Posted on 03/11/2018 10:22:26 PM PDT by WilliamIII
>> I made it perfectly clear, I hope, that there is indeed still a prohibition on a Catholic becoming King or Queen. That does not, however, apply to the office of Prime Minister, <<
The Prime Minister’s role is formally little more than chief advisor to the Queen. As the Queen’s advisor, he wields his power indirectly, inasmuch as it he who advises who shall take what cabinet posts in the government. The Roman Catholic Relief Act prohibits a Catholic from taking several advisor roles which partly comprise the traditional office of the Prime Minister:
“It shall not be lawful for any person professing the Roman Catholic religion directly or indirectly to advise his Majesty, or any person or persons holding or exercising the office of guardians of the United Kingdom, or of regent of the United Kingdom, under whatever name, style, or title such office may be constituted, [F1or the lord lieutenant of Ireland], touching or concerning the appointment to or disposal of any office or preferment in the [F2Church of England], or in the Church of Scotland; and if any such person shall offend in the premises he shall, being thereof convicted by due course of law, be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and disabled for ever from holding any office, civil or military, under the Crown.”
This act is partly sensible, given the Queen’s role as head of the Church of England; why should a Catholic advise on episcopal appointments to the Church of England? Yet the inability to fill that role creates a break with the traditional role of the Prime Minister.
Conservative MPs insisted Iain Duncan Smith was incapable of leadership, despite the healthy gains made by conservatives under his leadership. He held a vote of confidence, expecting to win. He lost. (Yes, in part to Betsygate.) It’s hardly axiomatic that his role as leader of the Conservatives meant that he could become PM.
He was said to lack charisma by the party that chose John Major and Therese May, even though he was a Euroskeptic all along.
An entirely different situation. The constitution of Belgium explicitly gave Leopold the ability to step aside and allow the law to take effect without his signing anything. The constitution of Liechenstein also contains a provision that explicitly allows the Reigning Prince to refuse consent. The British constitution does not contain such a provision.
Constitutional monarchies are governed by their own individual constitutions. The fact that some of these constiutions gives the Monarch certain powers does not mean those powers are available to all other Monarchs. The Queen of the United Kingdom is bound by the constitutional law of the United Kingdom and that law does not give her the power to withhold assent to a law except on very specific and limited grounds.
Her Majesty cannot refuse assent to a law that has been correctly and constitutionally passed by Parliament unless it is somehow unconstitutional. She cannot do it on moral grounds, or because she does not like it. She does not have that power.
Anybody who believes she does should read Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice which is part of Britain's constitution (though the Constitution is said to be unwritten this simply means that it's actually spread across multiple documents).
"The necessity of refusal of the royal assent is removed by the strict observance of the constitutional principle, that the Crown has no will but that of its ministers; who only continue to serve in that capacity, so as long as they retain the confidence of Parliament.
It is interesting that until 1967 (the year of the Abortion Bill) there was an unusual circumstance in existence that would have allowed a Bill to become law without the Queen's personal signature - it was a procedure called Assent by Commission which was used in 1811 on the Bill that created a Regency for King George III - as the Regency was necessary because the King was incapable, he could not give assent and so that procedure was used. But that power was taken away by Parliament in the Royal Assent Act of 1967, shortly before the Abortion Act was dealt with, so the Queen no longer had that option available. It would have been very surprising if she'd used it but it was taken away from her. One might speculate as to why, Parliament took that action in that year at that time.
Those who believe the Queen could have or should have withheld consent from the Abortion Act of 1967, or indeed any other law, do not understand the British constitution. They seem to think it should say what they want it to say, rather than what it says.
And besides that they are expecting the Queen to violate her Coronation Oath which she gave to God:
Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?
An oath she gave while 'laying her right hand upon the Holy Gospel in the great Bible' and kneeling before the Great Altar of Westminster Abbey, with the final words:
The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.
They are asking her and expecting her to betray a sacred Oath she made to God. On top of asking her and expecting her to violate the constitution.
Firstly, the honours system. Honours such as the CBE you mention are not in the personal gift of the Queen. They are chosen by a committee of the Cabinet Office following a process of public recommendation and consultation. Those selected are then formally recommended to the Queen, who does not have a power of veto. Her only role is to present the honour at a public ceremony. (And given that there are many 'political' honours, awarded 'for political services' following recommendations by the political parties, she has doubtless had to grit her teeth while pinning a gong on the lapel of many a rogue and charlatan over the last 65 years.) There is a small category of honours which are in the personal gift of the Queen, but the CBE is not one of them.
Ian Duncan Smith. There's no doubt that had he still been leader of the Conservatives at the time of the 2001 General Election, and had the Conservatives won that election, he would have become Prime Minister. Following a General Election, the Queen is obliged to invite the leader of the largest party in the Commons to form a government.
The Duke of Edinburgh's reported remarks. Given that the Queen's Consort has no constitutional status, it's hard to see how my reaction to those remarks is relevant to the matter under discussion. Judging Heads of State by the unscripted remarks of their spouses has never been wise.
Finally, on the Constitutional questions, I hope the typically authoritative post from naturalman1975 has put the matter to rest.
The issue is the Queen’s faith - not her view of the constitution. She was baptized before she took any oath. Also, the English monarchy has never shown any particular loyalty toward coronation oaths. If they had, they never would have embraced heresy in the first place which was explicitly forbidden in the old coronation oath.
Such debates are all just a smokescreen: the Queen and her husband support abortion right up to and sometimes far beyond any royal decorum.
1) She absolutely could have voiced opposition to abortion. The Queen has commented on political matters, and to great effect.
2) She has done just the opposite: heaping praise upon the enemies of civilization, let alone the pro-life movement.
3) While she has never attempted to use her royal authority to block the award of a CBE, she certainly has refused to participate in such an award, as in the case of Mick Jagger.
Now, I’ll concur that Prince Philips’ comments don’t represent the Queen, but you seem utterly unphased by the absolute level of diabolical evil they express. Amazing.
Further, the Prince’s expression was by no means out of character with dozens of other similar comments; it was noteworthy only for the sheer shock value.
He discusses the need to for population control at length here, hailing the success of family-planning advocates whose tactics have included forced abortion:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/7815069/Prince-of-Wales-calls-for-population-control-in-developing-world.html
And here: “Who is going to be the first to face up to the need for self-restraint in the number of children brought into the world?”
And in 1981: “Human population growth is probably the single most serious long-term threat to survival. We’re in for a major disaster if it isn’t curbed — not just for the natural world, but for the human world. “
In 1984, he included the Catholic Church in reference to origanizations he considered a threat to the global because of opposition to population control.
Yes, she was. But the Coronation is also a sacrament, replete with religious meaning. The Queen was crowned by the assembled Bishops. She was annointed with Holy Oil. Within her faith - and you are certainly free to have issues with the Church of England's conception of Christianity, but it is the faith she was raised in from birth - her Coronation Oath is the most sacred thing in her life, including her religious life.
Also, the English monarchy has never shown any particular loyalty toward coronation oaths. If they had, they never would have embraced heresy in the first place which was explicitly forbidden in the old coronation oath.
Unless your position is that because her ancestors may have broken their oaths, she should not consider any oath she takes herself to be binding, this is quite a ridiculous argument.
I'd be interested to know where you get the information that heresy was 'forbidden in the old coronation oath'. I'm familar with as far as I know, all known forms of the coronation oath back to the tenth century and to the best of my knowledge none of them contain that - not all the oaths are known (the 'modern oath' only dates to 1688, and before that it could be rewritten for each King simply by the Archbishop of Canterbury and we don't have copies of every oath).
The Queen has very rarely commented on political matters in any public environment, and any comments she makes in private are supposed to be kept private. I've had a number of (nervewracking and rather formal) conversations with Her Majesty and it is made very clear to you (not by her, but by others) that you do not repeat them in any detail, and this would be especially true if they were potentially politically controversial. Occasionally things do leak, but what that means is we have a fairly random and very incomplete view of whatever private political comments, the Queen may have made.
The Queen does not give interviews (she came quite close to given her first in recent months, but even that was very heavily managed). When she makes a speech, it has always been reviewed by the government, and edited if they choose, if it was not actually written by her. Any political sentiments in those speeches are those of Her Majesty's Government, not of Her Majesty.
2) She has done just the opposite: heaping praise upon the enemies of civilization, let alone the pro-life movement.
As said above, to whatever extent this is true, those were the words of Her Majesty's Government, not of Her Majesty. That's how the constitution works.
3) While she has never attempted to use her royal authority to block the award of a CBE, she certainly has refused to participate in such an award, as in the case of Mick Jagger.
The Queen does not hand out all Honours herself. In fact, she only carries out a minority of all investitures personally. The power is routinely delegated to other members of the Royal Family, and in the case of many Honours, to other representatives (such as Governors, Governors-General, Lord Lieutenants.) The fact that the Queen does not carry out an investiture herself should not be viewed as her refusing to participate in an investiture. I suppose that could happen - but in most cases, it would simply be a matter than somebody else did it because it was their turn to lighten the Queen's workload.
But regardless of that, I'm assuming the person you are referring to is Gillian Greer CBE ONZM? As it happens, Her investiture was not carried out by the Queen - it was carried out by the Prince of Wales.
“Yes, she was. But the Coronation is also a sacrament, replete with religious meaning.”
It is not a sacrament. There are seven sacraments. Coronation is not one of them.
“Within her faith...her Coronation Oath is the most sacred thing in her life, including her religious life.”
False. Since it is not a sacrament - and remember we all know that there are no more than 7 sacraments and we all know coronation is not one of them - her baptism far out weighs her coronation in eternal significance. Baptism washes away sins. Coronation does not. Baptism opens the soul to the graces of the Holy Spirit in a supernatural way. Coronation does not. Baptism is normatively necessary for entrance into Heaven. Coronation is not.
In the end the result is the same. Elizabeth II supported the murder of babies with her signature. She owns that.
Well, can we have 8 sacraments?
The Catholic Church codified its definition of seven sacraments at the Council of Trent, but the Church of England was already established at that stage, and the Council of Trent had no bearing on its teachings.
Prior to the Council of Trent, the principle that coronation was a sacrament was accepted by the medieval Church.
In the end the result is the same. Elizabeth II supported the murder of babies with her signature. She owns that.
The Queen did what she was constitutionally required to do. The only things she was constitutionally permitted to do. Is she responsible for that? To some extent, yes, but that's because that same constitution makes her so. All the responsibility. But not the choice.
Well the,”queens” kid Chuck is a mooselimb loving a-hole.
OF ALL THIS BLATHERING historical bullshitery......This is what it’s boiled down to.
“The Catholic Church codified its definition of seven sacraments at the Council of Trent,”
That doesn’t mean it didn’t already possess the same definition before hand. You’re apparently trying to pass off a dogmatic definition at a council as if that means there were not 7 and only 7 known before hand. That is false.
“but the Church of England was already established at that stage, and the Council of Trent had no bearing on its teachings.”
Again, false. First, the Council of Trent influenced Anglican teaching and still does - even if only in opposition to it. The final form of the 39 Articles were only finalized in 1571. The Council of Trent began in 1565. Second, it doesn’t matter if Trent influenced Anglicanism since the Catholic Church in England - long before Anglicanism reared it’s head - taught there were seven sacraments. Protestant scholars like McGrath and Pelikan (before he swam the Bosporus) admit this readily.
“Prior to the Council of Trent, the principle that coronation was a sacrament was accepted by the medieval Church.”
False. There were seven sacraments. Coronation was never one of them. I have no doubt that some prelate somewhere said it was in order to kiss up to a king, but it appears no where in any authoritative text of the Church as such. And don’t forget that when the 39 Articles were accepted by Anglicans generally as a norm for Anglican teaching, they recognized two sacraments only – Baptism and the Eucharist – as having been ordained by Christ (”sacraments of the Gospel”) as Article XXV of the 39 Articles describes them) and as necessary for salvation. Thus, even Anglicanism officially denied that coronation was a sacrament.
In the end the result is the same. Elizabeth II supported the murder of babies with her signature. She owns that.
“The Queen did what she was constitutionally required to do.”
The Queen did NOT DO what she was required to do as a Christian. And that’s what this thread is about - her faith.
“The only things she was constitutionally permitted to do.”
There was only one thing she was permitted to do as a Christian. And she didn’t do it. And this thread is about her faith.
“Is she responsible for that?”
Yes.
“To some extent, yes, but that’s because that same constitution makes her so.”
100% she is responsible and the constitution didn’t make her do anything. She chose. She could simply have said no. What would have happened after that is immaterial. The U.K. is chock full of inbred royals. If they really wanted another one, they could have thrown a dead cat and hit one.
“All the responsibility. But not the choice.”
100% of the choice. She chose. What you’re doing is more pathetic than the “Nuremberg” defense. At least the Nazis could claim WITH PERFECT HONESTY, “I could have been shot if I didn’t obey orders”! No one was going to shoot Elizabeth. Even if she was torn away from the throne she would have still been a millionaire and a member of her family would still sit on the throne. She chose. She chose killing babies. Elizabeth Eichmann, Queen of England!
And who told you that and why do you believe them?
I know the Prince of Wales and he is nothing like the absurd caricature of him that has been spread in the press for decades.
Haven't you ever noticed how the media try to turn people they don't like into jokes by lying to people about them? That is pretty much what has happened with the Prince of Wales.
He's a broadly conservative Christian (except on environmental issues) who served in his nations military, supports veteran's rights, goes out shooting as often as he is able to as a hobby, and who makes speeches about preserving his nation's heritage and supporting oppressed Christians in the Middle East.
So, of course, the media has tried to turn him into a joke.
I just wonder why it's so accepted by people on a forum like this one - surely they are familiar with those tactics.
No, I'm not. I'm sorry, but you're simply incorrect about that. I'm a historian by education and training, and I know my European history. Until the Council of Trent, the idea that there were only seven sacraments was one opinion and even at the Council of Trent, the idea face resistance. In particular, the French continued to insist until the abolition of their Monarchy, that the coronation of their King remained a separate sacrament and that was despite accepting the broad strokes of Trent.
Again, false. First, the Council of Trent influenced Anglican teaching and still does - even if only in opposition to it.
It is true that the Council of Trent did have some influence on Anglican teaching - but there is a difference between having some influence and it being in anyway binding or dogmatic on that Church.
The final form of the 39 Articles were only finalized in 1571
Correct. But the Act of Supremacy was in 1534, which was ten years prior to the beginning of the Council of Trent and it is from that moment onwards, that Catholic teachings had no binding relevance on Anglican teachings.
Thus, even Anglicanism officially denied that coronation was a sacrament
Not so. The list of five "Commonly called Sacraments" is not and was not intended to be exhaustive.
In a strict sense, it is the annointing with Holy Oil during the coronation ceremony that is the Sacrament. This is considered so special and holy that it is blocked from the view of those in the Abbey (and during the two filmed coronations of the twentieth century, cameras were also turned away from it.
Be thy Hands anointed with holy Oil.
Be thy Breast anointed with holy Oil.
Be thy Head anointed with holy Oil: as kings, priests, and prophets were anointed:
And as Solomon was anointed king by Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet, so be thou anointed, blessed, and consecrated Queen over the Peoples, whom the Lord thy God hath given thee to rule and govern, In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
The idea that this isn't a sacrament because it isn't included in a list of things "Commonly called sacraments" is rather absurd. It is extremely rare and available to one person, which is why it is not in a common list. But it is most definitely treated as a sacrament.
Note the specific word: and consecrated Queen.
Consecrated. Even in Catholicism, the word consecrated is treated as equivalent to ordained within the sacrament of Holy Orders. And that is the same context in which it is used within the Coronation.
The Queen did NOT DO what she was required to do as a Christian.
She upheld her Coronation Oath given to God, rather than break it, as you seem to think she should have. I'm not sure why you believe a Christian should forsake an Oath given to God - that would have accomplished nothing. It certainly would not have stopped the law taking affect.
She could simply have said no
Constitutionally, she could not.
Tell you what - when one of your Presidents stands up and outlaws abortion by Presidential Order, I'll start taking your moral outrage seriously. But they can't, can they? The constitution doesn't allow that.
Well, the British constitution does not allow the Queen to do what you want. It doesn't allow her to do what she wants.
No one was going to shoot Elizabeth.
The last time a King acted with such disdain for the constitution, he was, in fact, executed for high treason. Just for the record.
Even if she was torn away from the throne she would have still been a millionaire and a member of her family would still sit on the throne.
To me, this is where your argument really breaks down. This was 1967. If Her Majesty had abdicated, who would have become King?
It would have been her eighteen year old son, Charles, Prince of Wales. In fact, he hadn't even been formally invested as Prince of Wales yet (although he did hold the title). If you believe the Queen had some of duty to make a decision on this (which she didn't as I've said, but just allowing your argument for a moment) it would have been a profound cowardly act for a woman to lay that on a very young man who had barely finished school (he actually started university about the Bill passed Parliament.
The Queen abdicating would not have stopped the Bill. But the next four in line to the throne were a boy of 18 (the minimum age at which he could have taken the Crown without a Regency) and three actual children. Which one of them would you want to have signed it instead?
You keep failing at this. You clearly have no idea of what you’re talking about.
“Correct. But the Act of Supremacy was in 1534, which was ten years prior to the beginning of the Council of Trent and it is from that moment onwards, that Catholic teachings had no binding relevance on Anglican teachings.”
Marriage was already accepted by the UNIVERSAL CHURCH as a sacrament BEFORE that - INCLUDING IN ENGLAND. There were SEVEN sacraments in England BEFORE that. And coronation was not a sacrament. Full stop.
“Not so.”
Yes so.
“The list of five “Commonly called Sacraments” is not and was not intended to be exhaustive.”
In any case, no where in the official Anglican formative literature of the 16th century that you yourself brought up is coronation a sacrament. Anglicans held to two sacraments and neither one of those was coronation. You keep making these errors of fact and logic. If it wasn’t instituted by Christ, then it isn’t a sacrament - that’s part of the very definition of a sacrament. “Commonly called” is weasel words - just like Anglicanism is weasely on many subjects. Anglicans held to TWO sacraments and simply referred to the other five as “Commonly called”.
“Note the specific word: and consecrated Queen.”
It could say anything. Anglican churches are now marrying men to men and women to women. Are they actually married? No, of course not.
And the rest of what you post is a complete waste of time. Let’s recap:
You failed to show that marriage was not already held as a sacrament.
You failed to show that coronation was a sacrament held by the universal Church.
You failed to show that something done by a schismatic Protestant sect - which was persecuting the actual universal Church - is somehow normative and determinative.
You failed to show how Elizabeth II is a woman of deep faith yet could support the killing of innocent babies in the womb.
You failed in your attempt to use the Nuremberg defense of Elizabeth II and the fact that you used it at all shows exactly how morally bankrupt her actions and your defense of her really is.
You failed in your understanding of Trent, pre-Trent developments, the development of Anglican articles of faith, the Anglican understanding of sacraments and “Commonly called sacraments”.
You even failed in your understanding of sacraments. If it wasn’t instituted by Christ, then it’s not a sacrament.
Anglicanism was always a mess theologically - though quite attractive liturgically - and is dying as a result. The sooner it dies the better. People like you are ushering it into the grave by creating or propagating false theologies and indirectly defending indefensible sins like baby killing by insisting the constitution demands it. Christ didn’t die on the cross for that. No, instead, Christ died for the sinful things Elizabeth (and you and I) have done and yet you’re defending those sinful things and mocking Christ in the process.
That's quite hilarious. I am a recognised expert in British constitutional law, especially in its historical developments and a former Anglican Deacon (I lost status when I left the Church of England).
Marriage was already accepted by the UNIVERSAL CHURCH as a sacrament BEFORE that - INCLUDING IN ENGLAND. There were SEVEN sacraments in England BEFORE that. And coronation was not a sacrament. Full stop.
Sorry, but you're just wrong. I don't know how to say this any other way. You do not know what you are talking about.
In any case, no where in the official Anglican formative literature of the 16th century that you yourself brought up is coronation a sacrament.
That's more or less true. But it misses the point.
The Church of England has never had a complete list of sacraments. It has had the two Sacraments based on the Gospel, and the five commonly held Sacraments, but the latter was never intended to be a complete list. It was an administrative list. Coronation did not need to be on it, because it wasn't something that normal clergy in the church would ever have had any involvement in.
The idea of coronation as a sacrament considerably predates both the Church of England and the Council of Trent. Historically speaking it dates at least to Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims (in France) in the ninth century. His ideas on this were accepted throughout Europe throughout the medieval period and the coronation ritual he created remained at the foundation of most of the subequent ceremonies developed across Europe, including that of England from the tenth century onwards.
It can be argued - correctly, I think - that the Council of Trent ended any idea of coronation being a sacrament within the Catholic church or the Catholic kingdoms of Europe (although French clergy argued against that idea) but it could only end that idea within Catholicism - not within other churches that had already stopped following Catholic direction on doctrine.
The idea of coronation in any real sense has mostly died out even in the world's few remaining monarchies. In Europe, only the United Kingdom still has a real coronation ceremony. That is, in part, because the idea that this is a connection with God for the Monarch is still taken seriously there (although how long that will survive in an increasingly secular country I don't know).
It could say anything. Anglican churches are now marrying men to men and women to women. Are they actually married?
The Church of England does not conduct same sex marriages. It is true that the Episcopal Church in America, and the Scottish Episcopal Church, which are both part of the Anglican community, have started allowing same sex marriages, but the Church of England does not.
But, yes, it could say anything. The Church of England gets to decide what its doctrine is and isn't. Nobody else does.
You failed to show that marriage was not already held as a sacrament.
I haven't even tried. It's utterly irrelevant to this discussion and I'm not sure why you've just pulled it out of apparently nowhere.
You failed to show that coronation was a sacrament held by the universal Church.
Again, I haven't tried. It's not relevant. What is relevant is whether it is held as a sacrament by the Church of England. As it happens, it was also held to be a sacrament by most of the medieval European churches, but that's not the same thing as the universal Church.
You failed to show that something done by a schismatic Protestant sect - which was persecuting the actual universal Church - is somehow normative and determinative.
Again, utterly irrelevant. It doesn't matter at all whether or not these ideas are normative and determinative in terms of a universal church. It matters whether they apply within the Church of England which is the Church the Queen was born into, baptised into, raised in, crowned in, and which she swore an Oath to God to uphold.
I am no longer an adherent of Anglicanism because I actually believe that the Church of England and the Anglican community have lost their way. But that's a decision I made for myself. And I was free to do so.
Her Majesty is not free in that sense. She has a special role and special duty that would make it extraordinarily difficult for her to leave the Church of England even if she wanted to. But I think that is actually beside the point here as well. The point is that Her Majesty is not a theologian. She's not an expert in Christian doctrine. She's honestly not that well educated and she's also not brilliantly intelligent - she's not stupid but when you come down to it, she's a woman of what is probably quite average intelligence with a fairly limited education. What religious education she had was firmly and deliberately within the teachings of the Church of England. I think it is fair to say she is living the best Christian life that she knows how to live, based on what she was taught of Christianity.
You failed to show how Elizabeth II is a woman of deep faith yet could support the killing of innocent babies in the womb.
The point is she didn't support any such thing, and you saying that she did shows your utter lack of knowledge or understanding of the British constitution. The fact that the Monarch signs a Bill does not imply support for the Bill. It's a consitutional function over which she has no discretion. No will expect that of her Ministers.
You failed in your attempt to use the Nuremberg defense of Elizabeth II and the fact that you used it at all shows exactly how morally bankrupt her actions and your defense of her really is.
This is just disgusting. I will not dignify it with any detailed response except to say that it is disgusting and unworthy of you.
You failed in your understanding of Trent, pre-Trent developments, the development of Anglican articles of faith, the Anglican understanding of sacraments and “Commonly called sacraments”.
You saying this doesn't make it so. I wonder how much study you've made of these things. But it amazes me to see you say this, seeing I'm the one who actually raised these things in the discussion (all right, I think you may have been the first one to explicit mention the Articles, but the Thirty Nine Articles are only of very limited relevance here).
You even failed in your understanding of sacraments. If it wasn’t instituted by Christ, then it’s not a sacrament.
I think you misunderstand me on this one. What is relevant in terms of the Queen's faith is not what a sacrament is, but what she has been taught a sacrament is.
I, as I have said, left the Anglican community because I believe that they have lost their way. I'm not defending their doctrine as pure. I am simply stating what it is.
I'm not sure I believe any denomination in the modern world is all that close to pure - I've embraced Catholicism as the best I can find in line with my own beliefs, but I don't think it's pure either (just closer than the Church of England/Anglican Church which I was part of for most of my life). But I have always tried to live my life according to the teachings of the Church as I understand them - and I firmly believe the Queen does the same.
Anglicanism was always a mess theologically - though quite attractive liturgically - and is dying as a result.
I agree, which is why I left it. I am fortunate that I was not bound to it by a constitution of a specific Oath I swore in front of tens of millions of people on television at the age of twenty seven.
Only one person alive today has been asked and expected to do that. Her situation is, I think, fairly described as unique.
” I am a recognised expert in British constitutional law...”
This is about her faith, not the constitution.
You keep making that mistake. Nothing else you posted changes that.
You went so far as to use the Nuremberg defense of Elizabeth. She chose to support the murder of children with her signature when she could have merely refused. She would have lost NOTHING of eternal value by standing up for babies.
Coronation has never been a sacrament - as the Anglican Church itself attests.
You will keep making mistakes in your apparent desperation. Queen Elizabeth II chose to condemn babies to be murdered. It was her choice and it was your choice to defend her with the same tired reasoning the Nazis used. Nothing you say will change that.
The two things are bound up for her. She took an Oath to God to uphold British constitutional law.
You went so far as to use the Nuremberg defense of Elizabeth.
I did not. You are the only person who has invoked Nuremberg here and it is disgusting. Not least because the Queen (then the Princess Elizabeth) served in uniform during the Second World War.
She chose to support the murder of children with her signature when she could have merely refused.
That is your mistake. Your fundamental mistake. She could not have refused constitutionally. And if she had it would have accomplished nothing at all, except possibly to lay a responsibility she was sworn to uphold on her 18 year old son, and destroy the constitutional authority she does have in the areas where she does have it.
She would have lost NOTHING of eternal value by standing up for babies.
She would have violated an Oath to God. If you think that has no eternal value, I'm not sure why you think you have any right to preach what a Christian should do.
Coronation has never been a sacrament - as the Anglican Church itself attests.
I have addressed this. You are wrong as a matter of historical fact (which should matter to you), and of the teachings of the Church of England (which may not - but for the record the Anglican Church and the Church of England are not the same thing - the Church of England can be viewed the mother Church of the Anglican community, but the Anglican community goes beyond it) and continue to repeat your mistake will not miraculously make it right.
I'm not sure why this matters to you.
I know why it matters to me. I'm a citizen of two of Her Majesty's Realms, and somebody who once swore an Oath myself to bear her true allegiance. I know why I regard this as important, but I'm puzzled as to why you do.
What I see from you is somebody who seems to be a devout Christian who is for some reason dedicated to attacking one of the few openly Christian Heads of State in the world over a single incident that occurred over fifty years ago. You may not think much of the doctrines of the Church of England, but that was a battle fought centuries ago now, and if your quarrel is with that, it should be with the people who developed and continue to develop its doctrine. Not with a woman who is religiously bound to serve her country's constitution, and constitutionally bound to serve and protect her country's established Church.
No oath can bind a Christian to support the murder of babies. Of course someone who believes in the Nuremberg defense wouldn’t understand that so it’s no wonder you don’t get it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.