Well, to be fair, we do that sometimes too. St. Joan of Arc pops to mind.
L
Londoner
Guest
That’s an interesting point. My guess is that it’s partly for theological reasons and partly for cultural reasons. With the sole exception of Charles I, the Church of England hasn’t really gone in for making new saints. Being honoured with a commemoration in the Church’s calendar is more like being recognised as having been a good or notable person.
Hence, as you allude to, those commemorated are not only Anglicans but also include Christians who were Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Calvinist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Congregationalist, Quaker, and Salvationist. Some were indeed vilified for being Catholics. Others were vilified for being the wrong kind of Protestant (e.g. John Bunyan, George Fox), and others still for being the wrong kind of Anglican, e.g. Richard Baxter (too evangelical), Edward King (too Catholic), Thomas Ken (non-juror), Samuel Seabury (derived episcopal consecration from the Scottish Episcopal Church), and John Wesley (ordained clergy despite not himself being a bishop).
Culturally, as I’m sure you know, the Church of England is all for ecumenism and burying the hatchet and is increasingly averse to anything dogmatic or exclusive. For this reason I don’t find it remotely surprising that they commemorate both Ignatius of Loyola and Luther and Calvin and both Thomas More and Thomas Cranmer. A brief glance at the calendar of The Episcopal Church reveals some really peculiar ones such as W.E.B. Du Bois.
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
Interesting bit of ecumenism. Thanks for sharing.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I don’t think the whole Church vilified Joan of Arc. More like a few corrupt clergy who were in cahoots with the secular English politicians. A number of people in the Church spoke out or tried to act in her defense but were unable to do anything due to political pressure, and the Church overturned the corrupt bishop’s verdict in the 1400s.
In any event, she’s a bit of an outlier.
L
LilyM
Guest
I dont think the whole COE exactly vilified or vilifies Newman either, to be fair to them.JulianN:
I don’t think the whole Church vilified Joan of Arc. More like a few corrupt clergy who were in cahoots with the secular English politicians. A number of people in the Church spoke out or tried to act in her defense but were unable to do anything due to political pressure, and the Church overturned the corrupt bishop’s verdict in the 1400s.
In any event, she’s a bit of an outlier.
Last edited:
- Status