³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

I would have thought that the greater problem for Mr. Thompson and the EPS was their recognition of the monarchy in the first place!

What the EPS needs to be told is that there is also an unspoken covenant that supersedes the coronation oath, and allows the whole farcical idea of hereditary monarchy to continue to exist in the secular age.

It is the understanding that the monarchy, if it wishes to continue to exist, will not allow itself to be dictated to by a lunatic fringe, however much they splutter and bluster.

Suppose the British monarchy were to be abolished. Would that mean that Protestantism would whither and die in the UK?

Of course not. If that were true then why does Protestantism flourish in republics such as the USA?

What the Queen does should be irrelevant to those who claim to pay spiritual allegiance to no one but Jesus Christ.

And isn't it a supreme irony that those who criticise the papacy for its worldly authority and monarchical nature, should then look to another worldly monarch - the Queen - for spiritual leadership?!

Totally illogical.

(PS - just for the record - I am not a republican).

LSV

"And isn't it a supreme irony that those who criticise the papacy for its worldly authority and monarchical nature, should then look to another worldly monarch - the Queen - for spiritual leadership?!"

It is a supreme irony indeed.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Any meeting between HM and Joseph Ratzenburger would surely be a good will gesture, with some political undertones, both being prominent world figures.

If a senior Muslim dignitary were to visit the UK, no doubt a meeting with the Queen would also be considered.

I'm not an expert on the "legal" position of Queen and Pope meeting.

However the "legalists" will have a major headache, if Charles ever comes to the throne.

He doesn't want to be a Champion of the Faith.
Charles wishes to be called Champion of Faiths !

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Dont know what all the fuss is about. If two famous Swedes or Danes or Spaniards wanted to get together, no one would bat an eyelid. So whats the problem about to Germans getting together?

Nice one RJB. The oath is incorrect in any event "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?" It's only established in England and Scotland, not in Wales or Northern Ireland. So perhaps the Queen could come to Northern Ireland and meet the Pope.

Except as I've said before in case you missed it - HE WON'T BE COMING HERE.

As for the title "Defender of the Faith" - it's scandalous that the British monarchs continue using a title bestowed by the Pope for defending the Catholic faith.

If the truth be told, the Protestant faith teaches, that "they" are the chosen ones and everyone else is lost, just the same as what the Catholics would say likewise, the point Iam trying to make is, "that" the feelings are mutual, but having said this, one more Catholic coming to N.Ireland won't really make a difference, likewise, nor one Protestant either.

Johnthebap2

Lest no one else says it, you are quite wrong. Very few Protestants and no Catholics believe in double election.

To say that feelings are mutual - which named individual is identified in Catholic belief as the anti-Christ?

The Evangelical Protestant Society represent a tiny minority of Protestants and they are entitled to their view. Doubtless there are also lots of non-religious bigots who would protest a papal visit because they hate Catholics but such people are rarely remotely religious themselves.

Does the EPS believe in Double Predestination?

In fairness to JtB, he did make the common sense point that from a Calvinist point of view the Pope is just one more Catholic. So it's difficult to see what the fuss is about. Which shows you can't lump all Protestant Fundmaentalists into the same barrel as loyalists. The EPS statement just wouldn't make any sense *at all* to many Fundamentalists.

Who does the EPS represent, exactly?

GV

McCamley

On a slightly ironic note -
I think that Henry VIII would have argued that he had not renounced the Catholic faith, but that the Papacy abused it's power.

If ever a pot called a kettle black...

GV

I think Henry went to his death knowing full well he had betrayed the faith. He never believed in the reformation, not really. He was just greedy and lustful.

Wouldn't quibble with that.

he Queen would be acting in breach of her Coronation Oath if she meets with Pope Benedict during his state visit to the UK,

I'm sure they'll find some way around it.

They'll swap pressies.

Just like the Queen gives Maundy money to the Chelsea pests, sorry pensioners, on Holy Thursday, as a "token" gift to the poor.

As does the Pope, to Rome's homeless during Holy Week.

She'll give him a signed copy of "Much ado about nothing" and He'll give her a framed list of recent excommunications.

They'll have tea, maybe even saurkraut to make him feel at home - possibly even a bit of crumpet.

Then they will go on their merry ways and nothing much will have changed.

Could Mr Paisley maybe come across to Edinburgh again to brighten things up?

Where's John Wright these days? Whither free speech? I've just got an email telling me one of my posts was removed because it broke house rules. I'm not sure when exactly the post was posted but it refers to Obama as "incoming President" so presumably it's at least 10 months old!

Is there a team of nit-pickers and naysayers going through all our old comments? What a waste of licence fee.

Hi mccamley

"Where's John Wright these days? Whither free speech? I've just got an email telling me one of my posts was removed because it broke house rules. I'm not sure when exactly the post was posted but it refers to Obama as "incoming President" so presumably it's at least 10 months old!

Is there a team of nit-pickers and naysayers going through all our old comments? What a waste of licence fee."

No, they're not going through it. They have a humongous backlog. A certain pastor B (whose full name I shouldn't mention) who posts regularly on this blog has hit the complaint button on many of my posts. Their status has been 'referred to the moderator' for ages. Occasionally one of them re-appears once the mods look at it don't find anything offensive in it. On other occasions they are permanently removed (after they were first approved, since the pre-mod era on this blog)