www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall St Charles I , King and Martyr

I know that this forum is for Orthodox stuff only but I thought that my Eastern brethren might be interested in one of our Anglican saints: Charles I of England. Our own Alex Roman, aka Orthodox Catholic, has written a beautiful Akathist to this saint. Also, it was a Russian Orthodox Tsar that coined the popular title for Charles I, "King and Martyr." Unfortunately, the Akathist is not on the site. Anyway, check it out. It is very nicely done:

http://www.skcm.org/index.html

in Christ,
Marshall

It's very wonderful akathist...

As for a sainthood or martyrdom for Charles I....that I am not sure about. I know Alex will will disagree with me, him being a member of that society, but I fail to see or understand the whole "goodliness" associated with Charles. As a historian, I have read many books, be they primary or secondary and have written more essays that I care to remember, and for me at least, Charles is indeed a pitiful figure, who was no doubt maligned but I cannot appendage him the rank of martyr, let alone saint. I have the same feelings towards the Romanovs, as well; apart from Grand Princess Elizabeth, I am uncertain and unsure about how to approach them. The Church had canonised them so one would have to venerate them, yet I don't think I could. It makes me unconfortable. Its the same with Thomas Becket, especially after writing my dissertation because the years of exile and the events before the martyrdom hardly place him in a good light...

I guess I am rambling, but I do question sometimes the reasons for canonisation. I hope I am not doing anything bad in God's eyes, its just that...lack of a better word...I am confused???

Xhristos Vosreshi!

Anton

Dear Anton,

Yes, one problem is that a lot of what is written about King Charles or the Romanovs is written from the standpoint of an historian's reductionistic scalpel .

Very little care to comment on the religious side of these people and so very little is commonly known about it.

The Romanovs were treated separately, but King Charles was known, even by his enemies, as a very holy man.

He was declared a martyr because he refused to back down to the Puritans who demanded that he negate a Catholic principle with respect to his Anglican Church - they demanded that he abolish the episcopacy.

And that he refused to do, and he refused to further diminish the Catholic character of the Anglican Church.

For that he died and for that he is honoured by Anglicans and by many Catholics and Orthodox, some of whom I know personally.

Under the influence of St Charles, Anglicanism moved in the direction of recovering its own Catholic heritage. Converts from Anglicanism to RCism and Orthodoxy tended to maintain their private devotion to St Charles, as did Ronald Knox and even the Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman.

I know of Western Rite Orthodox who venerate St Charles, even publicly via candles and other forms of devotion.

Fr. Stephen Walinski, Western Rite OCA priest in Omaha has St Charles' icon up in his parish Church!

King Charles may have been a poor administrator, like St Nicholas Romanov, but he isn't venerated for his abilities in this regard.

He prayed several hours daily, received the Eucharist and attended Confession regularly, fasted and peformed works of piety and charity. He always bowed his head at the Names of Jesus and Mary. He supported William Laud in the latter's High Church renewal of Anglicanism. He was on good terms with both the Pope and with Orthodoxy and referred to himself as the guardian of the "Orthodox Church of England."

When his tomb was opened in the beginning of the 19th century, it was obvious that his body had not decomposed! Miracles wrought by touching blood-stained handkerchiefs, dipped in his blood at his execution, are well documents.

The canonization of Kings and sovereigns can be a separate hagiographical study.

But Charles ranks with the best Royal saints in the Church's history.

Alex

Henry II was very religious; a hearty soul who loved hunting, he could easily spend much time praying as well. Does that make him a saint? I do not think that Charles can be placed in the same category as St Constantine, Equal-to-the-Apostles, or St Edward the Confessor or St Edmund at Bury. And I am not a reactionary or a revisionist; in my view, Charles does not fulfil the criteria of a martyr, let alone a saint. The orthodox catholic ideas still existed in the Anglican Church, even during the reigns of Elizabeth, James VI and I and even William III. The Puritan ideal was never strong in England, and could never hope to achieve supremacy. You want a holy king, very loyal to Rome, and Christ...well look at poor Henry VI...he would have been much better at the cloister than on the throne.

Anton

Dear Anton,

I belong also to the Society of King Henry VI and our Society includes both Catholics and Anglicans - Rome has given us permission to invoke the King as "Blessed King Henry" in our society meetings.

Both King Henry VI AND King Charles I were highly venerated by Anglican converts to Catholicism in the 19th century. Ronald Knox even submitted a plea for their canonization to Rome . . .

Charles certainly wasn't a saint as was a St Francis of Assisi. But he was very holy and he is honoured for his martyrdom, for dying in defence of the Anglican Church and for episcopacy. As such, he is truly a Martyr and a royal one at that.

St Constantine is honoured as a saint, but I daresay St Charles I has him "beat" on a number of spiritual fronts.

Constantine only accepted baptism on his death-bed and that at the hands of Semi-Arians.

He is honoured as a saint in the East for what he did for the Church, as is Charlemagne, but who was not exactly very holy . . .

Constantine's cult is of a local nature in the West only.

Popes have referred to the Anglican Church as the "Church of Charles and Laud."

They know that what is most Catholic about Anglicanism was cultivated and safeguarded beginning with those two saints and martyrs!

Alex

Yeah I've been reading about the Anglical history, I know that there were some Bishops of the Church of England among those who folowed Abbot Cranmer in the schism who were later martyred when they refused to embrace Protestantism. they were certainly guilty of schism and disobedience but not of heresy, and some of them were very Orthodox-minded.

What do you think about King Charles II? He was martyred by the Puritans wasn't he? (Or am I confused?)

Cranmer was NEVER an Abbot

Dear Alex,

How may I learn more about the Society of Henry VI? Is it a devotional society? I have always considered "blessed" Henry VI to saintly. There is evidence that the English frequently invoked him prior to the Reformation. I also recall that his tomb was a place of pilgrimage. I don't know if it still is.

in Christ,
Marshall

Oh dear me...Charles II as a saintly man? LOL...somehow Catherine of Braganza might disagree! He was quite tolerant - except towards the extreme dissenters - especially towards Catholics and in a profoundly anti-Catholic society. There are stories that he converted on his deathbed; that could easily be true but we really have no evidence. But he sure was a plug-ugly baby!

Anton

Dear Snoopers,

Charles II was no saint, he was quite the womanizer.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, during Bright Week especially .

And as long as the woman is your wife!!

He did die a Roman Catholic, although he attended Anglican services all his life. This information comes from the Catholic Stuarts in Rome. There was an RC Stuart Cardinal, Henry, by name and an RC Stuart "King Charles III of Britain" was crowned at Rome and is buried there as well!

Charles II's brother, King James II, became a Roman Catholic but proclaimed his faith publicly.

He died as a humble monk in France and his relics were found to be incorrupt during the French Revolution.

All three Stuart sovereigns, Mary, Queen of Scots, Martyr, Charles I the Martyr and James II are considered holy and the RC Stuarts Mary and James have actual Causes pending for them at Rome.

The Society of King Charles the Martyr has published a comprehensive and scholarly article by a Roman Catholic priest who defends the canonization of King Charles I by Rome.

Alex

Dear Marshall,

The Society of King Henry VI was formed after an interesting meeting between Pope John XXIII and an Anglican Canon in Rome.

The Anglican Canon pulled out his quite dilapidated Breviary, at which sight the Pope offered him his own instead!

But the Canon pulled out a picture of King Henry VI on a rood screen (English iconostasis ) where he was depicted with a halo.

He then explained to the Pope about the history of the veneration and the original Cause for canonization of King Henry VI that was dropped at the time of the Reformation.

The Pope then asked a Cardinal over to them and ordered King Henry's Cause revived.

The Society was formed to help in that Cause.

The Society celebrates May 21 as Blessed King Henry's Feast, the day on which his killers went "to the Tower to make a bloody supper" as Shakespeare wrote.

And it celebrates December 6th, his birthday. On both days, the two colleges founded by the King, King's College and Eton College, come to the spot in the Tower that is marked as the place where he was killed, and, amidst hymns, place their respective colleges' floral emblems on it, white lilies and white roses.

I became the first Canadian member of the Society some years back, but I lost contact with it as it has moved and I'm still looking for its address . . .

One practice associated with King Henry is to light a candle before his portrait and this is called "King Henry's Light."

His Tomb is in St George's Chapel in Windsor Castle and old pilgrim badges with his image have survived to our day. The pilgrim box that contained offerings in his honour is still there.

St Charles' Tomb is also in the same Chapel with the coffin containing his incorrupt relics.

One other much venerated saint is enshrined there - Blessed John Schorn of Buckinghamshire.

Blessed John was a priest who developed a partial cure for the gout.

He was also invoked as a patron against the gout and his statues, attesting to a strong local veneration, depict him holding a boot and scolding a devil popping his head out of it - representing the gout of course.

This led to poetry being written about his miraculous power over the gout (I've suffered from it and I am a beneficiary of the intercession of Blessed John in this regard - my gout has never returned!).

The poetry talked about how the devil hid from John's scolding finger and referred to the bobbing devil's head in the boot held by John.

From this poetry there developed the popular children's toy known as, are you ready . . . the "Jack in the Box!"

Alex

Dear Friends>:

I told you I could have been confused, maybe I refered to Charles I and not Charles II.

Cranmer was NEVER an Abbot

Oh yea, sorry again. He was the Bishop, right?

Cranmer was a bishop...and was reponsible for the inclusion of Eastern Christian influces on the English Book of Common Prayer, such as the Trisagion.

Dear David,

Yes, Cranmer was well-versed in all things Eastern.

But this was ultimately a characteristic of the close connections between the Byzantine Church and the "Ecclesia Anglicana" that go back to the time of St Theodore of Tarsus, Archbishop of Canterbury, the "Golden Age" of the English Church.

The Churches of England were once ablaze with colourful Byzantine-style icons, icons that the Puritans later ordered to be white-washed over.

No other Church in the West had such Byzantine influence as the English Church the "Anglicana Ecclesia."

Alex

Yes, he was Archbishop of Canterbury after the death of Archbishop Warham in the early 1530's and previously was the King's Chaplain (Henry VIII) until he was deposed in the reign of Mary I and Cardinal Pole took his place.