Monday, March 30, 2009

Conservatives should resist the Left’s assault on the Act of Settlement

Why not have same-sex couples upon the Throne?

Well, why not?

Is it not blatant homophobia that, should the Monarch be homosexual, that their partner may not be crowned at their side and granted a royal title to reign with them? Is it not unacceptably discriminatory in the 21st century that, should Prince William choose to enter into a civil partnership with his best friend from Eton, his lawful partner shall not also be king?

Why not have two queens upon the Throne?

This is surely a logical corollary of removing all ‘offensive discrimination’ from the institution of Monarchy. If the Monarch may not be and may not marry a Roman Catholic, it is undoubtedly ‘disgusting’ or ‘insulting’, as might be said in another place. But if one is legislating to end sexism and Catholophobia within the Monarchy, why not simultaneously end ageism (for why should the eldest of either gender automatically inherit the Throne?) and homophobia?

All of this reduces Monarchy to conformation to the European Convention on Human Rights. If ever there were legislation which establishes that Her Majesty is no longer sovereign in her Realm, it is the subjection of the Head of State and Supreme Governor of the Church of England to the effects of ‘Human Rights’ conventions, laws, regulations and diktats. The moment Her Majesty became a citizen of the EU, by virtue of the Maastricht Treaty, she was reduced to vassal status and became subject to the foreign princes of Brussels and the potentates of Strasbourg.

It is no accident that the campaign for repeal or reform of the Act of Settlement was led by The Guardian. And while the Guardianistas are fixated upon the discriminatory ‘anti-Catholic’ provision of the Constitution, the rabid secularists have jumped upon the bandwagon, as they spy the very mechanism by which they may purge the land of all Christian expression. They seek to cleanse the temple of Jehovah and Jesus and install an idol to the god of secularism; they wish to eradicate chaplaincies from the NHS and Her Majesty’s prisons; they want to end Religious Education and the compulsory provision of an act of collective worship in schools; the Apostles’ Creed must give way to their atheistic creed; and their ultimate goal is the removal of all religious symbols from public buildings and institutions, including crosses, Christmas trees, sacred imagery and paintings. It is no coincidence that the Royal Mail now issues two sets of Christmas stamps – one religious and one secular.

According to the Left, the Act of Settlement is bigoted, otiose and irrelevant. The history is forgotten, the battles are long gone, and it is time to ‘modernise’ the institution of Monarch to ‘make it fit for the 21st century’.

But the Act of Settlement is not only right, it is Right. It seeks to conserve all that Conservatives should desire to conserve, being acutely concerned with the supremacy of Parliament; guarding against foreign interference in domestic affairs; and being guarantor of the liberties of the people.

It is not simply a statute which may be arbitrarily amended or repealed simply because of the vicissitudes and vagaries of popularism or because Parliament may not bind its successors. It is part of the contract between the Monarch and her subjects. Her Majesty the Queen, with her hand upon the Holy Bible, swore at her Coronation to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom (and the Commonwealth) ‘according to their respective laws and customs’.

The Archbishop of Canterbury asked her: ‘Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?’

To which Her Majesty responded: ‘All this I promise to do,’ adding later: ‘The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.’

This oath is binding on Parliament because each and every MP takes an oath of loyalty to Her Majesty, her heirs and successors. If Her Majesty were to renege on her Coronation Oath to maintain the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law, then, according to the provisions of the Act of Settlement, her subjects are thereby absolved of their allegiance to her and to her heirs and successors.

Parliament is indeed sovereign. But Parliament has no right to cause Her Majesty to break an oath she has sworn before God.

New Labour continues to fumble and fiddle with the constitution as though it were their personal plaything. They are meddling in ignorance, oblivious to the consequences, solely to divert attention from the appalling mess they have made of the economy. And perhaps also to try to win back those Roman Catholic voters who have become disillusioned with Labour’s offensive and virulent anti-Christian agenda.

The impetus for reform of the Act of Settlement came from the Human Rights Act 2000 which the Conservative Party is pledged to repeal (whatever the consequences for the UK’s membership of the EU). The Human Rights Act introduced an explicit ‘human rights’ dimension into the decision-making and actions of all public bodies, government and legal system, such that they are obliged to ensure that every aspect of their functioning is compatible with the Convention rights. It requires UK courts and tribunals to take account of Strasbourg case-law (ie the case-law of the Court and the Commission in Strasbourg, and the Committee of Ministers). They are also bound to develop the common law compatibly with the Convention rights. It is only in the context of this Act that the Act of Settlement becomes an offence against diversity and a transgression of the statutory requirement for equality irrespective of religion.

Those Conservatives who support amendment ought to be aware of the European dimension of the agenda, and ask themselves why The Guardian has led the cause for reform and the secularists are supporting it.

The 26 bishops in the House of Lords are opposed to disestablishment, which is precisely where any reform will lead. The Bishop of Winchester, the Right Rev Michael Scott-Joynt, is right when he says that the proposed amendment to the Act would mean the end of the Crown in Parliament under God. He said that in the 18th century, when the Act was introduced, Catholics were viewed as ‘the Taleban of their day’.

He said: "Its repeal would have implications for the Acts of Union, and so for the Union itself between Scotland and England. A Roman Catholic marriage would be likely to produce, a generation on, a Roman Catholic monarch who could not, as things are, formally recognise the Church of Scotland, or the Church of England, as churches, or their clergy and bishops, or their sacraments, as true ministers and true sacraments. Nor could the Archbishop of Canterbury crown such a monarch until the re-union of the Western Church has been given to us – still less a Muslim or any other person unable to ‘join in Communion with the Church of England’, the requirement of the Act of Settlement.

"There would be a cutting of the mutual commitment of Church and Crown – and so in time the governance of the UK would cease to be by ‘the Crown in Parliament under God’.

"We cannot know what may prove to be the effects, on all this, of the eventual accession to the throne of Charles III, in whatever political situation that takes place."

But Cranmer has a question.

While it is not likely that two men (or women) may wish to reign as gay co-monarchs, it is far more likely that Parliament may eventually present a Bill for Royal Assent to which a (loyal) Roman Catholic could not, in conscience, grant such assent.

Since in the United States politicians are not infrequently excommunicated for failing to adhere to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on such issues as abortion and homosexual marriage (though there is no consistency), could one of Cranmer’s faithful and loyal Catholic communicants please explain the consequences of a Catholic Queen granting Royal Assent to (for example) such abhorrent legislation as the Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which caused problems for so many Roman Catholic MPs?

For Her Majesty to refuse Assent would doubtless precipitate a constitutional crisis which could and probably would bring about the end of the Monarchy. But if she were to grant Assent, would this not lead to the (Cardinal) Archbishop of Westminster excommunicating Her Majesty, if only to save her soul?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

'if it ain't broke then don't fix it' the best conservative quote in this situation, Just because its the 21st century doesn't mean that such a change should be implemented.

As a Catholic, I completely oppose the change of the ACt of Settlement. if this is to be debated by Parliament under a Labour Government, then it is doomed. Just like the reformation of the House of Lords which they have yet to finish... How many Labour parliamentary terms will it take to actually finish of a new Act of Settlement?

This move completely contradicts what LAbour have done, like what is already mentioned atheism motif of the Labour Government. Labour don't even know who to side, they seem more monotheist than they do atheist, as they seem to love Islam, and love Catholicism and their Gods. but have forgotten the Uk's own CofE values.

Further considering the same sex monarch, this could happen under Labour as they seem to love being politically correct.

30 March 2009 at 08:44  
Anonymous Derek Smith said...

Re: 'Catholophobia'

Your Grace, surely 'Romophobia' would be a better word.

30 March 2009 at 09:06  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

I also completely oppose the change of the Act of Settlement, which was introduced to exclude a Catholic claimants to the Throne. What a bag of worms that could open if the Act was repealed. Would we have Franz, Duke of Bavaria making his claim to be Francis II?

In addition, from the responses to one of your earlier posts on this topic, there is considerable anti catholic sentiment in this country, and I dont see why it should be stirred up further.

But to answer Your Grace's hypothetical question of whether a Catholic Monarch could oppose an immoral bill, there is a precedent in Belgium where the King abdicated for one day while the abortion bill was passed. (Sounds a bit like Pontius Pilate to me, but there we are).

As a wider question, if the Queen can't or does not feel able to oppose an immoral (or unjust bill for that matter), what is the point of it all? What do we need a monarchy for, if it is just a rubber stamp? In extremis, has the monarch not got reserve powers to demand that an unjust Government should go back to the country to gauge the will of the people?

30 March 2009 at 09:10  
Anonymous Invicta said...

Your Grace. Do you actually believe that a proposed change to the Act of Settlement is on the cards, or is this episode simply a petulant tit-for-tat "punishment" by a deluded PM over Her Majesty meeting with Merv the Swerve?

30 March 2009 at 09:18  
Blogger killemallletgodsortemout said...

The homosexuals are already on to this. Seriously.

Ben Bradshaw/Stonewall are asking, "Why not?"

Ye Gods.

30 March 2009 at 09:59  
Anonymous mckenzie said...

I do not believe in divine punishment as such, but I do believe there is a fixed order where there are consequences. I detect an element of arrogance in you Cranmer where you feel that there is nothing wrong with the present arrangement, and it is this level of decadence which has brought about the mess your kind now faces.

We have no real church in this nation which could claim any real representation of Christ and the Gospel which would appeal to the masses. It concerns its self with the state, money, business, and everything worldly far above and beyond the spiritual welfare of its malnourished flock.

The mess you find yourself in is the consequence of your idolatry and Judas-like betrayal. The fact that we are in a position where one mad man can effectively make changes to allow all the horrors which you have spoken of, tells me that there is need for some kind of reform, but reading your words, and perceiving what your priorities seem to be, I hold out very little hope for the whole situation. I will pray non the less.

30 March 2009 at 10:31  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

At the heart of all discussion of Monarchy and its dissonance with " modern" values lies the simply practical point. It is precisely because of its unique position that it can only exist whilst it remains in accordance with the assent of the people. A Monarch may refuse to sanction a piece of legislation - but will only get it wrong once.

It is a one shot remedy.

The nuclear option of the Constitution.

If the option were used and the people support the
judgement made then a new Government will be formed that retains the Monarch's position. If the Monarch takes a contrary position on a serious matter and fails then there will be an irresistible call for a Republic.

All discussion seeking to place such a delicate institution within a more rationalist framework fails ti understand the brilliant pragmatism at the Heart of our system.

We need to ensure that such understanding is promulgated widely so that we do not get blindsided into " reforms" that lose our longstanding protection form elected dictatorships.

30 March 2009 at 10:42  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Brown is rapidly running out of time. We've already run out of patience.

Does he really have enough time to rip up and wipe his backside on the Act of Settlement? Look how long it took them to "not" ban fox hunting, so probably not.

Will the House of Lords stand by and do nothing while he goes about the nefarious deed? Not all who sit in the Lords are Labour placemen and toadies (plus the Queen is a popular gal), so probably not.

Will the diversion of the Commons focus be tolerated in the face of the devastation wrought by Brown's insane leadership? Only by the aparatchiks and the terminally deluded.

The fact is, bothering Brenda is so small and so far outside the target area of the electorate's political sniperscope you'll need a scanning electron microscope to find it. Given the public hysteria that surrounds certain royal occasions I think Brown would be safer sticking his fat head into a hornets nest. In fact I'd like to see him do that anyway just to discover if the old adage, where there's no sense there's no feeling, is true.

30 March 2009 at 10:44  
Blogger Simon said...

With a Catholic monarch, you would have to have a situation such as occurred in Belgium very recently where the King abdicated for a day to allow abortion legislation to pass that he was unable as a matter of conscience to pass. A legal contrivance, but a very clumsy one that sadly seems to undermine both the gravity of the monarchy and the validity of the moral objection when both can be so glibly bypassed.

30 March 2009 at 10:53  
Anonymous Joshua said...

If His Grace will permit a link to Melanie Phillips blog, communicants can read her relevant opinion.

30 March 2009 at 11:05  
Anonymous Gordon said...

Does anyone seriously think Brown cares much about this in terms of what it actually changes? He's doing this because he knows his rating is going to be down there with Foot in terms of Labour leaders, but this way he'll be in the history books and taught at schools. This is purely him trying to secure a legacy. Bastard

30 March 2009 at 11:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

‘The impetus for reform of the Act of Settlement came from the Human Rights Act 2000 which the Conservative Party is pledged to repeal (whatever the consequences for the UK’s membership of the EU).’

Your Grace, the consequences are likley to be minimal. The European Convention on Human Rights is not an EU instrument.

Howvever, the European Court of Human Rights, which administers the Convention, is unlikely to pass a judgment which undermines an EU objective. This is because the European Court of Human Rights wishes to avoid a collision between its jurisprudence and that of the EU’s (supreme) Court of Justice. For it knows that a trans-national state such as the EU cannot have two supreme courts.

30 March 2009 at 11:45  
Anonymous Nelson said...

Your Grace.
The problem with Brown is that He is useless, hopeless, gutless and a liar, he pontificates over a bunch of useless jobsworths whose main concern is to follow their leader without any thought for the people that elected them, and now want to be rid of them for their selfishness, incompetence and dishonesty. The majority of them have no honour or sense of shame. They are Brown clones. knowing that He has no future as a respectable politician or World leader, His ambition is to follow the other useless crowd of losers, Blair, Kinnock & family etc to a cushy well paid number in the EU parliament. He thinks that brown nose speeches plus removing the monarchy will ease His acceptance into this political Gehenna, by attempting to remove the power of the established Christian church. Wrong again Gordon. Just accept that We the people have seen & suffered from your selfish ineptitude for long enough. even the few honest politicians are now tarred with your brush of deceit. Call an election, change your name & fade into the obscurity that you have so richly earned.
May the next government sort out the mess, listen to the electorate and get us back on track. Time may erase your years of mismanagement and abuse of power, maybe future generations will be able to laugh at you, this one certainly won't.

30 March 2009 at 11:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Lord is coming soon......

30 March 2009 at 13:00  
Blogger tammyswofford said...

Gradually, each plank pertaining to a sovereign state founded on Christian principles of governance and stewardship, are being ripped up by those who are within the anti-Christian movement.
But when the foundations shake, what are the righteous to do?

Do (please) enjoy the visit of our Presidential Teleprompter. smile

Tammy Swofford

30 March 2009 at 14:00  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

Queen is the slang for homosexual playing the female role! This is why the group Queen chose it's name! And their song "We are the champions" speaks about the victory for homosexuals. So every sports event that plays that song is actually playing the homosexuals-victpry can not get any sicker than that! IGNORANCE is NOT BLISS in this! It's the truth that can make a person free, Scripture says! But often the truth is we must pray to God to lead us into ÁLL Truth!

30 March 2009 at 15:31  
Blogger Gnostic said...

I happen to like Queen. And since three members of the band are hetero I'm not going to worry about driving down the road with "We are the champions," blaring out of my speakers. Besides, Freddy was bi, not gay. So please make that 3 1/2 band members.


30 March 2009 at 16:04  
Anonymous mckenzie said...

Cranmer might think the last comment is irrelevant, but it highlights my point, we are both flogging a dead horse, and unless the church can be made to concern its self more with the spiritual welfare of the flock, the situation will steadily deteriorate. You wouldn't even need to sacrifice your self indulgent need for superior being status, all smugness could still be retained, it would just involve less exploitation. Instead of making church the home for middle class condescension, why not have a change of heart and encourage attendance for all? This way the chav scum element of society may even reduce somewhat which can only benefit us all. Its a bit like when the sewers in London were finally overhauled. When the diseases started to spread up into the ivory towers, the superior ones had to make changes. Maybe this is God's way. Maybe He is forcing the superior self righteous beings to share the church with their fellow exploited ones.

It has to be worth a try. It can't be that difficult a notion to swallow. I think Jesus would be pleased if you at least tried.

30 March 2009 at 16:23  
Anonymous Old English said...

At the heart of this attempt to change the Monarchy is plain theft.
As an Englishman, I enjoy a freedom which is a God-given gift and not a gift from the government.
That freedom entitles me to choose by whom I am governed, to make contracts which are consistent with Common Law and to dismiss governors who are incompetent or unlawful.
My freedom is spelled out in the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement.
To take away my freedom is theft. While any power in this country attempts to break the contract between Her Majesty the Queen and every citizen, expressed in Her Coronation Oath and my Oath of Allegiance, or to remove my right to dismiss my elected rulers when they prove to be unsatisfactory, is guilty of theft.
Any power which purports to have the ability to give away this the freedom which is my birthright is guilty, not only of theft, but also of treason, for it suggests that the Queen is incompetent to rule according to Her oath.

30 March 2009 at 16:36  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eeeeh up. Catholics on't throne???? Aye that's reet. Next oop will be homosexuals and that. This 'ere is Britain, not a democracy or summat.

30 March 2009 at 16:51  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark Steyn puts his finger unfailingly on the failing pulse of UK plc (in receivership):

"Not to go all arcane on you, Mona, but it's not clear that Brits have the constitutional authority to change succession rules. According to the 1931 Statute of Westminster:

It would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions...

— ie, Canada, Australia, the Bahamas, Papua New Guinea, etc. Good luck getting that agreement.

On the other hand, that's part of the preamble rather than the enabling acts, so there are constitutional scholars who argue each realm could amend its own succession according to its taste — male precedence, female precedence, gay-partner-of-the-younger-son-of-a-royal-duke precedence, Muslim-son-of-the-third-wife precedence. So a generation down the line you could have Emir Charles reigning in London, but Queen Autumn (the Canadian wife of Princess Anne's son) reigning in Ottawa.

Incidentally, given the collapse of marriage as an institution in Britain, why are those born out of wedlock ineligible to succeed (the son and daughter of Viscount Lascelles)? If Gordon Brown wants to be a la mode, why doesn't he get all his non-discriminatory ducks in one row?"

30 March 2009 at 17:38  
Anonymous Joshua said...

Disobedient sons of bitches, that what we basically are. This is the central theme running right through the Bible, both new and old bits. Dam naughty bloody humans. God says one thing, we do the complete opposite, and He loves it, He knows He does. Why else would He paste together such a mess of confused and jumbled up twaddle.

I mean, nobody has really provided any detailed description of an afterlife which has us all queuing up. Even the word vague doesn't manage do justice to the vagueness of it. I am in no hurry anyways. But this constitution thing does not work for me. I mean, even as a kid I used to consider the injustice of being born into some tribal community in somewhere like Pakistan or Africa. The possibility just seemed so unfair. But I suppose in contrast my present circumstances are in need of respect and gratefulness.

But what about rendering unto Caesar? Why should I put my arse on the line? I'm doing fine mate, no greater sacrifice has a man...than to blah, you can bloody say that again, sort it out yourself is what my answer is. God says worship on the Sabbath, we choose Sunday, day of the Sun, Paganism. No problem, Caesar's idea, sort Caesar out. Christmas trees, Easter eggs, Rudolf and the fat man: weirdness in general really.

Get a job, pay your taxes, abide by the law of the land: God, Queen and country. Go to church, which one? Dunno really. One thats part of Caesar's constitution I suppose so you don't get nailed. Avoid hell and book early for Heaven. Somewhere in all of this, somewhere, slice a piece of cake. Oh, and duck, frequently, especially when your feeling good, because that's when it comes for you, mostly.

30 March 2009 at 18:38  
Blogger Jules said...

Your Grace,

A couple of observations from a Catholic. I wouldn't assume they necessarily reflect the views of any other British Roman Catholics.

1. I don't care whether a RC can be King or Queen or be married to the King or Queen. In fact, I quite like the slight outsider status that the Act of Settlement bestows upon Catholics.

2. I think that being an established church is slowly killing the CoE. Distestablishment would probably do it good. Christianity is inherently radical and embedding it in human institutions dilutes its potency.

3. Apparently Benedict believes that the RCC needs to be smaller but more faithful. The same is probably true of the CoE. It needs to rediscover its faith and become as confident of bearing witness to at as (for example) Muslims do.

4. The UK is disintegrating as a nation state and as a cohesive society. This used to bother me much more than it does today. As the establishment becomes more and more anti-Christian I can't see why the CoE would wish to be part of it. IMO Christians should be in this world but not of this world.

5. If the UK fails or becomes antithetical to Christian values Christians can take comfort from the knowledge that are part of a bigger and better kingdom.

30 March 2009 at 19:49  
Anonymous len said...

To understand where we are now you have to go right back to the beginning, Genesis .Man was created by God to be infilled by A spirit.Man was also given free will.
When adam rejected Gods spirit adam became aligned with the spirit of rebellion, the spirit of this world, the spirit of selfishness.Man then became entrapped in this condition unable to escape.Try this out to test this , tell someone , expressly forbid them, to do something and watch their reaction!.
Jesus Christ( through the cross)Gave us the chance to have a new spirit( born again) and be totally changed in line with Gods original creation.(Filled with Gods Spirit)
Romans in the bible explains this perfectly.

30 March 2009 at 21:57  
Anonymous Joshua said...

The thing is Len, that Jesus said render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Now if your faith is strong enough to realise that absolutely nothing can possibly belong to Caesar, then you have to make some difficult decisions that could get you nailed. My point being that I am not in a hurry to get nailed, I am fond of my rebellious arse. I also still stand by my belief that God deliberately used paste and paper mache because these are His favourite medium. We are human, God knows this, I do my best. Romans, to me, explains nothing perfectly.

30 March 2009 at 22:17  
Anonymous Joshua said...

The trouble with language is that it is just an interface, it has limitations. Like Windows Vista, you only see an interpretation of the processes which are really taking place elsewhere, right across the universe even. Consider dreams, you wake up with a definite feeling of knowing something, but the ins and outs of it all, the process of what happened, and why, is really quite ineffable, and yet something quite tangible exists for sure.

This can be transfered to our understanding of certain scriptures. Especially, for me, the ones in the early books like Genesis. Trying to provide tangible explanations for Noah's Ark for example. Given what we know today, this story is absurd in its fundamental interpretation, and yet something sticks. In there somewhere there is meaning that connects with receptors. Same with Adam and Eve. Some kind of archetypal synaptic message connects deep in the soul, it sticks in there frustratingly. This for me is the magic and the wonder of it. It can not be fully interfaced with language, but I will be damned if I will stop loving every word of it.

30 March 2009 at 23:06  
Blogger Fred Preuss said...

Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands and some Scandinavian countries have gay marriage; it will probably be legal for your king to marry another man before it's possible for him to marry a catholic.
Probably not what Henry VIII had in mind, but there you are.

31 March 2009 at 00:36  
Blogger Jabba the Cat said...

Oh dear, the jowls are a quivering and the toys are a flying out of the prams at a rate of knots...

31 March 2009 at 01:28  
Anonymous theresa said...


I think your theology is self centred and well dodgy, and will probably earn your rebellious whatsit a good roasting in Hell, but your language is pure poetry. Now will you please do something to get yourself off the list of the damned so that we will have some entertainment in Heaven?

31 March 2009 at 02:39  
Anonymous not a machine said...

just as i was warming to pope bendict and seeing a shared christian purpose , along come the european socialists plan A and begin a ferment to have a schism within the conservatives and the country .

it is refreshing to see many RC conservatives realising , settlement is better than secular communism .

your grace points to the lazzie fair aspects of the USA , i note the USA also has a democracy deficiet , despite them having the most modern of democratic systems.

it is precisely because we have orderd our society in this way , that has given rise to a the values and sense of being british .

god , church and state has a very sort of natural order about it , in some ways it doesnt matter if it is the RC faith , although italy has monarch its does not have the same position as ours .

what i like so much about the very precarious and almost lite lack of understanding is that since the rise of queen elizabeth I , we have decided on a protestant faith.
what the modern day tricksters are trying to do is , cut and paste today on to the 16th century , which caused men like cranmer to arrive at the theological conclusion they did with henry 8TH.

whilst protestant faith is seen as sort of rebellion by rome , rather like wesleys methodists were to the C ofE , it never the less took us down the road if a more indivdual view of science and god , aided of course by increasing educational improvement .

the people messing with this know full well , it has political purpose , i doubt it has a christian one as our churchs are not as full , nor does the day run to the rythems of the church calendar .

i find it very starnge that this liberal agenda of "self determination" is seen as the definite and future adventure for us all . I have seen how it occures that those who seek to impose this , are useually cocky in the legal mind sense , they think its a jolly to make laws for the supreme , yet they allways miss the accountability that a monarch has , the will of the people has to arrive at the monarch , it should not and cannot by pass it like labours disgrace full gerrymandering of lisbon treaty.

our monarchy may be elite , but so what they do what they do for the UK knowing it plays a vital part in a sort of symbiosis , at least they see themselves as much as indivisible part of being a uk citizen as the rest of us , they have a carriage made out a symbolic tree from a colony , pulled by four horses , but our history is in this institution , it tells our story.

i am not particulary angry at this half cocked attempt to cause trouble , i am angry that the lilly livers of certain parlimentarians no longer want to live up to the standards of service and honour that our sytem used to enjoy .

they have become men and women of fashion , does this fit , do i look good in this etc etc vanity and more vanity , whilst they fill there boots and there pockets and mockingly conspire to undo our nation for a leap into new and in my opinion flawed future legalistic construct .

of course the tamperers wont stop there , they will be having to tinker with cultural imbalance that they have created for ever, perhaps it will be a terrible vacuum .

the reason we used to be so keen on treason and seditious persons (much cited as the cruel whims of the elite class and excuse for socialism) was that even rome understood , that civil power only worked when you had authority , and you only had authority where the people aquiessing to it understood it offered protection and well being .

note the difficultly of the authorities rough handling paul when they discovered he was roman citizen !!

our relationship to monarch is well worked and refined , no socilaist or liberal has yet shown anything that could work better despite all , the equality rubbish .

as if being equal will cement in the same way as service .

the fools may well be thinking its time to pull some supporting props out , but like an economist down a coal mine , they never did think that by removing one prop the roof would fall in on them all.

on a side note joshua , you seem to have fallen into the common trap of of finding the bibles hsitory , causing stress with modernity ie no mention of lives blogging , soft drinks or motorcars. look at it from a more god teaching humanities with the need for humility , and it may help.

my runs into philosophy have been terrible feats of knowledge

31 March 2009 at 05:31  
Blogger Theo said...

You will have to excuse me but I find what you have said totally incomprehensible. I can identify totally with Joshua (and len) and yet do not consider myself among the damned.

We only have to consider the words of Isaiah:
For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, says the Lord.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts.
Isaiah 55:8-9 (AMP)

before we very quickly realise the limitations of our understanding. Over the centuries men have strived to create rituals which they think may be pleasing to Him because they too have reached the end of their ability to understand. Unfortunately, a lot of these rituals are an end in themselves and whilst we worship Him with our lips our hearts are far from Him. We must strive to understand the essence of the relationship with Him and the stories that Joshua refers to helps us to define this in a way in which we can only do by being led by the Holy Spirit.

I believe we must approach the gift of the monarchy in the same way. God is no democrat - He has used people for His own ends and for the good of mankind throughout the centuries and we subject the monarchy to the will of man at our peril. We are fiddling with forces unknown when we touch God's anointed.

31 March 2009 at 05:51  
Anonymous Joshua said...

I think it would be an excellent idea if someone started an off topic blog so we can beam over and continue little debates that would not clog up His Grace's esteemed blog, so the the thread could continue. We could beam in and out and answer each other's personal issues while maintaining the thread in here. Anyone interested?

31 March 2009 at 09:45  
Blogger Theo said...

Whilst I welcome your suggestion with great enthusiasm Joshua and already being amazed at His Grace's tolerance to off topic postings I wonder whether we stretch that tolerance further by asking His Grace to host such an indulgence?

31 March 2009 at 09:53  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Not at all, gentlemen.

You are both welcome to continue.

31 March 2009 at 11:02  
Anonymous joshua said...

Thank you Your Grace. I would not expect His Grace to host anything but His esteemed blog. The idea being that such an excellent blog as it is, could be kept more on topic with another known place to resolve personal and off topic debates.

Communicants could make on topic comments and add a remark that an extension to the comment could be read in the antechamber (being completely separate, and devoid of any connection to here with regards to what might be said) which could serve to extend personal indulgences and favorite subjects. A similar and firm 'bottom line' to His Grace's would be a prerequisite, but that would be the only discipline imposed.

31 March 2009 at 13:17  
Anonymous Joshua said...

I could then expand the complete reality, to Theresa, of just exactly how self centered, dodgy and dammed I really am. And maybe create even create some entertainment in Heaven!

31 March 2009 at 13:23  
Blogger Theo said...

Many thanks to His Grace for his indulgence in this matter.

Perhaps it would be more productive to explain the concept of God's grace to Theresa.

Perhaps she could explain why David was a self centred, self seeking adulterous murderer whose failings perhaps outnumbered ours and yet remained "a man after God's own heart".

31 March 2009 at 14:19  
Anonymous Joshua said...

The Antechamber. Say what you want, when you want and how you want about what/who ever you want to say (up to a certain point that is).

31 March 2009 at 14:20  
Anonymous Preacher said...

Gentlemen. May I pop in with an observation at this point? I like you all am a long way short of perfect but I thank God that before He chose me, He knew the worse side of me, but still loved me enough to drag me out of the cesspit that I had chosen to exist in. This Divine love serves greatly to keep my pride in check (which I need more than most) I feel that for all of us we should not forget that the brakes on the Ferrari are just as, if not more important than the accelerator.

31 March 2009 at 14:39  
Anonymous jeremy hyatt said...

It may not find mmuch favour in this parts of blogworld but the answer is obvious. Abolish the monarchy. Problem solved.

31 March 2009 at 16:44  
Anonymous theresa said...

Theo, Joshua,

forgive me if I've given the wrong impression, but I was giving a facetious answer to what I interpreted as half in fun, whole in earnest theology from Joshua;

But what about rendering unto Caesar? Why should I put my arse on the line? I'm doing fine mate, no greater sacrifice has a man...than to blah, you can bloody say that again, sort it out yourself is what my answer is. God says worship on the Sabbath, we choose Sunday, day of the Sun, Paganism. No problem, Caesar's idea, sort Caesar out. Christmas trees, Easter eggs, Rudolf and the fat man: weirdness in general really.

Get a job, pay your taxes, abide by the law of the land: God, Queen and country. Go to church, which one? Dunno really. One thats part of Caesar's constitution I suppose so you don't get nailed. Avoid hell and book early for Heaven. Somewhere in all of this, somewhere, slice a piece of cake. Oh, and duck, frequently, especially when your feeling good, because that's when it comes for you, mostly.

You've taken my remark about being damned far too seriously; it was a joke. But the comment about your language wasn't, Joshua; you are good at it.

Loosen up guys.

31 March 2009 at 17:15  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

Don't worry about the Lefty's Subversion of our Once great civilisation your grace, these useful idiots will get their comeuppance once the West has fallen.

Uri Bezmenov on Subversion of Target societies

31 March 2009 at 19:19  
Blogger ZZMike said...

I completely missed it. The Acts of Settlement (something unknown here across the pond) may well have had good and proper reasons when they were instituted.

But if there is to be any change at all, it must be that someone of the Muslin faith may not ascend the throne.

As for the Left assaulting the current status, it's a mystery why anyone would want to be King (or Queen).

And it's a mystery why any of them think they have even the slightest chance of doing so.

Our gracious host, in an accompanying article, said

"Of course it is ‘unfair’ and ‘discriminatory’ that the monarch may not be or marry a Roman Catholic, ..."

Will someone please explain how it is "fair" and "undiscriminatory" that someone should be King (or Queen) simply and only because one of his parents was?

It would be much more "fair" &c. if that post were filled by a democratic vote of the populace. (I refer you to a scene early on in Monty Python's "Search for the Holy Grail" (where King Arthur meets the two peasants in the field).)

joshua: "I think it would be an excellent idea if someone started an off topic blog so we can beam over and continue little debates that would not clog up His Grace's esteemed blog,..."

An excellent idea. Any one of us could certainly do so, at minimal (if any) cost. At least two of our number, tammyswofford and teresa have their own blogs.

Not to mention the 14 blogs that "Cranmer regularly reads".

31 March 2009 at 19:23  
Anonymous Joshua said...


No offence taken what so ever. I am like the preacher, grateful for being dragged out of a deep mire, and only God could ever hit the mark. XXxXX

An interesting comment though from Theo Hobson over at the Spectator. It seems there is an interesting debate on radio 4 tomorrow at 8.00pm, where Theo suggests he may have been somewhat rude to a certain bishop...intrigue!

31 March 2009 at 19:26  
Anonymous len said...

Catholicism is a system of rules and regulations with a hierarchy, much like the monarchy.In that relationship (monarch married to a catholic) who would have the final say,monarch or pope?
Christianity is the free gift of righteousness from God ,(not rules and regulations) and is a relationship with the living Christ.

3 April 2009 at 08:06  
Anonymous Theresa said...

Oh come on Len, what church doesn't have a hierarchy? Who leads the prayer in your church? Do you have elders? Preachers? Ministers? Tell me how that's any different to us? This reminds me of the Chinese Army during Mao; they weren't allowed to wear stripes to indicate rank because that was capitalist, so they used ball point pens in their top pocket; two pens for a sergeant, three for a major and so on. If you were head of the army you got a whole packet of Bics. And btw, what church are you that's so superior to mine anyway? I'm fed up with you taking pot shots at my beliefs all the time and would welcome a chance to take pelters at yours, if that's not too uncharitable of me (probably is, but so what.) I'm guessing Church of Christ..

3 April 2009 at 17:55  
Blogger Theo said...


I know many churches where Jesus Himself is Head of the church, and it works! Paul was explicit about Jesus' Headship in his letters to both Ephesus and Colossi

For the husband is head of the wife as Christ is the Head of the church, Himself the Saviour of [His] body.
Eph 5:23 (AMP)

He also is the Head of [His] body, the church; seeing He is the Beginning, the Firstborn from among the dead, so that He alone in everything and in every respect might occupy the chief place [stand first and be preeminent].
For it has pleased [the Father] that all the divine fullness (the sum total of the divine perfection, powers, and attributes) should dwell in Him permanently.
Col 1:18-19 (AMP)

And not holding fast to the Head, from Whom the entire body, supplied and knit together by means of its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.
Col 2:19 (AMP)

This headship was never delegated but in order to help the church develop and grow Jesus gave gifts to the church:

"And His gifts were [varied; He Himself appointed and gave men to us] some to be apostles (special messengers), some prophets (inspired preachers and expounders), some evangelists (preachers of the Gospel, traveling missionaries), some pastors (shepherds of His flock) and teachers.
12 His intention was the perfecting and the full equipping of the saints (His consecrated people), [that they should do] the work of ministering toward building up Christ’s body (the church),
Eph 4:11-12 (AMP)

You will note that he did not give headship to anyone but retained that for Himself. The word "vicar" means "substitute" and is an impertanence and usurps the power Jesus kept to Himself.

It is true that in many churches the Holy Spirit is an inconvenience and men, in their folly, have bypassed Him. It has been well said that, if the Holy Spirit was withdrawn from many church people would hardly notice; they've developed rites and rituals which render God superfluous to the process for doing whatever they think they are doing.

3 April 2009 at 19:14  
Anonymous Theresa said...


I'm referring to the 'Church of Christ' as the institution formed by an American Scot called Campbell, not the mystical Body.

I suspect we could argue til Tib's Eve about the primacy of Peter; what clinches it for me is that Christ gave him a new name Petrus or 'Cephas' meaning 'rock'. The giving of a new name is of great significance in the Bible; it only happens on a few occasions, such as when Abram became Abraham because he was to be the father of many nations, John the Baptist's name means 'God is merciful' and of course 'Jesus' means 'The Lord saves.' Peter's re-naming is not something therefore, that can be treated as a mere sideline - Jesus was delegating authority to him in a way he wasn't to the others. The postscript to the Gospel of John indicates this as well, where Jesus asks Peter if he loves him more than the others and then tells him 'look after my sheep'.

Having said that Theo, theological arguments get me down. Theology is important; I learned that when a Jehovah's Witness friend of mine refused a blood transfusion despite having been in a horrible accident and I was desperately trying to explain to him why it was ok under the Law of Moses for him to have one. I'm glad to say he survived, but it was a close run thing. And it's important in situations like this, where I am being questioned as to the basis of my beliefs by folk like yourself and Len.But it's not the be all and end all of Christianity; talking the talk's one thing, walking the walk's another. And what gets me down is that as a Catholic, I'm getting involved in practical campaigns to stop bills like euthanasia and hybrid embryos. We're marching on London protesting about world poverty. We look after 50% of HIV sufferers in Africa. I have friends working out in Uganda, I have a friend who spent years in China as a missionary and I know a priest who spent four years in detention there. I myself got involved in stuff which I don't want to go into here, but which I did to protect the poor in my own community. And we all do that because we see it as part of the deal of being a Christian. Now, we do all that and then someone turns round and says that we're the whore of Babylon, or some such thing. Now, my rule of thumb is that by peoples' fruits you know them, and all these people are doing very good things and risking their lives to do it. If our theology is so dodgy and we're worshipping a false god, then where are all these good deeds coming from? You don't get figs from thistles, do you? And can you not see that goodness? Our church sticks its neck out more loudly and more often than any other church, and for that priviledge we are being persecuted into the ground by the government, but it's like it's nothing. Because we have statues and candles in our churches, we're going to be damned to hell for it. And the Pope's the antichrist of course; I mean it couldn't be anyone else, could it?

Open your eyes. If you want to know what people are, look at what they actually do. If you want to know who belongs to the body of Christ, look at how they behave. That is the final judgement, 'Whatever you do to the least of my brothers, you did it to me'. That is all you need to know.
Right, I'm off for a cup of tea and a lie down..

3 April 2009 at 21:37  
Blogger Theo said...

I think you mistook me,and for that I take full responsibility. By headship of a church I had in mind most churches of most denominations and particularly those who have a guy called a priest in charge. The priest is thought to be the head of the church. He should not be for the reasons I have indicated. The priesthood is an order of the Old Covenant and was intended as a body approved by God who could make intercession for man. Men could not approach God but a priest could do it for him. The indication of the end of this era was the renting of the veil of the temple indicating that access to the Holy of Holies was now available to all through the sacrifice of Jesus. The priesthood now has no real function except to serve those who act as priests in their desire to express their power over those gullible enough to accept their supremacy.

I was not expressly addressing the primacy of Peter but as you have mentioned the subject please read the following speech by one of your own bishops at the Vatican Council of 1870. By coincidence I posted this link on a different thread only days ago

Bishop Strossmayer addresses the primacy of Peter in a far more eloquent and erudite way than I ever could. When you have read it I would love to hear your thoughts on his views.

Finally, (as Paul would say only half way through his letter!) I am convinced that the good works being done throughout the world by members of your and other churches are done for a love of and in obedience to Jesus Christ. We cannot hold individuals responsible for the errors of their church, no matter how erroneous its theology.

Pax tecum

3 April 2009 at 22:36  
Anonymous len said...

If you want to look at what people are, look at what they actually do.(your words)
If you are looking at works, religious works, I would say the average moslem, has a better religious performance than most christians.
Compare catholic dogma with the bible surely you can see the differences?This is why the catholic church opposed publishing of the bible in plain English.
I believe the fault lies not with the catholic people, but with the catholic system, which is what it is.

4 April 2009 at 14:18  
Blogger Theresa said...


I was not referring simply to religious observance, but living out your faith in your daily life.

5 April 2009 at 01:18  
Blogger Theresa said...

Hi Theo,

Have posted my answer to Bishop Strossmeyer's speech in the Antechamber;


6 April 2009 at 01:37  
Anonymous len said...

Bishop Strossmeyers speech and the catholic reaction to reminds me of Stephens speech to the High Priest(Acts 6: 8-15, Acts 7-59

6 April 2009 at 07:53  
Anonymous len said...

Apparently to pronounce Anathema on someone is to curse that person, there are hundreds of curses put on protestants by the catholic church.
( Which is against the teachings of Jesus Christ who said " Bless do not curse" Romans 12:14)
The only curse the Apostle Paul said was to people who preach another gospel, another Jesus.(Galatians 1:8-9)

6 April 2009 at 08:20  
Blogger Theo said...

I have left a posting for you in the antichamber


8 April 2009 at 05:46  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older