Legitimacy of the British monarch

  • Thread starter Thread starter Londoner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was speaking for myself and didn’t say I was speaking for the Church. I think it should be obvious that it was my opinion and that I was speaking hyperbolically.
 
ThisOne said:
I was speaking hyperbolically, of course, and in the realm of official acts as a church. The church itself doesn’t feed the hungry, I might add. Its people might, but that’s not the church qua church.
Click to expand...
I don’t accept your definition of what the Church is, but in any case all the other examples I cited are very clearly the Church as Church.
 
Last edited:
You are correct, and I should probably not have posted my comment. Thank you for pointing this out.
 
I have thought more about it. You are right and I should not have posted that comment. It was ill-conceived. Thank you for correcting me.
 
Yours is the best post, and had I thought longer, I might have written something in the same vein.
 
PickyPicky said:
When the Church of England feeds the hungry, that is not pleasing to the Catholic Church? When the Church of England educates children, that is not pleasing to the Catholic Church? When the Church of England baptises Christians, that is not pleasing to the Catholic Church? When the Church of England sends its chaplains to the sick, the wounded and the dying, that is not pleasing to the Catholic Church? When the Church of England and the Catholic Church work in partnership to combat modern slavery, that is not pleasing to the Catholic Church? I suggest you are mistaken.
Click to expand...
Nope. The CoE is so thoroughly depraved, even such an act as the Archbishop of Canterbury giving an ice cream cone to a poor street urchin, is fatally tainted.
 
Last edited:
I can be a drama queen myself but I am trying to get rid of the habit. Easier said than done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top