Prince Charles (King George VII) to be known as Defender of Faith
It is a curious coincidence that Cranmer was contemplating only yesterday the plans afoot to introduce multi-faith prayers into Parliament, and today The Daily Telegraph reveals that the Prince of Wales is ‘planning a symbolic change when he becomes King by taking the title Defender of Faith to reflect Britain's multicultural society’.The royal title ‘Fidei defensor’ - usually translated 'Defender of the Faith' - was bestowed by Pope Leo X upon King Henry VIII in 1521, in recognition of the King’s book ‘Defence of the Seven Sacraments’ which constituted the ‘Henrican Affirmation’ of inter alia the sacrament of marriage and papal supremacy. While the King was originally defending the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church against the Protestant ideas of Martin Luther, when the Reformation hit England and Henry was excommunicated, the title was revoked for Henry’s attack upon the Catholic faith. It was bestowed again upon King Edward VI by Parliament in 1544, and has since become the title of the Monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
And Prince Charles has decided to omit the ‘the’.What’s in a word?
Well, quite a lot when that word is the definite article.
‘Defender of Faith’ is a theological world apart from ‘Defender of the Faith’. It is nice to profess to be a fusion of the cherry-picked best bits of all religions, to be perfectly in accord with the postmodern multi-faith zeitgeist. But it is not possible to defend a generalised faith when that faith is a plurality of mutually-exclusive theological propositions and conflicting dogmata. And does he not also feel obliged to be King to those of an atheist persuasion? In what sense are they accommodated in his new 'inclusive' and 'unifying' title?
Of course, the idea of a multi-faith coronation has been floated before, and it was utterly rejected by the Archbishop of Canterbury (yes, he said something that was comprehensible, orthodox and dogmatic). He spoke of the ‘integrity’ of the Coronation ceremony, and the uniquely Christian moment of the anointing with holy oil. 
It is not remotely likely, therefore - at least for as long as Rowan Williams is Archbishop of Canterbury - that Prince Charles would be permitted to do as he pleases with the Coronation ceremony. After all, it is Parliament that chooses the Monarch; it is no longer the Monarch who makes demands upon Parliament to change the law to accommodate his or her idiosyncrasies. If King George VII is not happy with the titles he shall inherit, he is welcome to abdicate in favour of King William V.
And Cranmer would like to respectfully remind Her Majesty the Queen that she swore at her Coronation in 1953 to uphold ‘the laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel, maintain the Protestant reformed religion established by law and maintain and reserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England’.So if your Majesty would care to nip this multi-faith profanity in the bud, Cranmer would be most appreciative. And if there is any more talk of the Church of England accommodating the next King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in his desire to swear his Coronation Oath upon the Qur’an, the Guru Granth Sahib and the Bhagavad Gita, then Anglican Orders shall indeed be absolutely null and utterly void.
Oh, and Happy Birthday, Your Royal Highness.
posted byArchbishop Cranmer at 9:02 am Permalink
18 Comments:
Yeah right, Happy Birthday Dude. Is there any chance you can bury the hatchet and let bygones be bygones?
I can imagine you have some serious issues going on with establishment, but do you REALLY want to shred it all up in a fit of tantrum?
The Prince of Wales has not, as yet, let it be publicly known whether he shall accede the Throne as HM King George VII or HM King Charles III, to the best of my knowledge.
funnily enough, there is no 'the' in "Fidei defensor"
Perhaps the gods move in mysterious ways :-)
Mr Belmont,
In an interview some years ago the Prince of Wales voiced his concerns about becoming a King Charles. He was concerned that those with whom he shares his name had not fared to well in the execution (excuse the pun) of their royal duties. Knowing the religious strife which was endemic during the reigns of both Charles I and Charles II, it might perhaps be more appropriate if Prince Charles were to become Charles III.
Your Grace
We Catholics have lived with the Monarch exappropriating the Fidei Defensor title for 450 odd years.
So why does HRH want to change it to accommodate the perceived sensitivities of these johnny-come-lately Muslims, Sikhs and Jedi Knights?
On the other hand as Bogotol has just pointed out, Latin has no definite or indefinite article, so presumably fidei could refer to some faith, a faith or the faith.
The Great British compromise would be not to bang on about it, but to leave it to individuals to interpret as they wish.
Meanwhile Her Majesty is hopefully set to reign for many years yet, and may become the first centenarian monarch. She may see us all out.
Sorry Botogol, I am being slightly dyslexic this morning. (Probably comes about probably because of being left handed - and a left footer)
Anglican Orders will be "absolutely null and utterly void"?
Are you agreeing with the Pope?
Your Grace will be intesested in this little anecdote from Fr Nicholas Schofield
Defensor Fidei
Everyone knows that Henry VIII was granted the title 'Defender of the Faith' by the Pope a few years before he split with Rome, since he had proved to be an eloquent opponent of Luther in his Assertio Septem Sacramentorum (penned with the help of St John Fisher).
I recently came across an account of King James II, then in exile, visiting La Trappe and sitting in the sanctuary during High Mass on 25 November 1690. 'At the beginning of the Gospel,' writes Ailbe J. Luddy, O.Cist in The Real De Rance (Dublin 1931), 'he unsheathed his sword and held it aloft in his right hand until the deacon had finished: this was the custom of the English Sovereigns since the time when Henry VIII received from the Pope the title Defensor Fidei. He received Holy Communion, kneeling on the second step of the altar, and heard a low Mass in thanksgiving.'
I must confess I had never heard of this custom before. Did Henry VIII wield a sword during solemn Masses before the Reformation or was it a tradition created by James II? Can anybody enlighten me?
Source: http://romanmiscellany.blogspot.com/2008/10/defensor-fidei.html
Defender of the faith?
Once this meant something.!
In becoming all things to all people, you might have appeased the populus, but you have become an offence to the one true God YAHWEH.
What is more important, the praise of men ,or the fear of God?.
Tiresome as Prince Charles's many personal obsessions may be, he is, if God wills it, one day to be our King, and we shall just have to put up with him, if we are to have a King at all. In any case, no one is going to take any notice of him whatever he professes to believe, so he can hardly make matters any worse than they already are.
Perhaps if the Church itself were more secure in its own faith it would be able to persuade this bewildered but doubtless well-meaning man to be its true defender. It is a little embarrassing at present, as a very faulty and errant believer, to feel that one may nevertheless be more Anglican than the Archbishop of Canterbury.
If you defend all faiths,then how can you have one personally,all faiths, cults, whathaveyou, regard thier particular variety as the only true belief sanctioned by God,to the exclusion of all others,if then i am a Christian,i can not hold others beliefs to be true,since we are told "thou shalt have no other god but me"and as one can not possess the crown without being a Christian,this would demand an extreme violation of English Common law,including the coronation oath,i think that charlie should stick with CHARLES 111,and then we can cut the bastards head off,in full compliance with sharia of course.
History repeats itself, it has to, nobody listens the first time. One should be careful when offending the King of Kings as Saul and many other "kings" found out, Solomon discovered to his cost that a syncretistic approach led to disaster.
Faith is a personal decision, be it King or commoner but a lack of direction reveals a person lacking in wisdom to discern the truth, the danger is, being lukewarm is unacceptable to a Holy God.
The ramifications for the country are frightening, other faiths already view Christianity as weak and ready to fall, in the interim let us pray for the poor man that The Lord will turn him into a bold Christian King which this country so badly needs. Otherwise the coronation oath is as Your Grace rightly observes is null & void.
Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.
Something tells me they are waiting just around the corner with a sock full of snooker balls for this twerp.
Your Grace:
Before you cast your stones, consider all the facts. These days Chuckles (sorry for the disrespect of the Office, but, I mean, just look at the guy!) spends a good deal of time on Mount Athos -- and those monks certainly don't take to multi-faith pluralists, instead usually prefering to throw them over the cliffs into the Aegean.
Also, Poppy Philip has returned to Greek Orthodoxy without raising a constitutional peep -- the Queen is married to a non-Anglican! So, perhaps, King Georgie Chuckles "Dicky" Mountbaten-Windsor or whatever his name will be wants to be "Defender of [] Faith" so he can convert to Orthodoxy like his pal Sir John Tavener (the one that's still living). Indeed, "the street" on Athos has it that he is already an Orthodox catechumen.
Sincerely,
Death Bredon
"Philip has returned to Greek Orthodoxy"
Is this true?
http://www.happybirthdaycharles.com/
It is true that, as botogol says, there is no definite article in the Latin 'defender of the faith', but the use of that phrase in the context in which the title was bestowed would have needed no definite article to make it clear what was intended: Henry was being designated as a defender of the One Holy Catholick Faith. Alas, that was the faith from which he apostosised all for the sake of his lust, but let us leave that to one side. When the title was bestowed again upon Edward VI, there was also no doubt as to what faith was intended: the Protestant Faith.
Omission of the word "the" now could only be intended to denote a move in the direction of the inter-faith movement, a movement which in its attempt to promote the belief in all religions ends up prmoting belief in nothing. Those who have not the confidence to profess their own faith with confidence are little respected by those of other faiths. Our future King would do well to profess his own faith with confidence: that served his mother and her father well before him, and earned the respect of other faiths. An attmept to be everything to all men would merely bring contempt upon him. I hope his advisers counsel him as much.
What's in a word? A lot, as Archbishop Cranmer says. Remember filioque.
Charles is the apostate, in my view, and Cranmer is right to say what he does.
Post a Comment
<< Home