King Charles the Martyr
“I shall go from a corruptible to an incorruptible Crown, where no disturbance can be.”
Tomorrow, the thirtieth day of January, is the anniversary of the martyrdom of King Charles I. In all editions of the Book of Common Prayer from A.D. 1662 to A.D. 1859, opposite January 30 in the Kalendar stands the entry, K. Charles Martyr.
* * *
It is easy enough, no doubt, for any one who is so inclined, to neutralize all that the Church can say, by a dexterous use of party-feeling: easy, to call it a device of the State for upholding a particular set of opinions. But the matter may be brought to a short issue. If attachment to the cause of our injured King, and sympathy with his high-minded patience, were not in entire harmony with the principles inculcated in all other parts of the Prayer-Book: if Sanderson, Hammond, and Taylor, those Restorers of our fallen Church, spoke otherwise on the duty of subjects, than as former generations of true Churchmen had spoken: then we might perhaps have cause to fear, that Feeling had got the better of Reason, in this one portion of our yearly solemnities. But if they “all speak the same thing, and there be no division among them;” and (what is infinitely more) if what they speak be altogether scriptural: if the doctrine of submission and loyal obedience be only one inseparable branch of the universal doctrine of resignation and contentment—an ingredient of that unreserved Faith, without which it is impossible to please God—then let us bless our Preserver, for not leaving us without special witness to a part of our duty, where all experience has proved us so likely to go wrong. Let us trust our civil welfare to the Gospel rule of non-resistance, as fearlessly as we trust our domestic happiness to the kindred rule of filial obedience. Such conduct, if universal, would be a perfect security to liberty: inasmuch as the same principle which forbids illegal resistance, would equally forbid being agents in illegal oppression. And they who abide by it, be they many or few, have for their warrant the general tenor and express word of Revelation, the example of our Blessed Lord, His Apostles, and His suffering Church. In every case, the burthen of proof lies wholly on those who plead for resistance.
And what if young men—the high-born especially—instead of that degrading ambition of commencing, early, “men of the world,” would consent to shape their own conduct by the noble simplicity and downright goodness of him, whom we this day commemorate? the secret of whose excellence lay, chiefly, in two qualities, by them most imitable: consistent purity of heart and demeanour, and strict constancy in devotional duties, under the guidance of his and our Church? Does any one believe that such a change would leave society at all a loser, in point of true generosity and courtesy, or whatever else makes life engaging?
But if all this must still be unheard—if the instruction of the day be quite drowned, in men’s eager cry for what is called Freedom: at least the service answers the purpose of a solemn appeal from human prejudice, to Him, before whom king and subject must ere long appear together. To whose final and unerring decision, not, it is hoped, with presumptuous confidence, nor yet with any uncharitable thought, but in cheerful assurance that resignation and loyalty can “in no wise lose their reward,” we desire, now and always, to “commit our cause.”
(Sermon V. Danger of Sympathizing With Rebellion. Preached by John Keble before the University of Oxford, January 30, 1831.)
* * *
O Lord, our heavenly Father, who didst not punish us as our sins have deserved, but hast in the midst of judgement remembered mercy; We acknowledge it thine especial favour, that, though, for our many and great provocations, thou didst suffer thine anointed blessed King Charles the First (as on this day) to fall into the hands of violent and blood-thirsty men, and barbarously to be murdered by them, yet thou didst not leave us for ever, as sheep without a shepherd; but by thy gracious providence didst miraculously preserve the undoubted Heir of his Crowns, our then gracious Sovereign King Charles the Second, from his bloody enemies, hiding him under the shadow of thy wings, until their tyranny was overpast; and didst bring him back, in thy good appointed time, to sit upon the throne of his Father; and together with the Royal Family didst restore to us our ancient Government in Church and state. For these thy great and unspeakable mercies we render to thee our most humble and unfeigned thanks; beseeching thee, still to continue thy gracious protection over the whole Royal Family, and to grant to our gracious Sovereign Queen Elizabeth, a long and happy Reign over us: So we that are thy people will give thee thanks for ever, and will alway be shewing forth thy praise from generation to generation; through Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour. Amen.
* * *
O Lord we offer unto thee all praise and thanks for the glory of Thy grace that shined forth in Thine anointed servant 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. (source “Private Forms of Prayer” 1660, Brian Duppa, Bishop of Salisbury and Winchester.)
O Most mighty God, terrible in thy judgements, and wonderful in thy doings toward the children of men; who in thy heavy displeasure didst suffer the life of our gracious Sovereign King Charles the First, to be (as on this day) taken away by the hands of cruel and bloody men: We thy sinful creatures here assembled before thee, do, in the behalf of all this Nation, which brought down this heavy judgement upon us. But, O gracious, when thou makest inquisition for blood, lay not the guilt of this innocent blood, (the shedding whereof nothing but the blood of thy Son can expiate,) lay it not to the charge of the people of this land; not let it ever be required of us, or our posterity. Be merciful, O Lord, be merciful unto thy people, whom thou hast redeemed; and be not angry with us for ever: But pardon us for thy mercy’s sake. through the merits of thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Blessed Lord, in whose sight the death of thy saints is precious; We magnify thy Name for thine abundant grace bestowed upon our martyred Sovereign; by which he was enabled so cheerfully to follow the steps of his blessed Master and Saviour, in a constant meek suffering of all barbarous indignities, and at the last resisting unto blood; and even then according to the same pattern, praying for his murderers. Let his memory, O Lord, be ever blessed among us; that we may follow the example of his courage and constancy, his meekness and patience, and great charity. And grant, that this our land may be freed from the vengeance of his righteous blood, and thy mercy glorified in the forgiveness of our sins; and all for Jesus Christ his sake, our only Mediator and Advocate. Amen.
* * *
Blessed God, just and powerful, who didst permit thy dear Servant, our dread Sovereign King Charles the First, to be (as upon this day) given up to the violent outrages of wicked men, to be despitefully used, and at the last murdered by them: Though we cannot reflect upon so foul an act, but with horror and astonishment; yet do we most gratefully commemorate the glories of the grace, which then sinned forth in thine Anointed; whom thou wast pleased, even at the hour of death, to endue with an eminent measure of exemplary patience, meekness, and charity, before the face of his cruel enemies. And albeit thou didst suffer them to proceed to such an height of violence, as to kill him, and to take possession of his Throne; yet didst thou in great mercy preserve his Son, whose right it was, and at length by a wonderful providence bring him back, and set him thereon, to restore thy true Religion, and to settle peace amongst us: For these thy great mercies we glorify thy Name, through Jesus Christ our blessed Saviour. Amen.
about 1 month ago
Here is the proper for the Mass of King Charles from the 1921 Anglican Missal:
January 30th.
CHARLES I OF ENGLAND, K. & M.
Introit. Domine in virtute tua. Ps. 21.
The King shall rejoice in thy strength, Lord, exceeding glad shall he be of thy salvation : thou hast given him his heart’s desire. Ps. ibid. For thou shalt prevent him with the blessings of goodness, and shalt set a crown of pure gold upon his head, V. Glory be.
Collect.
Blessed Lord, in whose sight the death of thy saints is precious : we magnify thy Name for thine abundant grace bestowed upon our martyred Sovereign ; by which he was enabled so cheerfully to follow the steps of his blessed Master and Saviour, in a constant meek suffering of all barbarous indignities, and at last resisting unto blood ; and even then, according to the same pattern, praying for his murderers. Let his memory, O Lord, be ever blessed among us ; that we may follow the example of his courage and constancy, his meekness and patience, and great charity. And grant, that this our land may be freed from the vengeance of his righteous blood, and thy mercy glorified in the for giveness of our sins : and all for Jesus Christ his sake, our only Mediator and Advocate. Who liveth.
The Lesson from the former Epistle of blessed Peter the Apostle. 1 St. Peter 2. 13.
Dearly beloved : Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake : whether it be to the king, as supreme ; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him, for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well-doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men : as free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honour all men : Love the brotherhood : Fear God : Honour the king. Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if when ye be buffeted for your faults ye shall take it patiently ? but if when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently ; this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called : because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps ; who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth.
Gradual. Ps. 112. Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord : he hath great delight in his commandments, V. His seed shall be mighty upon earth : the generation of the faithful shall be blessed.
Alleluia, alleluia. V. Ps. 21. Thou shalt set, O Lord, a crown of pure gold upon his head. Alleluia.
After Septuagesima (omitting Alleluia, and the verse following) is said :
Tract. Ibid. Thou hast given him his heart’s desire : and hast not denied him the request of his lips. V. For thou shalt prevent him with the blessings of goodness, V. Thou shalt set a crown of pure gold upon his head.
+ The Continuation of the Holy Gospel according to Matthew. St. Matt. 21. 33.
At that time : Jesus spake this parable unto the multitude of the Jews, and the chief priests : There was a certain householder which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a wine-press in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country. And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again he sent other servants, more than the first : and they did unto them likewise. But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying : They will reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves : This is the heir, come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. When the Lord therefore of the vine yard cometh, what will he do unto those husband men ? They say unto him : He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons. Creed.
Offertory. St. Matt. 7. 12. Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do unto them : for this is the law and the prophets.
Secret.
O Lord, our heavenly Father, who didst not punish us as our sins have deserved, but hast in the midst of judgment remembered mercy : we acknowledge it thine especial favour, that, though for our many and great provocations thou didst suffer thine Anointed blessed King Charles the First [as on this day] to fall into the hands of violent and blood-thirsty men, and barbarously to be murdered by them : yet thou didst not leave us for ever, as sheep without a shepherd, but by thy gracious providence didst miraculously preserve the undoubted heir of his crowns, our then gracious Sovereign King Charles the Second, from his bloody enemies, hiding him under the shadow of thy wings, until their tyranny was overpast ; and didst bring him back in thy good appointed time to sit upon the throne of his father, and together with the Royal Family didst restore to us our ancient Government in Church and State. For these thy great and unspeakable mercies we render to thee our most humble and unfeigned thanks ; beseech ing thee, still to continue thy gracious protection over the whole Royal Family, and to grant to our gracious Sovereign King N. a long and a happy reign over us : so that we that are thy people will give thee thanks for ever, and will alway be shewing forth thy praise from generation to generation. Through Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour ; our only Mediator and Advocate.
Communion. St. Matt. 16. If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
Post-communion.
O Lord, we offer unto thee all praise and thanks for the glory of thy grace that shined forth in thine Anointed, our Sovereign King Charles: and we beseech thee to give us all grace by a careful studious imitation of this thy blessed Saint and Martyr, and all other thy Saints and Martyrs that have gone before us ; that we may be made worthy to receive benefit by their prayers, which they, in communion with the Church Catholic, offer up unto thee for that part of it here militant. Through.
about 1 month ago
Will this become an underground cult in the near future?
about 1 month ago
Thank you Mr. Campbell for the blog about St. Charles. It is good to see and read about a great Catholic saint from England in The Anglo-Catholic Blog. Had it not been for this saintly King, who valued the Catholic Church and Faith more than his own life, the Catholic Faith in England could easily have died. He was in the Prayer Book until Queen Victoria removed him, even though she had not the authority to do so.
There is no reason for “an underground cult” of St. Charles to emerge as there is already “an above the ground” Society of King Charles the Martyr in this country and in several others.
Every year around the 30th of January Masses are said for him, the most famous being the Solemn High sung for him in London at St.Mary le Strand after the procession from Banqueting House.
Sancte Rex Carole, Ora Pro Nobis
Dr. T.D. Greenhaw
about 1 month ago
I love this subject of King Charles the Martyr. English recusants used to joke that “He died for the faith but, unfortunately, it was the wrong one”. As a monarchist, I admire this King very much. But I can’t see how he can be counted as a saint in the calendars proper of the coming ordinariates. Different is the case of King St. Henry VI. He was counted a saint before canonisations were standardised, the old way of being ’sainted’. While he doesn’t seem to be recognised as a saint in the Catholic Church today, I don’t think he can be excluded except by some papal declaration.
I note that Charles II, his son, died a Catholic; and of course, both the wives of Charles I and Charles II were Catholic, as was the brother of Charles II, the holy but imprudent King James II. Would that he had remaned in London! But his tolerance for the Puritans was not repaid!
P.K.T.P.
about 1 month ago
Dear Fr. Chadwick:
Whoops! I have been recommending the Anglican Missal of 1921. I wonder how Rome will deal with Charles the Martyr! Again, this might help explain why the C.D.W. will eventually want to go everything with a fine-toothed comb.
P.K.T.P.
about 1 month ago
Anything’s possible…
about 1 month ago
If anyone is looking for something of interest over the Memorial Day weekend, our parish of St. Barnabas in Omaha Nebraska is hosting the Society of King Charles the Martyr Mass for the 350th anniversary of the restoration. This festive event will be held at 11:00 am on Saturday, 29 May 2010. Bishop Daren Williams of the ACA Diocese of the West will be the preacher. Luncheon reservations (to be held at the St. Cecelia Cathedral Parish Center directly north of the parish) are $15 (USA) and can be made by writing to the following address: St. Barnabas Parish, PO Box 31155, Omaha, NE 68131. More information about this event or the society can be found at http://www.skcm-usa.org.
about 1 month ago
Charles I does raise unfortunate difficulties from a Catholic perspective…
The above comment about him supporting and dying for the Catholic Church and Faith – well, there were many priests and laymen who endured persecution, impoverishment, confiscation of their estates, imprisonment, torture and even gruesome death for hundreds of years in England for that cause – but they weren’t Anglicans, they were Popish Recusants.
Theirs was indeed an “underground cult”, complete with priest holes and secret services.
English Catholics would I am sure be horribly offended at the thought that the Forty Martyrs of England and Wales (and the hundreds of Blesseds, to say nothing of their ancestors, the faithful remnant) should be presently joined by a certain King, who lived and died out of communion with the Bishop of Rome, whereas the Forty lived and died in and for that communion.
I speak plainly here.
about 1 month ago
Saint Hippolyte was an antipope; he is now commemorated on August 13th – together with Pope Pontianus, his adversary on the papal throne.
Just saying…
about 1 month ago
Permit me to try to transcribe a few remarks from two of our Roman brethren on the subject of King Charles the Martyr. Please forgive any typos that follow.
Fr. Jean Marie Charles-Roux, IC [he is Catholic patron of the SKCM and also is the priest who celebrated the EF Mass for Mel Gibson on the set of "The Passion of the Christ"] said this:
“[B]y choosing to shed his blood in preference to conceding to parliament its request of abolishing every form of Episcopalian Church — since that was the matter at the heart of the conflict that led him to the scaffold–King Charles saved the very existence of the Church of England. For once hallowed by martyrdom, the Communion of Canterbury, as by law established, stood in the eyes of the vast majority of the people, vested in such sacredness and awe, that no one, were it even among the gross famatic, cruel Roundheads, felt it henceforth possible to touch it. One is therefore bound to conclude that Charles I by his sacrifice preserved the existence of that one Communion whose characters and traditions make of it an actual and living intermediary, a bridge, a means of understanding and co-ordination between most of the persuasions born of the Reformation, on the one side, and on the other, the Apostolic See.
“This was felt early after the King’s death. For, when preaching no more than 20 years later, the panegyric of his widow, Queen Henrietta aria, that very strictly Catholic bishop of Meaux, Bossuet, spoke at length of Charles I, and presented him in glowing terms as the model of Christian sovereigns; because he had shown, in imitation of Christ, how a Prince could add to his grandeurs by dying for his Faith. Going further, Bossuet did not refrain from suggesting that, by offering himself up, on the gruesome Whitehall platform, the King had made of himself, the reparatory holocaust for all the harm done and atrocities committed by the heavy and sadistic matrimonial head-chopper who had, in a previous dynasty, preceded him on the English Throne.
[He speaks of the influence of Charles on the Oxford Movement and its meaning for true ecumenism, and then says the following]:
“This outstandingly ecumenical importance of his was moreover illustrated as soon as the end of the XVIIIth century, by a royal and touching historical feature. For, when the most Christian King of France, Louis XVI, who preferred dying on the guillotine to disobeying the Pope, prepared for his supreme sacrifice, he did so with the help of two books: his Hours as a Knight of the Holy Ghost and a life of Charles I. Thus in the eyes of Angels at least, and at that highest level of consecrated sovereigns, is the communion between Canterbury and Rome already selaed by that meeting on their respective Golgothas, of the souls, hearts, minds, prayers of those two crowned and holy martyrs, Charles of Great Britain and Louis of France.”
From J. M. Charles-Roux, IC, “The Sanctity of Charles I” (n.d.).
One might have to substitute the Continuum now for Canterbury, but I think the principle still applies. As the only Roman in my own family, and with the help of a couple of great and holy Legionary priests, I have come to see that the inability of one’s loved ones, or others, such as Charles I, to embrace the Holy Roman Catholic Faith cannot really be a matter of guilt imputed to them, born as they were into some other, and that if the Holy Spirit has withheld the gift of our Faith from them, we must respect, and even maybe stand in awe before, the inscrutable designs of the Good Lord in this matter.
I, for one, will respect and bow before the sanctity of Charles and Louis, and indeed of Nicholas II, Alexandra, their family and her sister Elizabeth, who, as the Moscow Patriarchate recognized in canonizing the Imperial Family, united their sufferings to those of our Saviour so thoroughly as to be “Passion-bearers” with Him, and also thus even making reparation for their own sometime lack of prudence in governing.
All the best to everyone for a great Royal Martyr Day.
Woody Jones, SKCM (of the scruffy Roman auxiliary/”associate” branch)
about 1 month ago
Sorry about that, the other of our Roman brethren that I was going to transcribe is Fr. James Casciotti, SJ, who in a sermon preached at Grace & Saint Peter’s Church, Baltimore, in 1996, said, among many other things, the following:
“Having read the latest SKCM News, I am aware that, while His Majesty tried to maintain cordial relations with the Roman Church, his opinion of the Society of Jesus was so low as to call us –God forbid–’Roman Puritans’. Nevertheless, the more I read about Charles the Martyr, the more I love him. In witnessing to the Apostolic Order of the Catholic Church, he was in the most profound sense defending true human freedom….
“In our day, at least in our ost-modern society, it is unlikely that we will be killed for our fidelity to the Faith–none of us would be taken that seriously–but in this climate we may be passed over for jobs or frozen out by folks who hope we will simply die out. As Chesterton said, ‘A man who has faith must be prepared not only to be a martyr, but to be a fool.’
“Unity and harmony within and between our Churches is a gift of the Holy Spirit which our sins, individual and corporate, push away. Fidelity to our own traditions begins with our own on-going conversion. We muct, like Saint Charles, be people who pray, people who reflect on our lives, people who ask God to show us to ourselves, and people who repent.”
[And later, picking up on the theme of passion-bearing, he says this:]
“Those who have Christ for their King let go of bitterness and understand their sufferings not as a punishment or as a sign of the weakness or nonexistence of God, but as a sharing in his Passion — as a school for ministry in which they gain the experience and compassion to share the burdens of others.”
about 1 month ago
Whilst it does need to be remembered that under Charles I the penal laws against Catholics were relaxed and Catholics experienced a level of relative peace in England, I agree with Josh that the cult of Charles I does present problems for Catholics.
In this light I’d add that the cult of Charles I reminds me of the Orthodox cult of ‘St Constantine the Great’, seems to be a reflection of Caesaropapism more than a reverence for true Catholic sanctity or principles. True, he did die as a martyr, but for what? I think to say he died for the Catholic faith is claim that cannot be sustained. He died, in my view, for the Established COE and for Monarchicalism: for a Church and a faith with an annointed monarch as its governing head.
about 1 month ago
I’d qualify my remarks by the observation that there nonetheless were still martyrs for the Catholic faith under Charles I. Not many when compared with previous years, but they still occurred.
about 1 month ago
The quotations supplied from Bossuet et al., and the account of the death of Louis XVI, helps a great deal.
However – while of course we find so much to admire in Charles I, and pray vehemently that he rejoices with the saints in heaven, that is not to say he is necessarily to be canonized forthwith: that is for the Holy See to rule on after careful consideration of the unique features of his case.
about 1 month ago
Some inconvenient truths: this King Charles has to bear on his conscience the fact that, while he was king, he allowed the execution of several Catholic priests – indeed signing death warrants and even attending executions as the historical record attests – of which priests most were subsequently beatified or canonized as martyrs (see below); and in March of 1641 he issued a proclamation banishing all priests under pain of death…
Let us consider only those put to death from Charles’ accession to the throne in 1625 until, having lost control in London, he raised the royal standard on the 22nd of August 1642, raising an army to fight for him against his rebellious subjects. (Arguably Charles was only truly in control until he was forced to summon the Long Parliament in November 1640…)
Martyred in the reign of Charles I (just as we say, martyred under the Emperor Diocletian, or Julian the Apostate):
Saint Edmund Arrowsmith, priest and martyr – hung, drawn and quartered on 28 August 1628;
Dom Thomas Preston, O.S.B. – died in prison, 3 April 1640;
Blessed William Ward, priest and martyr – hung, drawn and quartered for the crime of being a priest, on 26 July 1641;
St Ambrose Barlow, O.S.B., priest and martyr – hung, drawn and quartered on 10 September 1641;
Blessed Edmund Catherick and Blessed John Lockwood, priests and martyrs – their death warrants were signed by Charles I, albeit after some vacillation, and their execution was carried out in the royal presence! – on 13 April 1642;
Fr Edward Morgan – mutilated 1632, and imprisoned from then until his execution, on 26 April 1642;
St Hugh Green, priest and martyr – appallingly gruesomely put to death (the butcher employed took half an hour to chop out his living heart) on 19 August 1642.
Given all this, can Charles I be ever realistically considered as a saint??!!
about 1 month ago
I’m sure “classical Anglican” Rev Hart and cronies over at the Discontinuum would make good use of the gutting and quartering block on TAC clergy if they got half a chance!
about 1 month ago
Perhaps, Father, you would be the first victim?
about 1 month ago
Have you seen, BTW, Fr Longenecker’s highly amusing parody of a certain nemesis?
http://gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/2010/01/sacred-hart.html
I’m sure he won’t mind me quoting it here, to lighten the mood a little:
“I keep getting emails from someone calling himself ‘Robert Hart’. Who is this person? I did a search and found that there is someone by that name who has set up a little church in Kentucky. I think it is called the Celtic Anglican Orthodox Catholic Church of Mid Northeastern United States (Septimus Strand of the 1932 Prayer Book draft revision liturgy) I only did a quick check, but I think his bishop had valid ordination through the Jacobean line of the Czech declension co validated through the Swedish Lutheran branch and reconnoitered with the Old Florsheim Church of Lithuania (twice removed) and the Syro-Malocclusion patriarchate of Eastern Tennessee.
“Bishop Hart meets with the faithful in Sacred Hart Cathedral (which is temporarily located in the spare bedroom of their modest rancher home) Mrs. Hart is head altar server. If you wish to join them for solemn high Mass on Sundays at ten please bring your own folding chair. After Mass there will be a book study of Duane Mandible’s classic, Guns and Knives Will Save Your Children’s Lives.”
about 1 month ago
Interstingly, the majority of these martyrdoms took place from 1640s onwards. My understanding is the the Puritan-dominant Long Parliament came into power once again from this time and a lot of these martyrdoms were due to this (I could be wrong). It was my impression that prior to this there was only Edmund Arrowsmith (perhaps one other???). Anyway, this is not my era so I defer to the experts.
about 1 month ago
Yes, Charles was striving to hold his throne, and first tried compromise and appeasement as power slipped away from him – which is hardly the exercise of heroic virtue that is expected of a saint. His later activities after his capture at the end of the First Civil War (intriguing with the Scots, agreeing to introduce Presbyterianism into England as the price of their aid) is hardly saintly nor edifying.
Let’s not wear rose-coloured glasses.
about 1 month ago
After all, what of the great St Edward the Confessor? There’s a true English king we all can pray to.
Then there’s his predecessor on the throne, St Edward the Martyr (d. 978) as well.
Further back, St Oswald, King and Martyr…
Is Alfred the Great regarded as a saint?
about 1 month ago
Joshua:
There is also King St. Edmund of East Anglia. In the Late Midde ages, some Englishmen would proudly tell the French of their ‘three royal saints (Edmund of East Anglia, Edward the Martyr, Edward the Confessor) as against only one for France (Louis IX). Some English mss. show the three together in a miniature. Henry VI was added by general acclaim before canonisations became the only accepted means of such recognition. I would say, therefore, that it is correct to call him ‘St. Henry VI’. I note that at least one TAC parish mentions him in its title, so the matter is relevant here. If they are allowed to keep him for thirty continuous years, under the current Code … !!!
In accordance with traditional Catholic usage, Charles I could be a saint but not a martyr in the strict sense. There has been some misusage lately about martyrs. Many modern Catholics are calling St. Maximilian Kolbe a martyr. He was not. Being killed owing to some specifically Christian action, like volunteering your life to save another, will likely make you a saint but is not sufficient for martyrdom. To be a martyr, you must suffer death rather than renoune the Catholic Faith.
Since a saint is merely someone who is declared to present in Heaven, and since all Anglicans are able to go to Heaven (well, except for the Schorri Woman), it is not impossible that King Charles I will one day be canonised as King St. Charles I, but not as St. Charles the Martyr (although he may have been a martyr in the more general sense in which that term is used).
Traditionally, the purpose of canonisation is merely to propose a particular saint as a model of behaviour and for veneration. Its purpose is not to identify everyone who qualifies as a saint (much as the practice in the last pontificate may make one wonder). Could the Catholic Church ever venerate a man who did not embrace the Catholic Church specifically? I think she could in theory but taht this would be unpecedented.
Incidentally, there are also ‘white martyrs”: those who suffered so much for the Faith that their intent was identical to that of martyrs, and in parallel circumstances of persecution. They survived only by divine intervention, or they died of their physical wounds but not immediately. Pope St. Anicetus comes to mind.
I am fascinated by this category of ‘passion-bearers’ used by the Orthodox. I am wondering if it is also used by Eastern Catholics. Does anyone here know?
P.K.T.P.
about 1 month ago
I do think we need to get some perspective here… forgive me, but to an outsider, looking forward very much to the outcome of present reunification talks, the cult of Charles I does seem to combine some of the worst features of self-satisfied Anglicanism: fawning over the royal power, and indulging in false history (pretending the Anglicanism of Charles’ day to have been Anglo-Catholicism, even Anglo-Papalism, which it wasn’t).
At the same time that poor Charles went to the block, many Catholic priests had been, were being, and would continue to be hung, drawn and quartered in Britain, for the “crime” of being priests in communion with Rome, as had happened since 1535 and would continue to happen until 1679. (To say Mass was only legalized in 1772 or thereabouts.) They were undoubted martyrs, dying for the Faith. While they prayed heartily for their king, they rank high above him in glory.
It seems perverse to indulge one’s sentimentality in a questionable cult when there are plenty of uncontroversial saints to venerate.
about 1 month ago
Joshua,
While some Catholics may have reservations about this peculiar devotion, the cultus of King Charles the Martyr is part of our Anglican Patrimony. As Mr. Andrews observed above, Charles I indeed died for the Established Church — but a church which he, and those of his party, understood to be the Catholic Church in England. And he resisted those who would have eradicated forever episcopacy, the sacraments, and all other remnants of “popery” in the Church. While the Anglicanism of Charles I and Archbishop Laud may have been very different from ours, it is doubtful that there would have ever been a Catholic revival in the Anglican Church without them. And for that, without indulging in false history or any other pretensions, we honor him on this day.
about 1 month ago
Pending the judgement of the Universal Church, we will have for the moment to disagree.
The Catholic Church was still in England, but suffering dire persecution – as in the case of St Ambrose Barlow, a prematurely aged priest half-paralysed by a stroke, who refused his parishioners’ pleas to flee when Charles issued a proclamation expelling all Catholic priests from the realm on pain of death, and was arrested while saying Mass, tried and gruesomely executed.
The Patrimony does need to be sympathetically but fairly vetted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
I would say again that, for English Catholics in particular, venerating the memory of their recusant ancestors and especially the Forty Martyrs and hundreds of blessed martyrs of the penal times, to pay veneration to King Charles I is quite scandalous – the very monarch who actually signed the death warrants of the saints!
about 1 month ago
Joshua does have a point here, of course. While, as a passionate Royalist, I honour King Charles I, as a Catholic, I cannot count him as a saint. Since 1649 was long after the process of canonisation came into force, he would have to be judged a saint by the Church. Moreover, I should think it to be unprecedented to honour or venerate as a saint one who was not in Communion with Rome. It would be a first (although theoretically not impossible).
We do have three English Royal saints already and, arguably a foruth in Henry VI (and a fifth if we count St. Oswald, King of Northumbria).
Let’s just call him ‘good King Charles I’ for now.
Notice how there are no saint-presidents? (Moreno of Ecuador might become the first.) I can think of a dozen royal saints immediately!
As for prime-ministers, they are all scoundrels!
P.K.T.P.
about 1 month ago
Recall what Charles II said when a wag at court said of him “He never said a foolish thing, / Nor ever did a wise one” – “Yes, it is true, for my words are my own, while my actions are those of my ministers.”
The doctrine that the monarch reigns but does not rule, in a nutshell.
about 1 month ago
I also recall Charles I’s wonderful words when he was dragged before a Puritan judge:
“I see that I am before a power.”
What a wonderful way to say, in effect: you have no jurisdiction.
P.K.T.P.
about 3 days ago
Presently Publications Editor of the American Region of the Society of King Charles the Martyr, may I comment on #2 by Robert Andrews, speculating on an “underground cult”. Since its founding in London in 1894 and its establishment in the Americas, specifically New York, in the same year, the Society has been very public, to the best of my knowledge lacking any elements of secrecy.
I might add that I am in the midst of research for a history of the American Branch and would appreciate any information on the Society’s witness in the U.S. and Canada, esp. 1900-1950, a period on which we have hardly any information.
As for the Royal Martyr’s sainthood, it is the case that there are many seeming contradictions and obstacles from our limited perspective. Similarly, it is beyond our human capabilities to envision how we all might be one, as our Lord and the Father are one. Nonetheless, we should pray for such unity, as our Lord commanded (or suggested). Taking our Lord at His Word, King Charles and Abp. Laud corresponded with the Pope and with the Ecumenical and other Patriarchs. Their bold initiatives, in response to our Lord’s Words to His Apostles, can only be described as Ecumenically Prophetic or . . . naïve. For decades, widely ridiculed prayers for Russia’s delivery from ‘Godless Communism’ seemed naïve, too.
Mark A. Wuonola, Ph.D.
Publications Editor, S.K.C.M., American Region
Sometime American Representative (1988-2009)
about 3 days ago
The Society has certain specific Objects, getting 30 Jan. inserted in the calendars of Anglican bodies, erecting votive shrines, increasing knowledge of his contribution to our Anglican identity (some would say, ‘existence’), but overall, we exist to unite those who venerate him as a saint, beatus, passion bearer, or worthy. These, some of whom are members of S.K.C.M. are diverse in their ecclesiastical affiliation (including non-Anglican), their reasons for considering him among their patron saints, and whether they view him, technically, as a saint by virtue of the RC church’s process of the recent several centuries.
In the S.K.C.M., we feel that it is unseemly and does not well serve the Cause of our Patron, King Charles the Martyr, to engage in disputation of this nature. Having a rôle in the Society, I do not choose to associate my own views with the Society’s. Such arguments tend to become political; these, in order best to preserve our focus, are thus best avoided. (Not that one is not tempted.)
For example, in the earliest years of our Society, there was a distinct tendency toward Jacobitism. Today, some members are monarchists but that is not the Society’s position. For one thing, King Charles I and his situation are complex enough without further complicating matters. Adding other controversial issues makes it even harder to advocate our position on a subject where people already are polarized. So, we ‘remember’ the words of our Foundress, Ermengarda Greville-Nugent, “The Society is emphatically non-political.”
Secondly, it is difficult even for those scholars who have no axe to grind truly to understand the viewpoints of another age. For example some of the most revered Caroline Divines held shockingly vituperative positions on the RC Church and the mass. One reason was the intertwining of the C of E and the State, just as the RC Church exercised both spiritual and temporal power. Some of each side’s ecclesiastics used their positions as cover for espionage, or were used thus by their governments, to whom the practice was unexceptional. Even knowing these things, some of those divines’ statements are repulsive when we read them today, A century after Lord Halifax and many decades after the first, fraternal ARCIC meetings, few churchfolk reading Lancelot Andrewes would realize that ‘Antichrist’ and ‘Whore of Babylon’ were being used in reference to the Roman Pontiff.
At the same time, King Charles was in correspondence with the Pope. Abp. Laud in a prayer for unity prayed “that all who confess Thy holy Name may be reunited, as at the beginning” and asked God “to remove . . . all suspicions and prejudices and endue us with such love towards Thee and towards one another that we may be one in Thee.”
Mark A. Wuonola