Anglican Marriage And Royal Disobedience

Until death do us part.... or one of us changes his mind.

I am so awfully, awfully sorry to have to blog about strange things I see happening (or better; I heard happened, because I most certainly refused to follow the ceremony) on this joyous day. Still, I try to be a Catholic blogger and I hope that even the most royalist among my two dozen readers will have some understanding for what I am going to say.

What strikes me as odd in today’s ceremony are 1) the vows and 2) the so-called indissolubility of the Anglican marriage.

As to 1),  I was very surprised in reading that the then Kate Middleton (now Duchess of Cambridge), chose not to promise obedience. She promised instead to merely vow “love, comfort, honour and keep” to her royal husband. Now if the vow of obedience were not in the traditional formula one wouldn’t object very much to her not vowing it. But if the word is there and she chooses to take it out one might be justified in wondering whether this marriage starts on the right footing. Besides, it strikes me as odd (but it must be a Protestant thing) that in the Anglican so-called church one can pick and choose what he likes of the words of the ceremony. It reminds me of Pizza Hut, with Miss Middleton choosing ham, pepperoni and salami toppings but leaving away the extra cheese.

This signal is even more ominous if the Daily Mirror is right in informing us that there is a precedent for such “bespoke” vows, in that Princess Diana already chose not to obey. Now, considering the fact that Princess Diana went on to a rather slutty* career, one can only wonder.

As to 2), I heard on the radio a registration of the marriage vows and at the end of that, the so-called archbishop Rowan Williams said something which truly astonished me: words on the lines of

what God has put together, let no man put asunder

I couldn’t believe my ears. How can it be that a so-called church that has now long accepted that what God has put together, man can put asunder should have in her liturgy intimations that they themselves refuse to follow?

I am grateful to anyone willing to give any explanation of the theological background of the so-called church of England still keeping this formula. It might be great fun.

At the end of this post, let me for a moment forget that in my eyes every non-Catholic English Sovereign is an usurper anyway (I think it’s fair to say that James II was the last real McCoy, neglecting for a moment that Edward VII is rumoured to have died a Catholic) and let me wish the couple a happy marriage, and the groom a long and peaceful reign.

Mundabor

* I am being charitable here, mind.

Posted on April 29, 2011, in Catholicism and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 11 Comments.

  1. ALL monarchs are usurpers, even the Stuarts. There is no continuous lineage going back to one single figure.

    Decreed by,
    His Royal Majesty King Shane of Neverneverland, Emperor Supreme of Lalalalaladom

    • Shane,

      give me a Catholic british Sovereign and I might even turn to a monarchist. They just limit themselves to kissing children anyway.

      M

      P.s. well there is a sovereign with a continuous lineage: The Pope King.. 😉

  2. mundabor, I know the Italian House of Savoy have had a …er erm… strained relationship with the papacy but what do you think of Italian Unification, the rise of Mussolini and the fleeing of king Umberto 2? (You don’t need to go in depth, I’m just curious)

    Personally I see monarchy as a waste of time. But then I’m Irish 🙂

    • I could do fire fuel with all the Savoia kings after Carlo Alberto (who was a great king and a great patriot); only exception would be Umberto II who was a nice chap and was king only for a few weeks in 1946. He didn’t flee by the way, that was his bastard father, Vittorio Emanuele III; a snake disguised as a dwarf.

      Italians have – as a whole and notwithstanding some nutcases in the North – a strong sense of the nation and of their italianita’. They don’t need a monarchy. I am so glad we got rid of them.
      M

      P.s. Famous Duce’s joke:

      Q: “what is the King’s (VE III) favourite number?
      A: “610”

      (In Italian: “sei-uno-zero” or “you are a zero”) 😉

  3. I don’t know why, but Kate doesn’t strike me as a woman who would “obey” her husband. Something bothers me about her. I hope I am wrong in my feelings.

  4. So you’d be opposed to the North splitting off? (Aren’t Northern separatists currently in government incidentally? Could they ever get a majority?) I quite like the idea of a federal Europe composed of multitudes of microstates

    • Shane, to me the Fatherland is sacred.
      Dio, Patria e Famiglia.

      The Lega Nord is in power, but only a tiny minority of them has real separatist ideas, most are actually only in favour of more local authority and less transfers to the south, which I find extremely reasonable. They also have a good record of efficient administration, which is another reason of their undoubted success.

      M

  5. Mundabor, I don’t know whether you’ve seen this. I found it quite shocking (given that he is supposed to be a conservative)

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-wedding/8481736/Royal-wedding-Archbishop-backs-William-and-Kates-decision-to-live-together-before-marriage.html

    • Thanks Shane, this is really just another example of Anglican madness.

      In the link of my royal marriage post Williams is said to have said that if the woman vows to be obedient to her husband, this may lead to domestic abuse. Tells you what kind of idiots these people are.

      M

  6. Susie,

    I don’t think that the Rite of Christian Marriage (i.e., the Catholic rite) contains the word “obey.” Which makes sense, as both have a duty to the other to the <> a going concern. I wouldn’t start looking down my nose at the poor Protestants because Catholics can still select the epistle and Gospel readings for the wedding Mass. I wanted St. Paul’s “wives, be submissive…” etc. and Maggie, missing the whole point, held a grudge against me for that ever since; the priest who married us told me that the bride often “edits” that epistle.

    If you can find it in your public library, I would recommend a book called “Liberty or Equality” by Ernst von Kuennhelt-Ledhinn. He outlines the some of the ideas in consequence of the Protestant revolution. One of those consequences is Antinomianism (a term coined by Martin Luther, from the Greek ἀντί, “against” + νόμος, “law”) is a belief or tendency in most religions that some therein consider existing laws as no longer applicable to themselves, and another is Nominalism is a metaphysical view in philosophy according to which general or abstract terms and predicates exist, while universals or abstract objects, which are sometimes thought to correspond to these terms, do not exist.[1] Thus, there are at least two main versions of nominalism. One version denies the existence of universals—things that can be instantiated or exemplified by many particular things (e.g. strength, humanity(Marriage (my example))). The other version specifically denies the existence of abstract objects—objects that do not exist in space and time.[2]

    If an Anglican wedding ceremony using the Catholic phrase isn’t an example of elements of antinomianism & nominalism.

    Let’s continue to pray for reunification. It has been demonstrated by a series of writers, and confirmed to my mind, that Gnosticism, reintroduced (or maybe a better term would be “enabled,” or “unleashed”) through the protestant revolution, has reached a critical mass in Western society, whether Catholic, protestant or “atheist.” All the moral battles , and consequently religious & political, are thus divided.

    And don’t get me started on the connection between “clinical” narcissism and Gnosticism.

    Ciao,

    Ray Alan

    • RV,

      where I come from the woman obeys to the man, and no mistake. Not in the sense of blind, nazi obedience, but in the sense that she recognises that the leading role in a family is a role the man is expected to take, with all the convenience and inconvenience of the case. A good wife will allow herself to disagree, but she will know that she has to give way. This is why it is traditionally say that the place of the woman is to counsel her husband, rather than to take decisions together with him.

      Jesus is the head of the husband, and the husband is the head of the wife.

      Were I a wife, I couldn’t ever hope for a better deal than a husband who takes this words to heart, both in whom he must lead and to whom he must answer.

      M

%d bloggers like this: