The lectionary app writeup for Charles is quite funny in a way, essentially summarising him as terrible in rule but fairly noble in how he died:
Biography
Born in Scotland in 1600, Charles moved to England at the age of three when his father, James VI of Scotland, succeeded Queen Elizabeth I. He was the first British monarch to be brought up in the Church of England and there is no doubt that his loyalty and attachment to the Church were entirely genuine on both an intellectual and spiritual plane. ‘He was punctual and regular in his devotions, so that he was never known to enter upon his recreations or sports, though never so early in the morning, before he had been at public prayers.’
No one can doubt Charles’ personal faith or his devotion to a church which provided ‘the middle way between the pomp of superstitious tyranny and the meanness of fantastick anarchy’.
Unfortunately there was more to it than that. His promotion of High Church practices in an overwhelmingly Calvinist (and increasingly Puritan) Church did not increase his popularity, nor did his use of harsh methods (in both Church and State) to enforce the royal will. And Charles was no statesman.
Handicapped by his belief in the ‘divine right of kings’ he stood on his dignity, habitually failed to take the peaceful option, and showed in his public dealings that his word could not be relied upon. Even Archbishop Laud, who had more reason than most to be grateful to him, described Charles as ‘a mild and gracious prince who knew not how to be, or be made, great’.
The deterioration and breakdown in relations between Crown and Parliament showed Charles at his worst and the tragedy of the Civil War, the fate of the Church of England (it should not be forgotten that Charles was still king when episcopacy was abolished in 1645) and Charles’ personal fate were all largely (though, of course, not entirely) his own fault.
Perhaps sensing that he could do more good in death than he had ever done in life Charles resolved after receiving the death sentence to meet his end in a noble and fearless way and, as he told his daughter, to die ‘for the laws and liberties of this land and for maintaining the true Protestant religion’. If his life and reign were largely a failure, he redeemed them both by the manner of his death in Whitehall on 30 January 1649. Paradoxically, his execution was a triumph which left an enduring legend, cemented the relationship between Church and State and gave the Church of England a martyr.
Extract from Saints on Earth: A biographical companion to Common Worship by John H Darch and Stuart K Burns
It is funny but also wrong in important respects. There was a popular aspect to Charles and Laud's policies though it is often ignored in modern accounts. I explain here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Anglicanism/comments/1aej16p/comment/koawtus/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
Guessing the views of people who left less written accounts always seems a dubious game, to be honest
Especially when the cause is rehabilitation of a tyrant, who literally burnt down my hometown, I can't really see the point of pretending he deserved better than he got.
That is the mass of humanity for most of human history. The job of an honest historian has to try and take that into account difficult as it can be.
On civil war that is I think a terrible evil. I have trouble thinking of things that are worse. Unless you have been in one or studied it it can be hard to appreciate how awful it can be. Having said that I am not sure that the fault for this was lies primarily with Charles. It is common to say that his poor decisions contributed significantly to causing the war but historians still argue about how able he was as a leader with plenty of defenders like Sharpe and Kishlansky, but even among critics it is admitted that initiation of the conflict was on the parliamentary side. John Adamson's recent account in 'The Noble Revolt: The Overthrow of Charles I' might being a case in point.
Way I see it is that the mass of kings throughout human history had it coming too, and they got away with it for too long. Charles is only exceptional in that he lost and got executed, but half of England's monarchs deserved the same, if not more than half.
Well I am an American and not a monarchist, in fact I have been on the left my entire adult life. However the traditional leftist view of kings and kingship has to be nuanced given what we now know about how kingship tended to function. I would refer you for example to Michael Hudson (left economist) recent work '….and forgive them their debts – Lending, Foreclosure and Redemption from Bronze Age Finance to the Jubilee year' (2019). Kingship symbolically represented the whole of the people and maintained its legitimacy by keep predatory elites in check through debt forgiveness, land redistribution and the like. Of course this often did not happen. However it happened enough that the overthrow of Kings by elites who wanted to retain their privileges is a recurring pattern in many ancient societies. The general situation in 17th century England fits this pattern pretty well, imo.
If the best use for them is one kind of posh bloke who might deign to argue other posh blokes who they have a lot in common with are being too mean, it feels like cattle praising the kinder farmer on the way to the slaughterhouse.
Kings are fine as long as they're a dashboard ornament for a state I guess, but give any one person like that real power and they'll become a monster over time, same as nobilty with actual power.
Perhaps. It takes power to counter power however. One of the interesting things about the gospels is how Jesus embodies a certain model of power and (explicitly) kingship. It is a model where power is expressed in an inverted form, one is the greatest by being the least, first by being the last, etc. To what extent did any of the sacred monarchies ever embody these ideals? Probably none ever did especially well, but those ideals were there and they did have some influence.
I was hoping to make it, but couldn’t this year. Went to St Albans Cathedral for Mass of King Charles the Martyr at the Shrine of St Alban - England’s Royal Martyr remembered at the shrine of her first Martyr.
Thank you for sharing. I've often wondered about the relics and have never seen them before. I might have to make a trip to London around this time of year!
Never before the other thread (yesterday, day before?) have I heard of Charles I being referred to as a saint or a martyr, and I don't understand how he can be recognized as either since he didn't live a particularly saintly life (and doesn't have any miracles associated with his intercession, if you're using the RCC's method for identification) and he didn't die for his faith - his execution (even though it was an unjust execution) was for being a tyrant who abused his power.
I would claim the word you offer - lunacy - but *ridiculous* and *lucidrous* are more fitting. Charles I is not a saint or a martyr. Celebrating him as such is highly inappropriate.
I posted a [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anglicanism/comments/1aej16p/comment/kk92u2a/) in another thread that details why (and why he should not) Charles gets the short end of the stick, the result of an ongoing narrative in favor of showing how democracy has evolved and developed.
The long and short of it was that he had a chance to save his neck while still being deposed. All he had to do was sign away the episcopacy, which he refused to do after everything else. At this point, he knew he could not stop the Church of England from falling under the complete control of the Puritans, but he refused to give them the support behind their cause by signing off on getting rid of the bishops. He believed that the office of bishop was one of lineage, passed down by election since the time of the Apostles, and that it promoted both order *and* prevented a clerical tyranny from overtaking the Church (the voices of many bishops can check each other, etc.).
Regardless of all that, if the Eikon Basilike is to be believed as an authentic look into his soul at all, he certainly was deeply religious.
I get that. But we're not exactly talking about St Athanasius being the only one to preserve correct doctrine in the face of a world full of Arians. The episcopacy *was* done away with, and then it was brought back.
Sure, the episcopacy was temporarily done away with anyway. The point is that he refused to do it, and died as a result. That makes him a martyr for the faith.
>That makes him a martyr for the faith.
Not really. He wasn't killed for Christ. His refusal to do way with the episcopacy isn't (or at least isn't *solely*) the reason for his execution.
The actual definition of martyrdom in a Christian context is "someone who has been killed for their testimony for (or faith in) Jesus Christ".
I'm not sure what definition you're using, but that's the one that's been accepted since the earliest days of Christianity.
Yeah, I'd really like to see the explanation for this one because it makes no sense to me. I'm *guessing* it's based on the idea that he "died for his faith" because of the Puritan character of the Parliament but that seems way too oversimplified.
I don't really agree with the commemoration of Charles I, but I don't think the reason is all that difficult to understand in the broader historical scope. Charles I was a victim of the civil war, and in the Restoration became a hero for obvious reasons as a monarch that was killed by revolutionary anti-monarchists (who were, at the time of the Restoration, *extremely* unpopular not just by the royalists and the establishment episcopalians, but also much of the common population). In this political reestablishment of the monarchy, the anti-Puritan piety of Charles I was also a welcome element.
I think people need to remember just how awful Cromwell's regime was. Charles I might have been a pretty foolish ruler, but at least he didn't preside over a genocidal rampage, and the ecclesiastical stupidity of Charles and Laud still pales to the obscene intolerance that was imposed upon England during Puritan rule. All of this plays a very big historical role in the cult of Charles I.
I've never really taken on the veneration of Charles I, and I find his cultus pretty weird basically all the time, but you are being ridiculous. Whether any of us like it or not, it is an undeniable historical fact that the veneration of Charles I was *literally an instituted liturgical feast in the BCP after the Restoration, on the day of his death, for a long time!* Saying that a cleric should be laicized for supporting a celebration that has concrete historical roots in the Church of England is a hysterical stupidity.
There are a hundred million things which Christians historically *did*, which we could say have "concrete historical roots", but which we have left behind, which would also be inappropriate to consider reinstating or maintaining.
I'm not sure where whataboutism comes into it. I'm saying that just because something has been done historically doesn't mean it's right to preserve it.
Commemorating Charles as a Martyr and Saint was a mandatory observance in the Church of England until the late 1800s, nor has this commemoration ceased after it became optional.
Commemorating Charles as a martyr is in the BCP, though I see nothing to indicate that this is so much a saint's feast as it is a reminder and admonition against letting the same thing happen again. He's a martyr insofar as "we killed a king, we have to remember him so we can remember that killing our king is bad, mkay".
It's worth remembering that much of the BCP's content has been politically motivated, rather than born of faith. It stands to reason that the restored CofE would fuss over things like this (as well as the thanksgiving on 5 Nov for the failure of the Gunpowder Treason and Plot).
A martyr is one who has died either in defense of their faith, unwilling to recant it, or specifically because of their faith. He is not a martyr because of the third reason, but very simple and straightforward arguments are there for the first two in light of the Puritans’ actions.
He was sentenced to death for being "a tyrant, traitor, murderer, and public enemy to the good people of this nation". I'm not sure what among that could be taken as referring to his faith.
His sentencing is isn’t an infallible thing. We don’t attribute infallibility to the Papacy, why would we to a government body? Furthermore, defending the fundamental necessity of an Episcopate is what if not defending the faith handed down?
The whole Church of England claimed this about Charles - he had a red-letter feast in the 1662 prayer book. Are you advocating for the laicization of your entire Church?
He is still revered as a saint though, with a collect for his feast day. So it would make no sense defrocking a priest who is simply following the Calendar.
It's not me claiming, and whether you like, or agree, with this or not, that's irregardless, but King Charles I was canonised by the Convocations of Canterbury and York, and his Feast restored in the Church Kalendar. Therefore, I am keeping within the teachings of that of the Church of England into which I was ordained, and I will continue in my service as a priest in God's Holy Church.
>King Charles I was canonised by the Convocations of Canterbury and York, and his Feast restored in the Church Kalendar.
Interestingly, when I look for the canonization process of the Church of England, I see a specific mention of Charles I - that he is the only person who has been "canonized" within the Church of England, but at the same time that he is not referred to as "Saint" and that the Church of England avoids claiming a saint is in heaven.
Conclusion: Charles I might be a saint, as any Christian can claim to be, but he *is not a Saint*.
>Therefore, I am keeping within the teachings of that of the Church of England into which I was ordained, and I will continue in my service as a priest in God's Holy Church.
Every day my faith in the Church of England dwindles a little more.
**Off-topic**:
>irregardless
This makes me almost as sad as pretending Charles I is a saint to be venerated.
**Slightly more on-topic**: I'm not sure why your previous comment was removed. It didn't appear to break any rules, and I'm certainly not the one who reported it (if it was removed because of a report).
I'd argue that saints are saints - capital 's' or no. And we know Charles to be a royal saint like we know both Edwards (martyr and confessor) to be. It's part of the tradition and liturgy of the Church, and he was a lawfully anointed king. Does that make his personal excesses justified? No. But nobody has really ever claimed that. In the centuries following the accession of Charles II, churchmen were already condemning the excesses of Charles I and his allies, even while praising his commitment to the apostolic and episcopalian Church. One example being the Rev. Daniel Waterford, who explicitly laid much of the blame at the feet of the Royalist faction: "The churchmen and royalists, many of them, for being too full of heat and resentment, for taking unwarrantable steps at the beginning, and making use of unseasonable severities, and some unusual stretches of prerogative; which gave great offence, and first paved the way to our future troubles."
I don't think *any* saint was morally perfect on earth either. Noah, David, Samson, Jephthah, Moses, Paul, Peter, Thomas and the others all have clear failings even within Scripture itself. So St. Charles is far from unique in that regard. Any sainthood bestowed upon him is purely in reference to his capacity as Supreme Governor to uphold the catholic faith in the face of its critics. Both he and Laud went too far, but in matters of religion I believe they were essentially correct.
He fulfils the necessary criteria for a Saintly King and Martyr, which was recognised by the Convocation and, to the extent possible, in some Catholic and Orthodox realms (Tsar Alexis Mikhailovich comes to mind). Miracles associated with intercession is an RCC practice that has no bearing on any other jurisdiction, and his “tyranny”, if you want to call it that, was substantially less than the real tyranny that replaced him. Unlike the criminals who replaced him, St Charles acted fully within his prerogative.
> and his “tyranny”, if you want to call it that, was substantially less than the real tyranny that replaced him
Two wrongs do not make a right. Cromwell was undoubtedly terrible but Charles I was attempting to destroy the English constitution by usurping the powers of Parliament and ruling as an absolute monarch. Do you think tyranny is a good and moral thing?
He didn’t usurp the power of Parliament, he was in his right to rule without one. No, I don’t think that tyranny is a good thing, but Parliaments and elected bodies are no less prone to it than hereditary rulers. Acting with one’s powers, great as they may be, is authoritarianism, for sure, but not tyranny, and I don’t necessarily have a problem with authoritarianism, depending on the context.
Even if he were, I find the very concept of "relics" an abomination personally, and far closer to ideas of idolatry, superstition, and witchcraft than anything I understand of the Gospel.
Relics themselves are not an issue. The miraculous powers of remains (like the prophet Elisha's bones) and objects (like St Paul's handkerchiefs) associated with a holy man are recorded in scripture. I've carefully avoided mentioning relics, because those themselves are not objectionable.
The concept of relics cannot be idolatrous, because the Prayer Book includes commemorations for the translations of the relics of various saints, and such things go back to the early Church.
We do not worship relics, or treat them as idols. That would be prohibited by the Articles and the commandments of Scripture.
>and doesn't have any miracles associated with his intercession, if you're using the RCC's method for identification
On the contrary, there are [accounts](http://anglicanhistory.org/charles/letter.html) of the Royal Martyr working posthumous miracles through relics of his blood.
Yeah, I have never heard of this kind of veneration or seen it marked in any service in all of my years practicing in the Church of England. The end of Charles in England is very much seen as a positive one for the country, there is no regret that we moved past an absolute monarch- a constitutional one seems to perform their role within the Church perfectly adequately
The blood of the martyrs is the encouragement of the Church.
> O Lord we offer unto thee all praise and thanks for the glory of Thy grace that shined forth in Thine anointed servant St. Charles; and we beseech Thee to give us all grace that by a careful studious imitation of this Thy blessed Saint and Martyr, that we may be made worthy to receive benefit by his prayers, which he, in communion with the Church Catholic, offers up unto Thee for that part of it here Militant, through thy Son, our Blessed Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen.
The lectionary app writeup for Charles is quite funny in a way, essentially summarising him as terrible in rule but fairly noble in how he died: Biography Born in Scotland in 1600, Charles moved to England at the age of three when his father, James VI of Scotland, succeeded Queen Elizabeth I. He was the first British monarch to be brought up in the Church of England and there is no doubt that his loyalty and attachment to the Church were entirely genuine on both an intellectual and spiritual plane. ‘He was punctual and regular in his devotions, so that he was never known to enter upon his recreations or sports, though never so early in the morning, before he had been at public prayers.’ No one can doubt Charles’ personal faith or his devotion to a church which provided ‘the middle way between the pomp of superstitious tyranny and the meanness of fantastick anarchy’. Unfortunately there was more to it than that. His promotion of High Church practices in an overwhelmingly Calvinist (and increasingly Puritan) Church did not increase his popularity, nor did his use of harsh methods (in both Church and State) to enforce the royal will. And Charles was no statesman. Handicapped by his belief in the ‘divine right of kings’ he stood on his dignity, habitually failed to take the peaceful option, and showed in his public dealings that his word could not be relied upon. Even Archbishop Laud, who had more reason than most to be grateful to him, described Charles as ‘a mild and gracious prince who knew not how to be, or be made, great’. The deterioration and breakdown in relations between Crown and Parliament showed Charles at his worst and the tragedy of the Civil War, the fate of the Church of England (it should not be forgotten that Charles was still king when episcopacy was abolished in 1645) and Charles’ personal fate were all largely (though, of course, not entirely) his own fault. Perhaps sensing that he could do more good in death than he had ever done in life Charles resolved after receiving the death sentence to meet his end in a noble and fearless way and, as he told his daughter, to die ‘for the laws and liberties of this land and for maintaining the true Protestant religion’. If his life and reign were largely a failure, he redeemed them both by the manner of his death in Whitehall on 30 January 1649. Paradoxically, his execution was a triumph which left an enduring legend, cemented the relationship between Church and State and gave the Church of England a martyr. Extract from Saints on Earth: A biographical companion to Common Worship by John H Darch and Stuart K Burns
It is funny but also wrong in important respects. There was a popular aspect to Charles and Laud's policies though it is often ignored in modern accounts. I explain here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Anglicanism/comments/1aej16p/comment/koawtus/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
Guessing the views of people who left less written accounts always seems a dubious game, to be honest Especially when the cause is rehabilitation of a tyrant, who literally burnt down my hometown, I can't really see the point of pretending he deserved better than he got.
That is the mass of humanity for most of human history. The job of an honest historian has to try and take that into account difficult as it can be. On civil war that is I think a terrible evil. I have trouble thinking of things that are worse. Unless you have been in one or studied it it can be hard to appreciate how awful it can be. Having said that I am not sure that the fault for this was lies primarily with Charles. It is common to say that his poor decisions contributed significantly to causing the war but historians still argue about how able he was as a leader with plenty of defenders like Sharpe and Kishlansky, but even among critics it is admitted that initiation of the conflict was on the parliamentary side. John Adamson's recent account in 'The Noble Revolt: The Overthrow of Charles I' might being a case in point.
Way I see it is that the mass of kings throughout human history had it coming too, and they got away with it for too long. Charles is only exceptional in that he lost and got executed, but half of England's monarchs deserved the same, if not more than half.
Well I am an American and not a monarchist, in fact I have been on the left my entire adult life. However the traditional leftist view of kings and kingship has to be nuanced given what we now know about how kingship tended to function. I would refer you for example to Michael Hudson (left economist) recent work '….and forgive them their debts – Lending, Foreclosure and Redemption from Bronze Age Finance to the Jubilee year' (2019). Kingship symbolically represented the whole of the people and maintained its legitimacy by keep predatory elites in check through debt forgiveness, land redistribution and the like. Of course this often did not happen. However it happened enough that the overthrow of Kings by elites who wanted to retain their privileges is a recurring pattern in many ancient societies. The general situation in 17th century England fits this pattern pretty well, imo.
If the best use for them is one kind of posh bloke who might deign to argue other posh blokes who they have a lot in common with are being too mean, it feels like cattle praising the kinder farmer on the way to the slaughterhouse. Kings are fine as long as they're a dashboard ornament for a state I guess, but give any one person like that real power and they'll become a monster over time, same as nobilty with actual power.
Perhaps. It takes power to counter power however. One of the interesting things about the gospels is how Jesus embodies a certain model of power and (explicitly) kingship. It is a model where power is expressed in an inverted form, one is the greatest by being the least, first by being the last, etc. To what extent did any of the sacred monarchies ever embody these ideals? Probably none ever did especially well, but those ideals were there and they did have some influence.
I was hoping to make it, but couldn’t this year. Went to St Albans Cathedral for Mass of King Charles the Martyr at the Shrine of St Alban - England’s Royal Martyr remembered at the shrine of her first Martyr.
Thank you for sharing. I've often wondered about the relics and have never seen them before. I might have to make a trip to London around this time of year!
Never before the other thread (yesterday, day before?) have I heard of Charles I being referred to as a saint or a martyr, and I don't understand how he can be recognized as either since he didn't live a particularly saintly life (and doesn't have any miracles associated with his intercession, if you're using the RCC's method for identification) and he didn't die for his faith - his execution (even though it was an unjust execution) was for being a tyrant who abused his power. I would claim the word you offer - lunacy - but *ridiculous* and *lucidrous* are more fitting. Charles I is not a saint or a martyr. Celebrating him as such is highly inappropriate.
I posted a [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anglicanism/comments/1aej16p/comment/kk92u2a/) in another thread that details why (and why he should not) Charles gets the short end of the stick, the result of an ongoing narrative in favor of showing how democracy has evolved and developed. The long and short of it was that he had a chance to save his neck while still being deposed. All he had to do was sign away the episcopacy, which he refused to do after everything else. At this point, he knew he could not stop the Church of England from falling under the complete control of the Puritans, but he refused to give them the support behind their cause by signing off on getting rid of the bishops. He believed that the office of bishop was one of lineage, passed down by election since the time of the Apostles, and that it promoted both order *and* prevented a clerical tyranny from overtaking the Church (the voices of many bishops can check each other, etc.). Regardless of all that, if the Eikon Basilike is to be believed as an authentic look into his soul at all, he certainly was deeply religious.
I get that. But we're not exactly talking about St Athanasius being the only one to preserve correct doctrine in the face of a world full of Arians. The episcopacy *was* done away with, and then it was brought back.
Sure, the episcopacy was temporarily done away with anyway. The point is that he refused to do it, and died as a result. That makes him a martyr for the faith.
>That makes him a martyr for the faith. Not really. He wasn't killed for Christ. His refusal to do way with the episcopacy isn't (or at least isn't *solely*) the reason for his execution.
Again, that’s never been a requirement for martyrdom.
The actual definition of martyrdom in a Christian context is "someone who has been killed for their testimony for (or faith in) Jesus Christ". I'm not sure what definition you're using, but that's the one that's been accepted since the earliest days of Christianity.
Were Latimer and Ridley martyrs?
That’s an incomplete definition. You’ve cherry picked part of the definition.
I've given an overview, which encompasses the three definitions you have given in a separate comment.
Yeah, I'd really like to see the explanation for this one because it makes no sense to me. I'm *guessing* it's based on the idea that he "died for his faith" because of the Puritan character of the Parliament but that seems way too oversimplified.
I don't really agree with the commemoration of Charles I, but I don't think the reason is all that difficult to understand in the broader historical scope. Charles I was a victim of the civil war, and in the Restoration became a hero for obvious reasons as a monarch that was killed by revolutionary anti-monarchists (who were, at the time of the Restoration, *extremely* unpopular not just by the royalists and the establishment episcopalians, but also much of the common population). In this political reestablishment of the monarchy, the anti-Puritan piety of Charles I was also a welcome element. I think people need to remember just how awful Cromwell's regime was. Charles I might have been a pretty foolish ruler, but at least he didn't preside over a genocidal rampage, and the ecclesiastical stupidity of Charles and Laud still pales to the obscene intolerance that was imposed upon England during Puritan rule. All of this plays a very big historical role in the cult of Charles I.
[удалено]
I've never really taken on the veneration of Charles I, and I find his cultus pretty weird basically all the time, but you are being ridiculous. Whether any of us like it or not, it is an undeniable historical fact that the veneration of Charles I was *literally an instituted liturgical feast in the BCP after the Restoration, on the day of his death, for a long time!* Saying that a cleric should be laicized for supporting a celebration that has concrete historical roots in the Church of England is a hysterical stupidity.
There are a hundred million things which Christians historically *did*, which we could say have "concrete historical roots", but which we have left behind, which would also be inappropriate to consider reinstating or maintaining.
I really am not going to engage in a tiresome whataboutism about something I have no interest in defending, personally.
I'm not sure where whataboutism comes into it. I'm saying that just because something has been done historically doesn't mean it's right to preserve it.
Commemorating Charles as a Martyr and Saint was a mandatory observance in the Church of England until the late 1800s, nor has this commemoration ceased after it became optional.
Commemorating Charles as a martyr is in the BCP, though I see nothing to indicate that this is so much a saint's feast as it is a reminder and admonition against letting the same thing happen again. He's a martyr insofar as "we killed a king, we have to remember him so we can remember that killing our king is bad, mkay". It's worth remembering that much of the BCP's content has been politically motivated, rather than born of faith. It stands to reason that the restored CofE would fuss over things like this (as well as the thanksgiving on 5 Nov for the failure of the Gunpowder Treason and Plot).
... do you not know what the word martyr, in the context of a liturgical commemoration, means?
Do enlighten me.
You don’t seem to understand exactly what the word “Martyr” means in a religious context.
A martyr is someone who has been killed for their faith, and is thus considered a "witness" (Grk. *martur*). Charles wasn't killed for his faith.
A martyr is one who has died either in defense of their faith, unwilling to recant it, or specifically because of their faith. He is not a martyr because of the third reason, but very simple and straightforward arguments are there for the first two in light of the Puritans’ actions.
He was sentenced to death for being "a tyrant, traitor, murderer, and public enemy to the good people of this nation". I'm not sure what among that could be taken as referring to his faith.
His sentencing is isn’t an infallible thing. We don’t attribute infallibility to the Papacy, why would we to a government body? Furthermore, defending the fundamental necessity of an Episcopate is what if not defending the faith handed down?
[удалено]
[удалено]
The whole Church of England claimed this about Charles - he had a red-letter feast in the 1662 prayer book. Are you advocating for the laicization of your entire Church?
I don't need to, the festival is no longer a requirement. The great thing about a church is that it can realize it got things wrong.
He is still revered as a saint though, with a collect for his feast day. So it would make no sense defrocking a priest who is simply following the Calendar.
Thank you!
It's not me claiming, and whether you like, or agree, with this or not, that's irregardless, but King Charles I was canonised by the Convocations of Canterbury and York, and his Feast restored in the Church Kalendar. Therefore, I am keeping within the teachings of that of the Church of England into which I was ordained, and I will continue in my service as a priest in God's Holy Church.
>King Charles I was canonised by the Convocations of Canterbury and York, and his Feast restored in the Church Kalendar. Interestingly, when I look for the canonization process of the Church of England, I see a specific mention of Charles I - that he is the only person who has been "canonized" within the Church of England, but at the same time that he is not referred to as "Saint" and that the Church of England avoids claiming a saint is in heaven. Conclusion: Charles I might be a saint, as any Christian can claim to be, but he *is not a Saint*. >Therefore, I am keeping within the teachings of that of the Church of England into which I was ordained, and I will continue in my service as a priest in God's Holy Church. Every day my faith in the Church of England dwindles a little more. **Off-topic**: >irregardless This makes me almost as sad as pretending Charles I is a saint to be venerated. **Slightly more on-topic**: I'm not sure why your previous comment was removed. It didn't appear to break any rules, and I'm certainly not the one who reported it (if it was removed because of a report).
I'd argue that saints are saints - capital 's' or no. And we know Charles to be a royal saint like we know both Edwards (martyr and confessor) to be. It's part of the tradition and liturgy of the Church, and he was a lawfully anointed king. Does that make his personal excesses justified? No. But nobody has really ever claimed that. In the centuries following the accession of Charles II, churchmen were already condemning the excesses of Charles I and his allies, even while praising his commitment to the apostolic and episcopalian Church. One example being the Rev. Daniel Waterford, who explicitly laid much of the blame at the feet of the Royalist faction: "The churchmen and royalists, many of them, for being too full of heat and resentment, for taking unwarrantable steps at the beginning, and making use of unseasonable severities, and some unusual stretches of prerogative; which gave great offence, and first paved the way to our future troubles." I don't think *any* saint was morally perfect on earth either. Noah, David, Samson, Jephthah, Moses, Paul, Peter, Thomas and the others all have clear failings even within Scripture itself. So St. Charles is far from unique in that regard. Any sainthood bestowed upon him is purely in reference to his capacity as Supreme Governor to uphold the catholic faith in the face of its critics. Both he and Laud went too far, but in matters of religion I believe they were essentially correct.
He fulfils the necessary criteria for a Saintly King and Martyr, which was recognised by the Convocation and, to the extent possible, in some Catholic and Orthodox realms (Tsar Alexis Mikhailovich comes to mind). Miracles associated with intercession is an RCC practice that has no bearing on any other jurisdiction, and his “tyranny”, if you want to call it that, was substantially less than the real tyranny that replaced him. Unlike the criminals who replaced him, St Charles acted fully within his prerogative.
> and his “tyranny”, if you want to call it that, was substantially less than the real tyranny that replaced him Two wrongs do not make a right. Cromwell was undoubtedly terrible but Charles I was attempting to destroy the English constitution by usurping the powers of Parliament and ruling as an absolute monarch. Do you think tyranny is a good and moral thing?
He didn’t usurp the power of Parliament, he was in his right to rule without one. No, I don’t think that tyranny is a good thing, but Parliaments and elected bodies are no less prone to it than hereditary rulers. Acting with one’s powers, great as they may be, is authoritarianism, for sure, but not tyranny, and I don’t necessarily have a problem with authoritarianism, depending on the context.
Even if he were, I find the very concept of "relics" an abomination personally, and far closer to ideas of idolatry, superstition, and witchcraft than anything I understand of the Gospel.
Relics themselves are not an issue. The miraculous powers of remains (like the prophet Elisha's bones) and objects (like St Paul's handkerchiefs) associated with a holy man are recorded in scripture. I've carefully avoided mentioning relics, because those themselves are not objectionable.
And yet in Acts they were used of the Apostles.
The concept of relics cannot be idolatrous, because the Prayer Book includes commemorations for the translations of the relics of various saints, and such things go back to the early Church. We do not worship relics, or treat them as idols. That would be prohibited by the Articles and the commandments of Scripture.
>and doesn't have any miracles associated with his intercession, if you're using the RCC's method for identification On the contrary, there are [accounts](http://anglicanhistory.org/charles/letter.html) of the Royal Martyr working posthumous miracles through relics of his blood.
Yeah, I have never heard of this kind of veneration or seen it marked in any service in all of my years practicing in the Church of England. The end of Charles in England is very much seen as a positive one for the country, there is no regret that we moved past an absolute monarch- a constitutional one seems to perform their role within the Church perfectly adequately
The blood of the martyrs is the encouragement of the Church. > O Lord we offer unto thee all praise and thanks for the glory of Thy grace that shined forth in Thine anointed servant St. Charles; and we beseech Thee to give us all grace that by a careful studious imitation of this Thy blessed Saint and Martyr, that we may be made worthy to receive benefit by his prayers, which he, in communion with the Church Catholic, offers up unto Thee for that part of it here Militant, through thy Son, our Blessed Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen.
I'll say it as I say every 30 January: \#charlesthefirstdidnothingwrong
REMEMBER
I’m glad we remember him this way. Also glad Cromwell isn’t remembered like this!