J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
The Crown is Parliament’s to dispose of, not the Queen’s. She cannot leave it to anyone.
- Status
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
No, that’s entirely within the gift of the Monarch (though I assume he/she would listen to the government of the day…that’s what they’re
“supposed” to do, anyway). Wallis didn’t become HRH because King George VI, Edward’s brother and successor and the father of Queen Elizabeth II, wouldn’t allow it. He said (paraphrased) that “it wouldn’t make sense of all that has happened.” He was joined in his dislike of Wallis by Queen Elizabeth (latter Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother) and his own mother, Dowager Queen Mary.
H
HagiaSophia
Guest
I thank you - and you’re spot on. I thought it a mean, sniping piece,
The Britsh Royal Family is a stable, world recognized institution and the Queen has served it well. Not only do they bring in tourism they are the “icon” of their nation and their ability to rule as constitutional monarchs has been the envy of many other governments.
And actually, historically the “personal family stuff” is so minor compared to the royal families of the past most everywhere, it barely deserves a blip on the screen. But again, envy isn’t one of the capital sins for no reason.
H
HagiaSophia
Guest
And proceeded to live his life from day one as if he hadn’t bothered to do so.
D
David_Oatney
Guest
Daniel Kane:
At one time, it used to be that many Catholics both inside and outside of England prayed for the conversion of Protestant England back to the bosom of the Church.
Now, it seems, before we can take up the matter of the National Heresy of England (The Church of Henry VIII), we must first address in prayer the matter of the ecclesiastical heresy of the See of Westminster. Lord Help England.
Add yet another intention to my ever-increasing Lenten prayer list. Pray first for the conversion of Cardinal Murphy O’Connor (and subsequently the Church in England and Wales), and THEN for the conversion of England itself.
I think it has long ago been established that the Church in England and Wales sold out…
At one time, it used to be that many Catholics both inside and outside of England prayed for the conversion of Protestant England back to the bosom of the Church.
Now, it seems, before we can take up the matter of the National Heresy of England (The Church of Henry VIII), we must first address in prayer the matter of the ecclesiastical heresy of the See of Westminster. Lord Help England.
Add yet another intention to my ever-increasing Lenten prayer list. Pray first for the conversion of Cardinal Murphy O’Connor (and subsequently the Church in England and Wales), and THEN for the conversion of England itself.
F
FightingFat
Guest
David Oatney said:
Well, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor is the Roman Catholic Cardinal of England- you do know that right? The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury is the ‘leader’ of the Anglican Church of England, Dr. Rowan Williams
I see this as fascinating because Protestants see their authority as being from Scripture and not the tradition of the Church, we see it as being from both. The Church of England is to all intents and purposes, Catholic. That is, if you went to mass in an Anglican High Church over here, it would probably say ‘Catholic’ on the door and you would have real trouble telling the difference in the mass. Because it is so closely based on Catholicism, the Church is now facing a massive problem over authority. The more it engages with liberal ideas (women priests, gay clergy etc), the more it moves away from scripture and thus faces terrible problems as far as authority is concerned.
This has worked to the Catholic community’s benefit insofaras those disaffected vicars with a genuine vocation have converted to Catholicism along with their parishioners. It is interesting watching the Anglican community self destruct. It will be interesting to see what happens, and what lessons we can learn!
F
FightingFat
Guest
rcdow.org.uk/cardinal/default.asp?content_ref=331
‘We wish them every happiness’
The Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, has responded to the news of the Prince of Wales’s engagement to Mrs Camilla Parker-Bowles.
He said:
“The Royal Family, with their unique role in our national life, are always assured of the goodwill and prayers of the Catholic community. I know that Catholics will join with me at this time in praying for the Prince of Wales and Mrs Parker-Bowles and in wishing them every happiness.”
This is interesting…The Cardinal’s response to the news. What do you guys make of it?
‘We wish them every happiness’
The Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, has responded to the news of the Prince of Wales’s engagement to Mrs Camilla Parker-Bowles.
He said:
“The Royal Family, with their unique role in our national life, are always assured of the goodwill and prayers of the Catholic community. I know that Catholics will join with me at this time in praying for the Prince of Wales and Mrs Parker-Bowles and in wishing them every happiness.”
This is interesting…The Cardinal’s response to the news. What do you guys make of it?
M
Matt25
Guest
FightingFat said:
It is diplomatic use of language. It neither condemns nor supports the marriage and recalls the ancient Christian tradition of praying for pagan adulterous emperors like Nero. He could have been more robust in asserting Church teachings on Divorce and Adultery but Church/State relations require delicate handling and it would not surprise me if the Vatican Diplomatic Corps had a hand in the wording.
BTW has the Vatican commented on this at all?
F
FightingFat
Guest
Haven’t heard anything and can’t find anything…
D
David_Oatney
Guest
Yes, I am quite aware of how the hierarchy works in England, which is precisely why I used the words "ecclesiastical heresy of the See of Westminster."
**A Catholic Archbishop ought not be making any sort of statement that can even remotely be perceived as blessing or condoning an invalid and sinful union. English Catholics ought to be storming the Cardinal’s residence demanding a retraction…or is it now considered perfectly fine in the twisted “new world” of English [lack of] religion for a Cardinal to give what amounts to tacit approval by omission to invalid marriages in the name of “keeping the peace?” What do you suppose St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher would think? **
C
caroljm36
Guest
I
INRI
Guest
F
FightingFat
Guest
David Oatney said:
Wow! Calm down mate!
:whacky:
Personally, I would imagine the Cardinal has a better grasp of the situation than I do and is better equipped spiritually and academically to make a public pronouncement than I am.
What is it with you guys? You preach utter obedience but to the church that exists in you own head???
It’s not about keeping the peace so much as we all agree I think that relationships some times go wrong in an adult world. Many of the Anglicans I have heard speaking on the subject have said that better they were married than living together unmarried.
M
MaggieOH
Guest
FightingFat said:
The marriage should not be sanctioned because Camilla’s ex-husband who divorced her because of her adultery with Charles is still alive.
This is further proof that there is something rotten in the state of the Anglican Church.
No amount of cosmetic surgery will be able to fix what is within that woman.
MaggieOH
N
Norwich
Guest
Don’t get too gleefull about the Anglican Church, remember it uses exactly the same title we do without the Roman prefix, and schisms in the Anglican Church usually cause vibrations in the Roman Church.
And befoe yu pass judgement remember the old expression, “There but for the grace of God, go I”
D
David_Oatney
Guest
Personally, I would imagine the Cardinal has a better grasp of the situation than I do and is better equipped spiritually and academically to make a public pronouncement than I am.
What is it with you guys? You preach utter obedience but to the church that exists in you own head???
.
What I proclaim, and what I would venture to say that most people who are Catholic who frequent these forums proclaim and believe in, is total obedience to Church teaching. In other words, if the Church teaches something as infallable teaching, we accept, proclaim, and believe it, because the Church is God’s representative on Earth.
"So let it be written, so let it be done," as it were…
**The One, True, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman Church teaches that marriage to a divorcee is adultery, and that we ought not take any action which might be seen to condone such behavior. Issuing a public statement that all but embraces the adultery, and wishing them happiness in their sin does not uphold the teaching of Holy Mother Church. It is all the more worse that this is a future King we are talking about…nevermind that he’ll just be a head of state, he’ll be King nonetheless. It is not the least bit charitable to the Prince of Wales to wish him and his bride happiness in their continuing adultery. The primary concern of Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor ought to be the state of Prince Charles and Mrs. Parker-Bowles’ soul, and encouraging continued sin with such a statement does not demonstrate care for the souls of the future King or his consort, let alone care for the souls of the nation. **
Unfortunately, Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor is not alone in demonstrating a measure of cowardice in the episcopacy (If you would like to hear my rants about those ordinaries closer to me, you can read my blog.) I accept, however, that all of the Church’s episcopal leaders are chosen by God Almighty through His Holy See, for reasons which I may not understand, but will in the hereafter. Every time something like this happens, I am reminded that on the night they captured our Lord, the ones that didn’t betray him either ran or denied him…they still turned out martyrs for the Faith.
T
Timidity
Guest
How did this happen? Is there some ancient “blue law” in England that says the Prince of Wales can only marry a virgin? I remember there being a “medical examination” of Diana to prove that she was a virgin prior to the wedding.
M
MikeWM
Guest
Wow, thanks for that blast from the past, I thought I’d done a bit of time-travelling for a second there 
There isn’t a law about marrying a virgin, but as you may expect it is preferable that he do so. At least that was the case back in the early 80s, probably now most people wouldn’t care either way.
Mike
There isn’t a law about marrying a virgin, but as you may expect it is preferable that he do so. At least that was the case back in the early 80s, probably now most people wouldn’t care either way.
Mike
C
catsrus
Guest
I still think Chuck and Cam ought to just retire to Sandringham, plant flowers, ride horses and let William take the reins.
From all I’ve read (for whatever* that’s* worth), Charles isn’t too gung-ho on being King anyway. And if his mother lives as long as her mother did, he’s looking at being 75 or so when he inherits. Another Edward VII in waiting.
From all I’ve read (for whatever* that’s* worth), Charles isn’t too gung-ho on being King anyway. And if his mother lives as long as her mother did, he’s looking at being 75 or so when he inherits. Another Edward VII in waiting.
C
cainem
Guest
a better idea would be to abolish this outdated anti catholic institution
- Status