Prince Philip and Orthodoxy

[Margaret_Ann]

Re your last question: Of course not! I have no idea, nor do I have any intention of judging her or anyone. I was simply pointing out the pre-VII practice.

 

[7_Sorrows]

My apologies Margaret Ann, the post with the question was meant for
twf

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Errare humanum est…

 

[twf]

No, I was drawing a parallel between referring to Anglican communion as “communion” and referring to this (and other similar public unions) as “marriage”. I think both are OK- the poster I was replying to didn’t want to use the term “communion” for the Anglican sacrament.

 

[Londoner]

Are members of other faiths, when they enter the Royal Family, just expected to enter the C of E as well? And what if they don’t want to? I know the monarch has to be C of E, but what of others?

In theory, the only member of the royal family who has to be Protestant is the monarch. In practice, I suspect that there is a certain amount of pressure on those marrying into the family to become Anglicans if they are not already. I also suspect that those marrying into the family probably don’t particularly care about theology and will go along with whatever is recommended. I can only imagine that if one of the younger royals wanted to marry somebody who was not Anglican and had strong feelings about not wanting to become Anglican those feelings would have to be respected.

Much of this probably has to do with the Queen personally. She is a very devout Christian and is in the Low Church tradition of Anglicanism and also Scottish Presbyterianism when north of the border. I imagine that when the Queen dies a lot of this will change. Prince Charles is supposedly quite religious, but in a rather more nebulous way than the Queen. He seems to favour a more fluid kind of spirituality, taking inspiration from various sources (notably Eastern Orthodox Christianity), whereas the Queen clearly has firmly Protestant views. The Queen has always been single-mindedly devoted to duty and tradition. It seems inevitable that when she dies the institution will become more flexible.

I believe that law requiring anyone in line for the British throne to be C of E has been repealed, so in theory a Catholic (or an orthodox Christian, I guess) could ascend to the throne.

What was repealed was the prohibition against people in the line of succession marrying Catholics. Anybody who is in line to become the monarch still has to be a Protestant. The most senior members of the royal family to be excluded for being Catholics are two of the children of Lord St Andrews, Lord Downpatrick and Lady Marina Windsor. As Lord St Andrews is 38th in the line of succession, this makes no practical difference. What is worth pointing out is that the requirement that the sovereign must be a member of the Church of England will logically be dropped should the Church of England one day be disestablished. I think it’s inevitable that the Church of England will one day be disestablished. It’s just a matter of how long it takes. The Church was disestablished in Wales and Ireland and we have seen other constitutional changes such as removing most hereditary peers from the House of Lords and removing the roles of the Lord Chancellor as a judge and as speaker of the House of Lords.

 

[Londoner]

The Monarch and their spouse must be C of E.

The monarch must be Protestant. The early Hanoverian monarchs were Lutheran. The monarch’s consort can be anything. In reality, of course, the monarch and consort are always Anglican.

And so that she could marry Prince Harry

Technically, it was not a requirement. Prince Harry was free to marry somebody of any religion or none. In reality, I guess there is still pressure to conform to tradition.

 

[Londoner]

How did HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, justify leaving the Orthodox Church for the Church of England when he married Princess Elizabeth?

He’s never struck me as a particularly religious man and perhaps it wasn’t too important to him which church he belonged to.

I suspect that what’s more true is that Prince Philip, like most members of the royal family, probably has little interest in the finer points of theology and ecclesiology. I don’t suppose he lost any sleep worrying about the apostolic succession or the sacraments. I think he comes from a generation and a class which places a great deal of emphasis on doing one’s duty and fulfilling expectations.

It’s also perhaps worth considering that Eastern Orthodox Churches tended to have a somewhat more positive view of Anglicanism compared with how Anglicanism was regarded by the Catholic Church. Some Eastern Orthodox, for example, accepted the validity of Anglican orders. They also probably viewed Anglicanism as preferable to Catholicism, as there was no history of animosity between the two churches.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

It really seems he isn’t back in Orthodoxy. And a reversion back to Orthodoxy would be totally inconsistent with the statement in the article that even before he converted to Anglicanism Philip FELT Anglican.

I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive. One could be both Orthodox in faith and have Anglican sensibilities. I do not think the Orthodox Church considers the historical faith of the English people to be something entirely alien to Orthodoxy. The undivided Church of the first 1000 years was both Eastern and Western.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I think she did not want to use Holy before Communion since Anglican and Episcopal priests do not have valid orders. She wanted to refer to it only as Communion, but it is called
Holy Communion or Divine Liturgy or even Mass depending on which style
church you attend. The only priests who have valid orders are in the
Ordinairiate because they are in union
with Pope Francis.

 

[halogirl]

To be honest from what I’ve seen the Queen seems to believe and try to live a Christian life. The others, I am honestly not sure. I don’t agree with the institution at all, but I will give the Queen her due she does try to speak about the Lord at Christmas and does attend church regularly.

 

[halogirl]

I am being about as charitable as I can be by the way

 

[dochawk]

Some Eastern Orthodox, for example, accepted the validity of Anglican orders.

That overstates it.

There was a statement by a prelate that if Anglicanism came over wholesale to Orthodoxy, that would make their orders valid.

There was also a period in which Orthodox faithful were instructed to attend CofE services and receive–noting that unlike the Anglicans at the same services, they would be receiving the Actual Presence.

Those are the only examples I know of (there may be more), but there has never been a time that Orthodoxy as a whole, or even an individual church, “recognized Anglican Orders.”

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Some Eastern Orthodox, for example, accepted the validity of Anglican orders.

Does this mean that, in the Orthodox view, it would be a kind of “healing what is broken”, i.e., Almighty God would supply whatever is lacking in their orders, without specifically requiring that Orthodox orders be administered sub conditione (assuming the Orthodox have such a concept, and they would probably call it something other than “sub conditione”)?

There was also a period in which Orthodox faithful were instructed to attend CofE services and receive–noting that unlike the Anglicans at the same services, they would be receiving the Actual Presence.

Assuming that “Actual Presence” is the same thing as “Real Presence”, how in the world would this happen? And if “Actual Presence” means something different, what then does it mean? I know Orthodox believe in (and in fact have) the Real Presence, even if they don’t call it that.

 

[phil19034]

How did HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, justify leaving the Orthodox Church for the Church of England when he married Princess Elizabeth?

He did it for the Crown. Plain and simple. Also, I don’t think he was very devout when he was young.

 

[phil19034]

It’s worth noting that both Prince Philip and Prince Charles display some affinity to Orthodoxy, and Charles and Camilla’s wedding also had a penitential aspect, possibly similar to Orthodox second marriages.

Prince Charles’ penitential aspect was required by the Church of England because they did not allow divorce and remarriage that the time of the wedding. And even though, he was now a widower & free to marry, as the future head of the Church of England, the bishops still wanted a public sign of penance.

It had nothing to do with Eastern Orthodoxy.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

It’s worth noting that both Prince Philip and Prince Charles display some affinity to Orthodoxy, and Charles and Camilla’s wedding also had a penitential aspect, possibly similar to Orthodox second marriages.

Evidently not in this case, though Prince Charles could well have been reminded of this and how it is similar to the practice in Orthodoxy.

Personally I think the idea of a less festive second marriage (in the case of Catholic annulments followed by another marriage in the Church), as well as some penitential aspect, is entirely appropriate. Many divorces have quite enough blame and guilt to go around, and it seems respectful of the prior failed union, and the parties involved (spouse, children, extended family), to acknowledge whatever hurt and injury that surrounded the divorce.

If I should ever marry (after an annulment), I would certainly want the ceremony to be subdued — I live very simply and I don’t do “elaborate” or “epic” in the first place. Obviously the bride’s wishes would be of equal importance.

 

[dochawk]

Does this mean that, in the Orthodox view, it would be a kind of “healing what is broken”, i.e., Almighty God would supply whatever is lacking in their orders, without specifically requiring that Orthodox orders be administered sub conditione

Yes, roughly this. Their orders would retroactively become “real”, and their prior sacramental attempts would become valid and contain Grace. This is basically how they react to new orthodox churches once accepted by the others. They have a Cyprian rather than Augustinian view of orders, such that orders are lost when leaving communion with one’s church.

Assuming that “Actual Presence” is the same thing as “Real Presence”, how in the world would this happen?

I never did quite follow the logic. Something to the effect of the Orthodox faith and understanding overcoming the deficiencies. They dropped this position several decades ago. (and for that matter, I don’t recall whether it was a particular Orthodox Church or common among them. . . .

Prince Charles’ penitential aspect was required by the Church of England

He was remarried in the Church of Scotland, not England, as divorced could not remarry at the time.

 

[Londoner]

He was remarried in the Church of Scotland, not England, as divorced could not remarry at the time.

The marriage of Prince Charles and Mrs Parker Bowles was a civil marriage held at the Windsor Guildhall and conducted by the superintendent registrar of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. They had a “service of prayer and dedication”, which was a Church of England service.

 

[twf]

I can’t imagine it is really possible for Eastern Catholics to hold to a purely Cyprian view of orders? I’m not thinking in terms of “submitting” to the Latin position… just in terms of logic. Every Eastern Catholic fully believes that their own sacraments and those of the Orthodox are equally valid (if you excuse the Latin terminology)… yet full communion does not exist between you.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Every Eastern Catholic fully believes that their own sacraments and those of the Orthodox are equally valid (if you excuse the Latin terminology)… yet full communion does not exist between you.

Every Catholic of whatever rite, not just Eastern Catholics, believes this.