Sunday, August 20, 2006

Cardinal condemns UK’s Constitution

The Scottish Cardinal, Keith O'Brien, has been banging his favourite drum once again. He has reiterated his previous assertion that the Act of Settlement amounts to ‘state-sponsored sectarian discrimination’, and demands that it be amended if Scotland is ever to escape its ‘shadowy sectarian culture’. He says: “Our constitution contains legislation which describes my faith as 'the popish religion' and defines me and my co-religionists as 'papists'. That this arcanely offensive language enjoys legal sanction is outrageous. Anyone who seriously believes that introducing legislation aimed at eradicating sectarian attacks, which are often verbal, while elements of the very lexicon of hate they seek to abolish remain on our statute books is indulging in wilful ignorance."

Cranmer finds this a little tiresome. As a theologian, the Cardinal ought to know that historical documents are bound by their context; they are products of their age, replete with contemporary expression and limited by temporal perception. To look at this Act through the lens of the present, and demand that it be re-worded to accommodate fickle changes in the usage of words, is not only unintelligent; it reduces the historical process to the whims of band-wagon superficiality. What is his next demand? The re-wording of the preface to the Authorised Version? The abolition of the 39 Articles? Neither the Cardinal, nor those politicians who support this agenda, appear to have any idea of the political and constitutional complexities of their demands. It would not only require months of parliamentary time to examine every act since 1688, it would also require that the legislatures of 15 Commonwealth countries amend their constitutions also.

Cardinal O'Brien’s demands are also hypocritical. He is part of an organisation that asserts that education should be controlled by the Church. In the UK, Catholic schools are financed by the state, but he appears not to view this as state-funded sectarianism. And when it comes to the propagation of ‘arcanely offensive language’, how many Protestants enjoy the ‘separated brethren’ tag of Vatican II? The term is hardly conducive to the sort of ecumenical equality that the Cardinal appears to advocate, sustaining, as it does, that Protestants are effectively still heretics. Since the Vatican is a state, it is therefore also responsible for state-sponsored sectarianism. At least in the UK the only bar to Catholics is on becoming or marrying the Monarch. Vatican law not only bars all Protestants from becoming pope (who is also a monarch), it propagates global discrimination against Protestants by prohibiting their participation in Catholicism’s Holy Communion.

Maybe the Cardinal should look to the plank in Rome’s eye before challenging the splinter in England’s.

65 Comments:

Anonymous DavidG said...

If Muslims who want Shariah law should leave GB and go to Saudi Arabia, where should Catholics who want the law changed to accommodate their desires go?

20 August 2006 at 09:48  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

"where should Catholics who want the law changed to accommodate their desires go?"

Not Belfast!

This Cardinal has lost it. Is he seriously suggesting that Celtic fans all put their treatment at the hands of Rangers fans down to the Act of Settlement? I'd bet that very few if any have even heard of it, and those who have don't have a clue what it's about, and those who know what it's about don't blame it for the Catholic/Protestant spats in Scotland. No, O'Brien's got another agenda, and that's to undermine the Protestant throne. It's not something that the English know much about any more, but I thank God that other corners of the UK haven't forgotten.

20 August 2006 at 11:00  
Anonymous Rick said...

The Cardinal if of a Church which does not recognise the Church of England as a Church, nor its Orders as being valid.....surely Cranmer could be somewhat more indignant at this insult to his life's work ?

The Act of Settlement - and I presume he means that of 1701 rather than the earlier ones - was extended to Scotland by the Act of Union 1707.........now would not next year be a good opportunity to reduce Scotland to Dominion status ?

Actually the Act of Supremacy is affected by any such tampering with The Act of Settlement and so too is the whole administration of the legal system and its relationship with The Crown.

Henry VIII 's Act of Supremacy (1534) - original text

Albeit the king's Majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme head of the Church of England, and so is recognized by the clergy of this realm in their convocations, yet nevertheless, for corroboration and confirmation thereof, and for increase of virtue in Christ's religion within this realm of England, and to repress and extirpate all errors, heresies, and other enormities and abuses heretofore used in the same, be it enacted, by authority of this present Parliament, that the king, our sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall be taken, accepted, and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England, called Anglicans Ecclesia; and shall have and enjoy, annexed and united to the imperial crown of this realm, as well the title and style thereof, as all honors, dignities, preeminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities to the said dignity of the supreme head of the same Church belonging and appertaining; and that our said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, record, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offenses, contempts and enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any manner of spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed, repressed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained, or amended, most to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of virtue in Christ's religion, and for the conservation of the peace, unity, and tranquility of this realm; any usage, foreign land, foreign authority, prescription, or any other thing or things to the contrary hereof notwithstanding.


The second Act of Supremacy was the reinstatement of the original Act of Supremacy 1534. The English monarch was again the head of the Church of England, above the authority of the Pope. This was enacted by Queen Elizabeth I, the Protestant monarch after the Catholic Mary I. Anyone who took public or church office was forced to take the Oath of Supremacy

and The Bill of Rights Act 1689 would need to be amended as would the Coronation Oaths Act 1688................and why ? If any Catholic girl wanted to marry into the Royal Family they could convert to the C of E and be Anglo-Catholic..........when you consider that Caroline of Monaco was the nearest any Catholic in recent times came to presenting that problem one can hardly consider her biography to be one of staid Catholic morality or piety.

Far better to revoke The Act of Union 1707 and let Cardinal O'Brien take his chances with the Presbyterians - after all the Catholic flock he leads were basically Irish refugees from the potato famine who came into Paisley factories to make the forefathers of the late Alan Clark rich

20 August 2006 at 11:09  
Anonymous DavidG said...

I think Cranmer's indignance is shown by posting this. It is clear the amount of parliamentary time needed to change this is huge, and not worth the hassle.

Catholics who want the law changed should simply go somewhere they can be free to marry the monarch, like Spain.

Rick makes the point that this Act is woven into the fabric of our history. Why should it be changed to accommodate modern religious sensitivities? Of course it shouldn't. When the Catholic Church ceases claiming it has the sole right to educate Catholic children, and it encourages an end to educational sectarianism, it might have more of a moral case to make on this issue.

20 August 2006 at 12:05  
Anonymous Rick said...

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01498a.htm

illustrates the insurmountable problems faced by Cardinal O'Brien

One fact ignored is that The Roman Catholic Church was the Established State Church of the Roman Empire

20 August 2006 at 13:06  
Blogger Peter Hitchens said...

Would the cardinal be in favour of a Mohammedan head of state?
If he were to get his wish, prince william could marry an arab girl, convert and then where would we be.
In fact marriage doesn't have to come into the equation, there are rumours that Prince Charles is a secret Muslim, he has an Islamic shrine in his garden, reads the Koran there and dresses up in Muslim robes ( wearing a prayer cap) whilst doing so.

20 August 2006 at 14:22  
Anonymous Rick said...

Actually Marriage is central since the Monarch cannot marry without the consent of Parliament and must marry according to the Rites of The Church of England..............and the Coronation Oath is clear.............Prince Charles has no automatic right to succeed and can be removed as with Edward VIII

20 August 2006 at 15:34  
Blogger Peter Hitchens said...

Rick I accept your point, however, who is to say that a politically correct government such as the one we live under wouldn't heartily approve of king Ahmed?
Or in fact a parliament with a large number of Muslim MP's, a not so unthinkable scenario.

20 August 2006 at 16:21  
Anonymous Rick said...

Unthinkable because Parliament consists of two Houses and must always take account of the public or face humiliation

20 August 2006 at 16:35  
Anonymous Rick said...

I still want to know when The Pope will beatify Martin Luther as a great Catholic Theologian

20 August 2006 at 16:36  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

Hell will freeze over first!

There'll be a Protestant Pope before Martin Luther is beatified.

20 August 2006 at 16:48  
Blogger istanbultory said...

DavidG said...
"If Muslims who want Shariah law should leave GB and go to Saudi Arabia, where should Catholics who want the law changed to accommodate their desires go?"

I suspect modern-day Poland would be reasonably accepting to them...Number of population declaring themselves as- Catholics: 95%...
To say nothing Father Tadeusz Rydzyk (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadeusz_Rydzyk) , the head of Radio Maryja,an ultra-Catholic sect,who is on very, very close terms with the current government (especially the education minister) and president..

20 August 2006 at 20:13  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rick,beatify Martin Luther? you just uttered the unthinkable! indeed you must be a heretic:-)

20 August 2006 at 23:04  
Blogger ThunderDragon said...

The UK does not have a Constitution (capital c) but a constitution (small c) because it is not codified in one document. No distinction is made between any kinds of laws passed by parliament. All are thus, theoretically, part of the (uncodified) constitution. Of course, it also relies on convention - for example, the position of Prime Minister does not exist except by convention - and so the constitution is always adapting.

What Cardinal O'Brien is calling for is impossible for the simple fact that not only, as Cranmer has said, a ridiculously long and expensive ordeal (and ordeal it truly would be. About as fun as putting your hand in boiling water to retrieve a stone), but also one that is pretty much impossible since the constitution of the UK is not written down in any on place or even, in many aspects, at all!

21 August 2006 at 01:12  
Blogger Tom Tyler said...

Whereas I agree with the general thrust of Cranmer's article (I am a British Catholic (practising) who does not have the slightest problem with either the language or the substance of British legislation, where any distinction is made between Protestants and Catholics - This is a Protestant country and I accept and fully endorse it as such), I do feel that Cranmer has missed the crux of the matter by seeking to engage in a bit of what many Northern Irish political commentators refer to as "whataboutery".
Now, the Catholic Cardinal was, I feel, wrong to call for changes to the wording (or the intent) of British legislation. He says: "Our constitution contains legislation which describes my faith as 'the popish religion' and defines me and my co-religionists as 'papists'" - Well, yes it does, and that is because the British system of government is inextricably linked to (indeed, derived from) the Reformation. But all that happened in a bygone era when "church life" WAS political life, in a way that has almost vanished during the last 60 years or so. Nowadays, the links between politics and church are far less prominent in our society. Therefore I think the Cardinal's words are not all that relevant to our society any more, and his proposals would have little if any effect on reducing sectarianism.
To get back to what I said though, I think it is precisely because political life and church life have become such separate matters, that it is also unhelpful of Cranmer to point out some of the Catholic Church's discriminatory practises in this context.
Cramner writes, "Vatican law not only bars all Protestants from becoming pope (who is also a monarch), it propagates global discrimination against Protestants by prohibiting their participation in Catholicism’s Holy Communion....Maybe the Cardinal should look to the plank in Rome’s eye before challenging the splinter in England’s".
Well of course, but how could a Protestant Christian become the Pope when the Protestants, of their own volition, freely broke from Catholicism? That would be like me saying "I refuse to recognise the sovreignty of the UK; nevertheless can I be King, please?" Similarly, the Protestant Churches have stipulated that they have a serious and fundamental difference of doctrine (or dogma?) about the nature of Holy Communion, therefore they have effectively excommunicated themselves from participation in it, it's not the Catholic Church's fault. Therefore I contend that rather than there being a "plank in Rome's eye", it is more a matter of the words of Paul applying equally to Catholics and to Protestants: "Now, I know only in part, but [later] I shall know in full".

21 August 2006 at 06:51  
Anonymous Rick said...

Tom Tyler your points have merit, but you have not addressed the fundamental point of Martin Luther being beatified.

Martin Luther was an Augustinian and one of the greatest theologians in history by whose efforts the Roman Catholic Church was saved from decline into idolatry and supersitition............it is high time he was given his full credit and beatified for his theological input and it is preposterous when one looks at those beatified under Pope John Paul II when men of the stature of Martin Luther are ignored

21 August 2006 at 08:32  
Anonymous vikki said...

I did not realise my 11:04 post was anonymous.Why would the Vatican want to beatify Martin Luther? Luther was not steeped in Pharaseeism i.e tradition of men. Do you know how much the Catholic Church lost because of luther? To now acknowledge him as a saint would mean he was not a heretic to begin with.Have you thought about what would happen to doctrines such as ,purgatory,indulgences? You dont want the Church to go bankrupt do you? Rick,this is heresy;-) you must recant:-)!

21 August 2006 at 11:03  
Anonymous Lena Mouse said...

I think I agree with Vicki on this, the faithful followers of Marting Luther don't need any kind of reward from the Roman Catholic Church.

AS for the Cardinal of Scotland to demand changes to the constitution, who does he think he is? If he puts football thuggery down to an oscure act of parliament, he is another cleric who's 'out of touch' with real life.

21 August 2006 at 11:09  
Anonymous Rick said...

The followers of Martin Luther don't require anything from the Roman Catholic Church but the Roman Catholic Church has an open debt to Martin Luther.

Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic Theologian - it was he who saved the Roman Catholic Church from collapse into commercialism, idolatry and heresy. It was Martin Luther who did for the German language what the KJV and BCP did for the English language.

Martin Luther is a man much more worthy of beatification than the founder of Opus Dei. It is for Luther's great work as a Theologian.

Most modern Protestant Churches have deviated so far from 16th Century Lutheranism as to make one marvel, and many in the United States are heretical. Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic Theologian; Jesus Christ was a Torah-observant Jew

21 August 2006 at 12:13  
Blogger istanbultory said...

Wouldn't the Vatican have a bit of legal difficulty paying their "debt" to Luther. Could someone who was excommunicated by virtue of the Bull «Decet Romanum Pontificum» as issued by Pope
Leo X on January 3rd 1521 ever find favour with the Holy See?

21 August 2006 at 13:05  
Anonymous vikki said...

Rick,the very things you claim Luther saved the Roman Catholic Church from were those thing that made Roman Catholism Roman Catholism.They certainly did not want to be saved from them! They wanted to practise these unhindered.Luther was a thorn in their flesh.Do you really think Luther would want to beatified considering what he stood for? I make bold to say beatifation does not make you a saint! I agree with Luther "the just shall live by faith...."

21 August 2006 at 13:05  
Anonymous Rick said...

Yes but the Roman Catholic Church would not have survived without Martin Luther...........and I believe it is incumbent upon the Catholic Church to show respect for a great theologian.

Yes it is true that Catholic Church has long grabbled with the problem that Jesus like the first Pope was a Jew...........but in Benedict XVI they have the greatest German theologian since Martin Luther who is well aware that the word "church" appears nowhere in The Bible and that Luther returned the Bible more to the Hebrew layout.............in fact the only reason for 1 Kings and II Kings was because of printers' limited ability to print the full run length.

We still have Bibles based on "Books" derived from printers' technical problems in the 16th Century.........but Martin Luther was able to expose the corruption at the heart of the Roman Catholic Church of that era which would have destroyed it..............in fact England is unique in that it did not go the "Reformed" route but retained that Catholic structures and Catholic parishes and Cathedrals in what became a Church which some call Protestant and others consider Reformed Catholic..................it is obvious that rather than play silly games Cardinal O'Brien should be pushing for Martin Luther o be beatified

21 August 2006 at 14:10  
Blogger Tom Tyler said...

"the word "church" appears nowhere in The Bible"?????

Just off the top of my head, the opening line of many of Paul's letters:
"Paul, an apostle of Christ....to the church in [Corinth/Ephesus/Galatia...]

As for I Kings and II Kings, to what, then, is the author of II Kings referring when he repeatedly says: "As for the other works of [...], are they not recorded in the annals of the Kings of Israel"?

21 August 2006 at 15:58  
Blogger dearieme said...

One of the several reasons that a cousin of mine gave up Catholicism was the collections in church for the IRA. And since the plonker we're discussing is a Scottish cardinal, shouldn't he be invited to instruct his flock to desist from waving Irish tricolours and hymning the praises of the IRA at football matches? That would be an advance against "sectarianism".

21 August 2006 at 16:09  
Anonymous Rick said...

Tom Tyler - you do insist on using a Catholic Bible which inserted the word "Church" in place of the word ekklesia .

No Paul did not speak of Church nor did he mention The Pope or St Peter's - they spoke of "congregations".............

I am afraid Tom Tyler that Kings, Samuel and Chronicles were not divided into two but are each one book or scroll cut by the printers because of the limitations of metal-typesetting and paper sizes and 'signatures' which were bound to form the book.

If you read a Tanakh you can see clearly that they are not subdivided.

The Holy Trinity did not make it into The Bible until the 5th Century.

In short Tom Tyler, The Bible you read is markedly different from the one that was written down on papyrus and goat-skin

21 August 2006 at 16:46  
Anonymous Rick said...

http://www.bible-truth.org/Ekklesia.html

This goes some way to elucidating the point

21 August 2006 at 16:52  
Blogger Tom Tyler said...

Rick, when I used the word 'church' above, 'congregation' is precisely the meaning of that word I was thinking of, and which I think Paul meant. Church=congregation. Did you think I meant (or that I thought Paul meant) something different by that word? I'm not following you, we seem to be splitting hairs.
By the way, I have just consulted three online KJV Bibles, and Matthew 16:18 says "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my CHURCH". Therefore the word Church does appear in the Bible, indeed in the Bible version of your preference, Christ Himself uses the word.

21 August 2006 at 19:33  
Anonymous vikki said...

Is intellectualism devoid of humour? I truly wonder!

21 August 2006 at 20:03  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Miss/Mrs/Ms Vikki,

Intellectualism can never be devoid of humour, for the denial or irrational exclusion of such an imperative means of expression would itself be unintellectual.

So, be as humorous as you wish, observing, as ever, the requisite demands for intelligence and erudition.

+Cranmer

21 August 2006 at 21:16  
Anonymous vikki said...

Are you saying lam not "intellectually and theologically deficient":-)?

21 August 2006 at 22:44  
Anonymous Rick said...

Therefore the word Church does appear in the Bible, indeed in the Bible version of your preference, Christ Himself uses the word.

Yes and it even mentions King James which the Dead Sea Scrolls did not.

The KJV is based on The King's Bible 1539.........why do you think any Bible translation is accurate.

Christ Himself uses the word That is the most preposterous assertion I have ever heard,.........Jesus spoke Aramaic and Hebrew..........why would he use the word "Church" ? He was a Jew.

You'll be telling me next he ate pork and did not wear a Jewish tallit gadol with tzitzis, that he spoke English and had a Boswell taking notes.

The "Church" as you know it headquartered in Rome was alien to those who wrote the scrolls in Hebrew and Greek...........their concept of "ekklesia" was more like the synagogue or the self-governing presbyterian churches

21 August 2006 at 22:48  
Blogger Tom Tyler said...

"Christ never spoke English, therefore he did not utter the word which has been translated into English as 'church'. Hmmm, I find this a most interesting argument. On the face of it, it seems to stand up, but I cannot help but get a vague sense that there is a flaw somewhere along that line of reasoning, and that following it to its conclusion, one could therefore question almost anything He is reputed to have said. I shall have to think this through most carefully.

22 August 2006 at 01:05  
Anonymous Rick said...

Well you should Tom Tyler for "The Church" as an institution did not derive from The Bible but inserted itself into "The Bible" qua "Church"...........what was in the biblical texts was a meeting of co-religionists to worship - there were no bishop's palaces, no cardinals, no reverence for human bones, no saints, no mariolatry, no Sunday Sabbath, no Christmas, no confessional to a priest

22 August 2006 at 07:03  
Anonymous vikki said...

May I humbly submit that the message of the cross is so simple.Do you guys need a theologian to help you misinterprete it?

22 August 2006 at 10:47  
Anonymous Little Black Sambo said...

"The Church" as an institution did not derive from The Bible but inserted itself into "The Bible":

Almost the opposite is true: the New Testament, completing the Bible, arose out of the life of the Church, along with many other things - liturgies, sacraments, holy orders, theological definitions, sacred art, devotional customs, etc etc. All these things together make up Tradition, the action of the Holy Ghost as the life of the Church. The Church was there first.

22 August 2006 at 16:11  
Blogger Tom Tyler said...

Vikki, you are right, of course.
Theological debate, however, is stimulating and has its place in helping us grow in our intellectual understanding of our religion.
Having said that,
Rick, its been a pleasure talking with you. As I mentioned above, I do not in fact disagree with your interpretation of the word "church" as it was used by Christ or Paul 2000 years ago. Of course the word meant "congregation of believers", and not "the Catholic Church as a distinct organisation". That was not what I was arguing. I was merely responding to your assertion that the Bible contained no such word, regardless of its meaning. I wasn't trying to draw you into a strict interpretation of the word.

23 August 2006 at 00:39  
Anonymous Rick said...

Tom Tyler - fine, we are on the same wavelength. My point was simply that when The Catholic Church claims the Church of England is invalid, or in its earlier antipathy towards Judaism, it was simply unbiblical and institutionalism that was at its heart.

I feel that too many people attending the C of E or the Catholic Church do so more out of love of the institution than of the purpose, and in so doing repeat the situation of The Second Temple when the Sadduccees were profiting from selling doves and lambs for sacrifice and rested their status on being "aristocrats" of Judaism rather than practitioners as were the Pharisees and Scribes, who were more rules-based and less institutionally based.

23 August 2006 at 06:56  
Anonymous Lena Mouse said...

I agree with that Rick. Church going has become a bit of a ritual. There's often more concern with the the building and the fabric than with the starving and the poor. As a CofE committed member, I sometimes despair at the witness of the Church. We talk more about gay priests and female bishops than we do about the real issues of real people. It's no wonder we're in decline. But that's no reason for some trumped up Cardinal to effectively kill it off by demanding changes to the constitution!

23 August 2006 at 12:27  
Blogger Thomas Fuller said...

Cardinal O'Brien doesn't look much like a "Keith" to me. Is it an assumed name?

Apropos which, does anyone know of a notable Keith in history? Keith the Great? Keith the Terrible? Keith the Impaler? Keith Caesar?

Like Nigels and Grahams, Keiths are for ever doomed to the twilight.

23 August 2006 at 18:04  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

Keith Chegwin?

Yeah you're right, the name's doomed.

You'd never get a Pope Keith, so that scuppers his promotion.

23 August 2006 at 19:04  
Anonymous vikki said...

Rick, I hope you were not offended when I called you a 'heretic'.I was simply using it in the catholic sense.However I was not sure if the humour was not lost on you.If it was I do apologise.

23 August 2006 at 21:50  
Anonymous Rick said...

vikki - don't apologise.

I had not really reflected on your calling me "a heretic". I simply thought you were wrong........at least you didn't call me "-phobic"............."heretic" has such a nice old-fashioned ring about it............and no I did not visualise you with a bundle of faggots as you wrote this..............nor as Mme Desfarges sitting knitting by the guillotine. I simply decided you were aberrant.

24 August 2006 at 08:56  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Rick,

Must you mention faggots...?

24 August 2006 at 10:39  
Anonymous vikki said...

Rick, the last thing I want on this forum is to be drawn into a war of words.I do apologise if my choice of words offended you.I probably need to take another look at my style of writing.It wasnt meant to be literal at all.I was trying to have a good laugh with you at the expense of the RCC! which was why I would add a wink or a smile at the end.I was simply saying you would be deemed a heretic by the RCC for acknowledging Luther in the first place.If it helps I would probably be considered a heretic also ..... I hope this clarifies my position.

24 August 2006 at 21:07  
Anonymous Rick said...

Vikki....as I said I have taken no offence whatsoever.......here on this site we have a sense of humour..........I take no offence and I am sure none was intended,.........so you see I do not see why you feel any need to apologise

24 August 2006 at 21:42  
Anonymous vikki said...

"here on this site we have sense of humour..." I take it you do not object to being burnt at the.... stake;-) opps faggot:-)!

24 August 2006 at 23:26  
Anonymous Rick said...

I object most strongly, but you are treading on dangerous ground with our host.............the Archbishop

25 August 2006 at 03:00  
Anonymous vikki said...

That was very thoughtless of me indeed! I thought it was your mention of "faggots" that sent our host diving for cover.....I shall certainly remember not to tread where even angels fear to tread......

25 August 2006 at 09:11  
Anonymous Rick said...

I think Vikki you are an American unfamiliar with our nomenclature for firewood

25 August 2006 at 11:34  
Anonymous vikki said...

Very wrong Rick! I am someone who is familiar with church history .I also happen to know that any mention of firewood, stake,faggot etc is very likely to make our host dive for cover or quake in his boots:-)Maybe you should ask him why he said "Mr Rick did you have to mention faggots...?" Dare I ask how Cranmer made his exit from the land of the living?

25 August 2006 at 15:25  
Anonymous Rick said...

Vikki....mea culpa ! At least now I know....let us continue our tete-a-tete now the others have left to take on the Jesuits !

I just wondered if you might have the American word in mind..........but I am so pleased you are familiar with Church history........we shall have much more fun on this thread..........pity Croydonian has gone to ground, but I suspect the winter months drive him underground into a snug hibernation...............or he could be unpacking his worldly goods at Gatwick ...........

Anyway Vikki, your posts brighten the day !

26 August 2006 at 06:38  
Anonymous vikki said...

Iam glad we are now on the same wavelength.Maybe I dont need to change my style of writing afterall:-)

26 August 2006 at 20:21  
Anonymous Rick said...

No Vikki you do not..........there is nothing wrong with your style of writing........have more confidence ! :-)

26 August 2006 at 20:24  
Anonymous vikki said...

I happen to have a lot of... confidence in my style of writing. However I sometimes wonder if my message does not seem to be getting across.... especially if its satirical:-)

26 August 2006 at 21:21  
Anonymous Rick said...

Vikki, I took it is satirical but refused to rise to the bait.......had I been offended I would have been acerbic....but I tend to find your comments amusing and entertaining..............time to order a bottle of Chablis I think

26 August 2006 at 21:54  
Anonymous vikki said...

I wasn't trying to bait you.I was just trying to have a good laugh.Does the Bible not say something about .... a merry heart?A bottle of Chablis:-) for communion;)?

26 August 2006 at 22:30  
Anonymous Rick said...

A bottle of Chablis:-) for communion;)?

no my dear, we need red for Communion.........but we can enjoy a chilled Chablis the evening before

26 August 2006 at 22:36  
Anonymous vikki said...

One drop too many? Cardinal Keith O'Brien probably wouldnt agree with :-)you need to do penance:-)!

26 August 2006 at 22:50  
Blogger Cranmer said...

*cough*

If you two don't mind His Grace interrupting your little private tête à tête, he begs to remind you that his venerable blog is dedicated to the intelligent and erudite of good humour.

Bless you.

26 August 2006 at 23:25  
Anonymous vikki said...

Are you on the way to Rome? I wonder...:-)

26 August 2006 at 23:32  
Anonymous vikki said...

Alas your grace!
we have not deviated much.I must blame this on a drop of chablis too many.Do I make my way down to canterbury for penance or should I hasten to Rome as I'm pretty sure my friend rick is headed there....

26 August 2006 at 23:50  
Anonymous Rick said...

should I hasten to Rome as I'm pretty sure my friend rick is headed there....

Vikki we must spend more time together - your impressions are so wrong I become concerned.........and to write Canterbury with a lower-case and Rome in upper-case..............

27 August 2006 at 08:06  
Anonymous vikki said...

I am sorry I didnt dot the i's and cross the t's.... will put it down to a glass of chablis...which you so graciouly suggested! This I'm afraid is impairing my intelligence and erudition ....the Archbishop would be non too pleased to note this.....! On a more sober note,I would go off blogging for a while.....got to meet a tight deadline. Will return to take you up on Luther again:-)!Your proposal is really beyond me. However as always I stand to be corrected. Till then ciao.

27 August 2006 at 14:43  
Anonymous vikki said...

Rick -still pressed for time but couldnt resist posting this.I still cant get my head round your beatification for Luther proposal.What would be the objective?.Why would the RCC want to do that. I know you've touched on this in your previous posts but that still doesnt answer my question.

6 September 2006 at 12:23  
Anonymous vikki said...

Looks like you have conceded defeat so I rest my case.

11 September 2006 at 16:26  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older