Sunday, June 02, 2013

Our Christian Queen


Sixty years ago today, Queen Elizabeth II was crowned in Westminster Abbey. The service was Christian, specifically Protestant-Anglican, which she swore to maintain for the rest of her life, 'to the utmost of (her) power', along with 'the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel'.

People will quibble about her deficiencies in this regard, choosing to highlight their particular interpretation of a literal law, or a particular slant on the Gospel. But, being Protestant - indeed, being the Supreme Governor of her own Church - the Queen is answerable directly to God: for her, there is no mediator other than Christ, her Saviour. To Him is she accountable for her words and actions - personal and constitutional. To Him will she have to give account for every law of man to which she has given her Royal Assent.

Hers is a faith which is profound and sincere. Oh, there are Roman Catholics who pour scorn over the very foundation of the Established Church; and High-Church Anglicans who mock her distinctly Low-Church disposition and liturgical preferences. But she treads a wise via media between the religious extremes - of all faiths and none - reaching out to embrace them as a mother does her children. As she reminded us and the then Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams at Lambeth Palace last year:
...we should remind ourselves of the significant position of the Church of England in our nation’s life. The concept of our established Church is occasionally misunderstood and, I believe, commonly under-appreciated. Its role is not to defend Anglicanism to the exclusion of other religions. Instead, the Church has a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths in this country.

It certainly provides an identity and spiritual dimension for its own many adherents. But also, gently and assuredly, the Church of England has created an environment for other faith communities and indeed people of no faith to live freely. Woven into the fabric of this country, the Church has helped to build a better society – more and more in active co-operation for the common good with those of other faiths.

This occasion is thus an opportunity to reflect on the importance of faith in creating and sustaining communities all over the United Kingdom. Faith plays a key role in the identity of many millions of people, providing not only a system of belief but also a sense of belonging. It can act as a spur for social action. Indeed, religious groups have a proud track record of helping those in the greatest need, including the sick, the elderly, the lonely and the disadvantaged. They remind us of the responsibilities we have beyond ourselves.

Your Grace, the presence of your fellow distinguished religious leaders and the objects on display demonstrate how each of these traditions has contributed distinctively to the history and development of the United Kingdom. Prince Philip and I wish to send our good wishes, through you, to each of your communities, in the hope that – with the assurance of the protection of our established Church – you will continue to flourish and display strength and vision in your relations with each other and the rest of society.
When speeches like this are set against her traditional Christmas broadcasts, there is no doubt that the Queen is devout in her faith, and serious about propagating it for the spiritual health of the nation. In her 2011 broadcast, she spoke openly of the gospel of forgiveness, the uniqueness of Jesus the Saviour, the love of God through Christ our Lord. Unlike that of the Prime Minister, her faith does not fade in and out like Magic FM in the Chilterns: she fights the good fight; she runs to win the race; she keeps the faith.

Historically, the Coronation has always been performed in the liturgical context of Holy Communion (with the exception of that of Roman Catholic King James II in 1685). There are doubts that such 'exclusive' traditions can be maintained in a the modern multi-ethnic, multi-faith context. Indeed, Charles Moore, a convert from the Church of England to the Church of Rome, is of the view that Lambeth Palace and the Archbishop of Canterbury are deficient in their consideration of this matter. He writes:
But no committee has yet met to discuss it. The key spiritual mover in this matter is the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the key temporal one is the Duke of Norfolk, the hereditary Earl Marshal. Yet neither has, in fact, moved. If the Queen died tomorrow, there would be no plan for the coronation of her successor.

This is not mere negligence. There is an element, almost, of bad taste in getting into detail.
One has got used to the sadly obsessive anti-Anglicanism of the Telegraph, but one has come to expect better from Charles Moore. Presumably, his source for the 'negligence' at Lambeth Palace is his co-religionist the Duke of Norfolk. In fact, it is simply not true. The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Dean of Westminster could be prepared to crown King Charles III (or George VII, or however he wants to be known) within a matter of months, if necessary. One only has to witness the impeccable attention to detail in unforeseen tragedies like the death of Diana Princess of Wales to appreciate that the Church of England is more than able to deliver on the big occasions of state.

On the next coronation, there will be, as there has been for 1000 years, the singing of psalms - ‘I was glad when they said unto me: We will go into the house of the Lord’. There will be cries of 'Vivat Rex!' and the people will respond ‘God save the King!’ The Sovereign will take the Oath, swearing to govern faithfully with justice and mercy, to uphold the Gospel, and to maintain the doctrine and worship of the Church of England. And a Bible will be presented, just as it was in 1953, ‘To keep your Majesty ever mindful of the Law and Gospel of God as the rule for the whole life and government of Christian princes’.

And there will be Holy Communion, and the Creed, and an invocation to the Holy Spirit. And the Sovereign’s crimson robe will be removed and he will be seated in the Coronation Chair, facing the altar. And the Archbishop of Canterbury will anoint the Sovereign with holy oil, as they have always done. Except this solemn anointing is not likely to be concealed beneath a sacred canopy, as it was in 1953, but visible to the whole world, for the mystery of consecration is no longer reserved to the holy priesthood.

And then the choir will sing Zadok the Priest, the words of which have been sung at every coronation since King Edgar’s in 973 (though obviously not to Handel's glorious setting, which was written for the coronation of King George II in 1727). And then the Sovereign will be dressed in robes of gold and invested with the the Orb and Sceptre, symbolising kingly power, justice and mercy.

And then the Archbishop will receive St Edward’s Crown from the Dean of Westminster and place it on the Sovereign’s head. Trumpet fanfares will sound and the congregation shall acclaim the Sovereign with loud and repeated shouts. And the newly-crowned Sovereign will receive the homage of the people, performed first by the Lords Spiritual, and then the Lords Temporal. The King will then receive Holy Communion, to Gloria in Excelsis followed by a Te Deum.

This is as it has always been, and under the current Archbishop of Canterbury will most assuredly remain, should he be the one to preside at the next coronation. Of course there will be nuances of adaptation - as there have been in the past: representatives of other faiths will, of necessity, be included in the service, for the Monarch is a symbol of unity in the Kingdom. But make no mistake, the Coronation is a Christian liturgy, and so it must remain. It is the contract the binds the Head of State to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who is the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is a cornerstone of the Constitution, and the foundation of our liberties. It is not to be tampered with lightly.

76 Comments:

Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hear Hear Archbishop ! Although there are RCs who do indeed scorn the origins of the CoE, one would say they are amongst the most loyal of subjects. To be an RC is to turn your back on secularism, and the nefarious influences it has, especially as a driving force on current CoE ‘progressive’ thinking. The Inspector would not be surprised if Her Majesty has a warm place in her heart for the Catholic hierarchy in this country. The Old Guard, if you will. Where her values are held in high esteem as used to be the case with CoE bishops in the first decades of her reign.

2 June 2013 at 11:56  
Blogger bluedog said...

Hosanna and bravo, Your Grace. May it be so.

'Oh, there are Roman Catholics who pour scorn over the very foundation of the Established Church;'

Unthinkable. Surely not. Next His Grace will be suggesting that the most pernicious in this regard are Anglican converts to the Roman faith.

But were he to do so, His Grace would of course be absolutely right.

2 June 2013 at 12:03  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

hmmm Bluedog up to no good, again.

This man would have you read “there are Roman Catholics who pour scorn over the very origin of the Established Church”. One rather hopes Cranmer meant it that way, rather than the the more obvious.

2 June 2013 at 12:13  
Blogger Roy said...

. Oh, there are Roman Catholics who pour scorn over the very foundation of the Established Church;

Are those same people just as, or even more, scornful about the state of the Roman Catholic at the time of the Reformation, I wonder?

2 June 2013 at 12:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

In this man's case, a very definite YES !

2 June 2013 at 12:38  
Blogger David E said...

How sad that sixty years after her coronation, the House of Commons and Her Majesty's Government see fit to force her to break her coronation oaths to preserve the doctrine of the Church of England by giving Royal Assent to gay marriages.

Could Parliament be arrested for treason for doing this?

2 June 2013 at 13:07  
Blogger The Judicious Hooker said...

YG, of all the rites and ceremonies of the C of E, I've always viewed the Coronation liturgy as the least 'Protestant/Reformed' and the most 'catholic/traditional'. Maybe it's due to the fact that you did not get the chance to 'modernise' it before your untimely demise.

It is, after all, the only instance when holy anointing was performed in the post-reformation C of E until the Oxford Movement gradually restored its use at baptisms, confirmations, for the sick and at ordinations.

And while HM swore to defend the 'Protestant Reformed religion established by law', she was presented with the coronation ring with the words: "Receive the Ring of kingly dignity,
and the seal of Catholic Faith". Like every good Anglican, HM also swore her oaths on a copy of the Authorized Version of the Bible containing the Apocrypha.

What with the anointings (there are four: hands, chest and head), the various investitures and robings, the presentation of spurs and swords, the offering of bread and wine and the celebration of Holy Communion (in which only HM, Her Consort and the officiating clergy receive the Holy Sacrament), we do not have a liturgy of Genevan simplicity.

The coronation liturgy is ancient in its symbolism and testifies to the fact that the C of E is the ancient Christian Church of the land, catholic in essence and reformed by law.

2 June 2013 at 13:18  
Blogger David E said...

How sad that sixty years after the coronation, the House of Commons and Her Majesty's government see fit to make her break her coronation oaths to preserve the doctrines of the Church of England, by giving Royal Assent to gay 'marriage'.

Could Parliament be arrested for treason for this?

2 June 2013 at 13:20  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

One wonders that if Cameron had been asked by the Queen to drop Gay Marriage to spare her the embarrassment he would have done so. Cameron is not the Christian he says he is, as he will find out on his own day of divine reckoning...

2 June 2013 at 13:34  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Excellent post Your Grace. Thank you.
All sincere Christians, Catholic or Protestant must strive to resist the cynicism and destructiveness of this age, which will pass as surely as every other has. Only God continues unchanged. Our Christian heritage is precious.
David E. Absolutely ! The MPs ? If not treasonous, they are certainly disloyal to The Crown, acting in ignorance and in contradiction to their voters wishes. Most of them need to be replaced. It must be agonizing for Her Majesty as she is a sincere Christian with orthodox views.

2 June 2013 at 13:49  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

I know virtually nothing about the rites and rituals of Coronations but I, as a Roman Catholic citizen of England want my monarch to be the defender of the Faith, not faiths. That means, to me, Christianity, regardless of what form that takes. If the next in line can't accept that, then he should probably take the option that his (great?) uncle took.

2 June 2013 at 14:23  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

‘Defender of faiths’ !

When the national secular people get through with King Charles accusing him of being a divisive bigot, believer in a vicious make believe sky fairy and swivel eyed loon, he wouldn’t be defending anything. Nothing at all for fear of upsetting ‘those that count’ in society. Guess which denomination will be at the bottom of the heap after that ?


2 June 2013 at 14:31  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Missed out an attribute of said fairy. Can you guess what it is ?

Here’s a clue – it’s ‘homophobic’

2 June 2013 at 14:35  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

It is common in the West to speak highly of disembodied faith but faith in and of itself is no great virtue. To isolate the faith of the man from the object of that faith is to adopt an anthropocentric view of the subject. It focuses on man's response and takes no account of its truth or falsehood. Indeed truth no longer matters but only the motivation to do good temporal deeds. It is a utilitarian and ultimately cynical response. "Does a man do good? Then what difference does it make if he places his faith in Christ or a head of cabbage? All that matters is that he does good - whether from reality or illusion makes no difference." But this is false.

What matters is the object of the faith. This is not a matter of temporal motivation but eternal destiny. Good works count for nothing among a people who by nature are not good. The temporal benefit accrued to the state from faith does not lessen the flames of Hell to the individual. You therefore judge the quality of a man's faith not by how much faith he exhibits, but rather by that which he chooses to invest with his faith. A man make walk with much boldness and confidence onto a thin sheet of ice. He will still plunge to an icy death. A man may walk with fear are trembling across ice frozen to a depth of 36 inches. He will be sustained despite his trepidation.

Truth matters. That is the difference between a defender of faith and a 'Defender of the Faith.'

carl

2 June 2013 at 14:43  
Blogger Damian said...

Blogger David E said...

How sad that sixty years after the coronation, the House of Commons and Her Majesty's government see fit to make her break her coronation oaths to preserve the doctrines of the Church of England, by giving Royal Assent to gay 'marriage'.

Could Parliament be arrested for treason for this?

No one can make you break an oath, you do so only voluntarily.


David Hussell said...

Excellent post Your Grace. Thank you.
All sincere Christians, Catholic or Protestant must strive to resist the cynicism and destructiveness of this age, which will pass as surely as every other has. Only God continues unchanged. Our Christian heritage is precious.
David E. Absolutely ! The MPs ? If not treasonous, they are certainly disloyal to The Crown, acting in ignorance and in contradiction to their voters wishes. Most of them need to be replaced. It must be agonizing for Her Majesty as she is a sincere Christian with orthodox views.

The Queen is also complicit in treason after signing 5 treaties that cede Britains sovereignty to Europe.

Cranmer states;

representatives of other faiths will, of necessity, be included in the service, for the Monarch is a symbol of unity in the Kingdom. But make no mistake, the Coronation is a Christian liturgy, and so it must remain. It is the contract the binds the Head of State to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who is the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is a cornerstone of the Constitution, and the foundation of our liberties. It is not to be tampered with lightly.

If other religions are to be included in the coronation service then it already has been tampered with.

2 June 2013 at 14:44  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

G-d save the Queen!

2 June 2013 at 16:03  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

I was wondering how far into the comments section we'd see the usual theme of gay marriage being brought into this discussion....

It is a strange point to raise- the Queen is a constitutional Monarch and hasn't used the veto since Queen Anne's reign, way back in 17 hundred and something!

2 June 2013 at 16:03  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hannah, you may know that the Lords will be reading the Devaluation of Marriage act this week. A move of tremendous extreme, if it goes through. And was it not Victoria who refused to make Lesbian activity unlawful ?

2 June 2013 at 16:09  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

HI Inspector,

When this is all over and we go back to normalcy, can we assume that you'll no longer go onto gay websites or channels looking for information on gay activity & the like?

2 June 2013 at 16:21  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Good question Hannah, and one the Inspector hasn't asked himself. Should he stand down, or maintain his eternal vigilance. We are seeing the emergence of a new priestly caste that Zadoc would recognise. What do you think he should do ?

2 June 2013 at 16:31  
Blogger David E said...

Damian, you are correct that no-one can make you break an oath, but as Hannah points out Royal Assent is a mere formality in a constitutional monarchy, although it remains a theoretical possibility. Thus the only 'choice' the Queen has is to give her Assent or to abdicate, and given her sense of calling and duty (as well as her association of abdication with the death of her father) abdication is not really an option either.

Hannah, I'm sorry for raising the usual theme, but it does demonstrate how ill-thought-out the Bill is, and how Cameron and Parliament are way out of their depth with this issue, and don't seem to have grasped many of the implications of this legislation. They talk of it as if it's a small step but don't seem to realise that in fact it's a seismic shift.

But at least for today we can celebrate our Sovereign Lady, our Christian Queen. A truly secular democracy is simply the tyranny of the majority, and as Pope Benedict rightly said, truth is not decided by a majority decision. Our country has been blessed by God with a constitutional monarchy, which reminds us that ultimate power rests with God not with the ballot box.

2 June 2013 at 16:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"A truly secular democracy is simply the tyranny of the majority"

That doesn't follow at all.

2 June 2013 at 16:44  
Blogger Brian West said...

Hannah

The marriage issue is so important, so fundamental to our society's well-being, that some of us feel obliged to draw attention to it at every opportunity. And don't pin your hopes on it being over soon and back to normality. If the Bill is passed, there will be a new 'normal' altogether; and if the Lords throw it out, there will be new battles to fight.

Brian

2 June 2013 at 16:44  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Hannah, you may have heard of the Gay Olympic Games, or The Gay Games as they call themselves now, as the real thing threatened litigation over the name. They are pitching to hold them in London in 2018, and unsurprisingly, Boris is right behind them. Also, this time unexpectedly, the games are open to ALL irrespective of sexual inclination. Which begs the question, why bother then ? Unless of course, organised homosexuality needs to show they are as good as everyone else. Which rather undermines their desire for ‘marriage’. You see, they don’t consider themselves of us, but separate. They want ‘marriage’ not for the desire of inclusivity, but as the song goes – Anything you can do, we can do better.

The sooner society recognises that, and indeed, all the privileges that will be needed to maintain the charade, the better for all.



2 June 2013 at 17:20  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

I think you should be free to do what you want. If that means reading gay mags and stuff, then do that. Otherwise, I think you should stop your vigil, as you clearly need a good women to look after you. So go and log onto a few dating sites. I am sure that there is a future Mrs Inspector there for you somewhere...

2 June 2013 at 17:20  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi David E,

I appreciate that the SSM bill is flawed etc. As said countless times, as a gay myself, I oppose the bill as being a dog's breakfast etc.

However, there are regular commentators who can't seem to help themselves here and like to discuss nothing other than gays, their sex lives, STD's and so-called 'orgies'. I have to admit that if it wasn't for my faith, I'd be totally put off by some of the nonsense that people here (and with 'Christian' pressure groups elsewhere) come out with.

2 June 2013 at 17:24  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

Just 'cause I'm gay myself doesn't mean I subscribe to everything this elite cardre of 'gays' subscribe to. In fact I'm just an ordinary person, living an ordinary life. We are not all monsters and depraved people.

I think some-one said to me that people like me should be more vocal in opposition to SSM. Alas given the depths to which both sides have got to, including the opposition to SSM, I think no way.

2 June 2013 at 17:32  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hannah, We are not all monsters and depraved people

Where are the high profile gays that are opposed to SSM. Same as you, my dear. Not going to get involved combined with “well, It’s coming anyway, and it’s not the end of the world”

You are thus guilty by association and by failing to speak out. The former being the same concept as original sin.


2 June 2013 at 17:38  
Blogger Nick said...

Hi Hannah

"When this is all over and we go back to normalcy"

When this is all over it will be the end of normality in this country - the politicians have already seen to that.

Take the examples of social engineering and brainwashing in the former Soviet Union. The people had an unpalatable ideology forced down their throats and were told to believe in it. Of course they didn't, and although it took time, sanity prevailed and the system cmpletely collapsed. No, this isn't normalcy, more like temporary insanity.

2 June 2013 at 17:41  
Blogger David E said...

DanJ0, sorry I slipped into soundbite mode then!

The point I was trying to make was that our monarchy, as shown in the coronation service, is given it's authority by God, and therefore has to answer ultimately to a higher authority. And therefore, we its subjects do not have to obey anything that goes against the commands of God. To have in view the commands of God helps those in authority to see beyond themselves and their own position and to govern in the interests of all. Secularism says there is no higher authority and therefore all concepts of truth or justice are arbitrary.

The government whose only higher authority is the ballot box is one that will say and do whatever it takes to remain in power. Thus those who shout loudest or can gather the most votes will win irrespective of whether their actions or laws are right and just. The government whose higher authority is God will do what is right not regardless of whether it is popular.

Hope that explains the soundbite a bit more, although you may probably still think it doesn't follow!!

2 June 2013 at 17:52  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace.
I took the time to attend the service outside Buckingham Palace this afternoon with Bishop Michael Nazir-Alli. It was a pleasant gathering but a sharp reminder of why the state of the nation is as it is.
If it had been a Gay Pride event, there would have been thousands attending. As it was, the numbers modestly small. I too considered that if the Queens first minister should ask her to confirm a bill that contradicted her oath, it would be treason. Therefore the sergeant at alms should intercept his mission and arrest him so that the Queen is not compromised.
I don't normally listen to LBC but this morning I heard a caller who said it all. He wanted to ban God if he could as most people in this country as he saw it weren’t bothered with God, certainly he would ban religious schools and he wants those who do believe to stop pushing it up his nose.
Unfortunately there are too many who think that way and their voice gets heard, whereas the Christian believer leaves it up to someone else to do something about it.

2 June 2013 at 18:01  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Well just to lighten the mood a little, and certainly not in a frivolous way, I have just been privileged to attend a magnificent traditional Anglican Evensong service at our Cathedral. It was a celebration and thanksgiving to God, for The Queen, her reign and Christian dedication uniting the nation, selflessly and for so long. We are all fortunate to have lived during this second Elizabethan age. But as our Dean said, with us becoming such a diverse nation and increasingly so, one does question how the country can remain united into the future, even in a purely functional sense, apart from deeper spiritual meanings.
Independence from Brussels, politically and legally is an essential first step, after which perhaps a new unifying principle can be grown? There has to be a way forward which allows Christianity to flourish again.
And yes the Coronation must be about the Defender of the Faith (Christianity). But other world religions can light a candle or two, don't you think?

2 June 2013 at 18:26  
Blogger Nick said...

Mr Integrity

You are right when you point out that Christians in this country are reluctant to get out and demonstrate. Compare us to France for instance.

I would point out though that this is not simply a numbers game. This bill is indeed Goliath and we probably feel as small and insignificant now as David did then. That does not mean the war is lost, even if we lose this battle. The consequences of this bill will start to hit home to all those not currently exercised about it.

When little Johnny comes home from school and starts lecturing his parents on issues of homosexuality he's learnt from his teacher, or gets expelled for making a gay joke, or the faith school gets closed, or mum or dad gets fired because they don't agree that buggery means marriage, or for wearing their crucifix at work, then they may start to think.

In one sense it's a bit late then, but there's NOTHING that God cannot undo if He wants to

2 June 2013 at 18:28  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

I am not sure what I am guilty of- by association (I'm guessing a form of vicarious guilt) - or not?

Is that like meaning that any wrong doings of the Catholic recently, say with children,falls on your shoulders because you are a Catholic who doesn't speak loudly enough about that issue?

2 June 2013 at 18:35  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Nik,

As I've said before here (which goes in one ear and out of the other), if one wants to talk about the end of world re gay marriage, where were the Christians and the Church when co-habiting, sex before marriage, children out of wedlock, the collapse of the traditional family in the hetrosexual community etc etc took hold?

That is the real 'downfall' of marriage and family life in the west. Gays are just a scapegoat here.

And Inspector has admitted his gay opposition is to do with his dislike of the homosexual (male)sexual act. Not any religious doctrine or whatever. No surprise as he is a real pick n' chooser when it comes to religious belief.

To me, the commandment (Mitzvot) against gay sex is as important to follow as any of the other 613 Mitzvot than have to be followed, so G-d sees it as important as not eating pork. (of course there are some that we can't do as I'm not in Israel and because the temple is no-more, but you get the drift).

2 June 2013 at 18:46  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

As a PS to you, as a Jew I do not believe in the concept of original sin. And I am sure in one of your attacks on 'The how to be a Jew book' you didn't agree with 'original sin' either and both Dodo/Peter D and Carl Jacobs took you to task for that...

2 June 2013 at 18:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Not at all Hannah, the child business was conducted by the same people who want gay marriage and after that gay adoption. Makes the blood run cold just thinking about the last bit...

2 June 2013 at 18:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hannah, this man is perfectly aware Jews do not hold with original sin. One didn’t say you did, but you jumped right in like you always do....

2 June 2013 at 18:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hannah, And Inspector has admitted his gay opposition is to do with his dislike of the homosexual (male)sexual act. Not any religious doctrine or whatever.

He did, did he ! Must have a word with him about that, but knowing the chap, do not be too disappointed if you are found wrong...


2 June 2013 at 18:55  
Blogger Dr.D said...

Cranmer said, in part,
"gently and assuredly, the Church of England has created an environment for other faith communities and indeed people of no faith to live freely. Woven into the fabric of this country, the Church has helped to build a better society – more and more in active co-operation for the common good with those of other faiths."

This simply is not true. The true mission of the CoE, as of any truly Christian Church, is to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If this were done effectively, society would take care of itself. The CoE and every other Christian Church fails at its fundamental mission when it sees itself as building a happy, tranquil society. That is simply not its calling! It simply becomes another social service agency.

The Church is called to bring people to a transcendent God, a God that is not of this world in any way whatsoever. That does not mean that God is not concerned about this world, but He is totally outside, above, and beyond this world. Most of this world has completely lost sight of God and is focused on the present world, on comfort, self-indulgence, security, and other things entirely of this world. With that world view, the understanding of a transcendent God the Father, who sent His only Son, Jesus Christ our Lord to be our Saviour, is simply impossible. Wake up, and learn to know the True God, the God who is far above and beyond this world.

Fr. D+
Anglican Priest

2 June 2013 at 19:07  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hello inspector! You said as such in one of the threads below! (and peter d rebuked you).

2 June 2013 at 19:10  
Blogger LEN said...

There are also those who pour scorn on the origins of the Roman Church.
The Roman Church conceived and given birth by a Roman Emperor to consolidate his crumbling empire.A long line of corrupt Popes who clung to power by any means possible and I mean ANY means (anyone seen the Borgias yet?)and Catholics have the nerve to pour scorn on those who attempted(on the pain of death) to break free of the Roman religion?.Unbelievable !.

2 June 2013 at 19:13  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Nick,
Thank you for reminding us that there is nothing disordered that God cannot undo. How true.
But first, it may be that all the people of God are called to repentance.
However at present, we are not yet amongst the worst, but heading strongly in that direction.

2 June 2013 at 19:13  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi inspector, the point is you said i was guilty for some thing which i had no say in. Ergo i am guilty by association for being gay. Ergo by the logic you have just given us as catholic you are guilty by association for priest child abuse and cover up. No? Well quite. So your rant at me is meaningless:)

2 June 2013 at 19:16  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Anyway inspector, you could be searching online for a dating agency; i am sure there is a mrs (or mr) inspector out there for you;)

2 June 2013 at 19:22  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Hannah

there is a mrs (or mr) inspector out there for you

OK, that was just gratuitous. Funny. But gratuitous.

carl

2 June 2013 at 19:30  
Blogger The Gray Monk said...

Well said, Your Grace.

2 June 2013 at 19:45  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Carl,

I didn't mean to be nasty to Mr Inspector.... but he does get on the wrong side of me sometimes...

And perhaps I just being politically correct.... I really do pray, though, that he'll find a partner/wife/whatever, so he doesn't have to visit Pink News and sites about [gay]orgies. I don't think that's healthy for him. He needs a good girl to sort him out!

Ps- I suspect that this thread will be pretty quite for two hours, as it is England vs Brazil football match.

2 June 2013 at 19:55  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Oooh, the ref is a Columbian. Is that good or bad?

2 June 2013 at 20:02  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

David E: "The point I was trying to make was that our monarchy, as shown in the coronation service, is given it's authority by God, and therefore has to answer ultimately to a higher authority."

Is that true in the UK? We have parliamentary sovereignty through a fusion of power system operating as the Queen-In-Parliament. The Bill of Rights 1688 and the Act of Settlement 1701 removed royal executive power, binding it inti the constitution. The original coronation oath of 1688 required the monarch to rule according to the laws made in parliament and the most recent oath says much the same thing albeit in some different words. The authority, in its legitimate form anyway, comes from the people.

"Secularism says there is no higher authority and therefore all concepts of truth or justice are arbitrary."

You're binding secularism with atheism there I think. It's quite possible to be a nation of mostly religious people but have a secular political system.

"The government whose higher authority is God will do what is right not regardless of whether it is popular."

Well, if one is a Muslim and the State is Islamic then one might argue that the government may think it is doing what is right if its laws are based on Sharia and its authority comes from god whose name is Allah but it's arguable whether it's actually right.

2 June 2013 at 20:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

HannahL "Anyway inspector, you could be searching online for a dating agency; i am sure there is a mrs (or mr) inspector out there for you;)"

I'd give Gaydar a miss if so as the place appeared to be full of nobs, in both senses of the word, when I last looked around the site.

2 June 2013 at 20:07  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Danjo,

Let's just hope that Inspector can find a right partner for him....

Anyways, I've got a flat full of England supporters, so better go and pour some more beer...

2 June 2013 at 20:11  
Blogger David E said...

DanJ0, your analysis of the way Queen and Parliament actually work is probably accurate (I've never studied politics so couldn't say for sure, but it sounds right!). However, the coronation service undoubtedly gives the message that the monarch is given their authority from God - the Archbishop of Canterbury crowns and anoints the monarch - and therefore the monarch (and by extension her ministers) are answerable to God. I speak, of course, from a Church of England perspective coloured by the prayer for the monarch in the Book of Common Prayer, penned I think by our host, "Almighty God...so rule the heart of thy chosen servant ELIZABETH, our Queen and Governor, that she (knowing whose minister she is) may above all things seek thy honour and glory" and then later "And grant unto her whole Council, and to all that are put in authority under her, that they may truly and indifferently minister justice, to the punishment of wickedness and vice, and to the maintenance of thy true religion, and virtue."

I may indeed be binding secularism with atheism, but I still struggle to see how concepts such as truth or justice work in a purely secular/atheist context.

Your final point is also a good one, and whilst I would not want to live under Sharia law, I would (hypothetically but maybe not actually!!) prefer to live under a government who think they will be judged by a divine authority for their decisions, rather than under a government who acted only according to their own self-interest, their bank balance and mob rule. (But don't press me too hard on that one!!)

2 June 2013 at 21:18  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Hannah,

I agree Inspector needs to find another half. Is there such a thing in Catholic teaching as a match maker?

2 June 2013 at 21:22  
Blogger Peter D said...

Brazil - 1
England - 2

2 June 2013 at 21:40  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi peter d, oh i was wondering why the shouts in the living room had broken the sound barrier... Im too busy making sure everyone has enough booze and nibbles, including salted herring. Even my girl friend, who is antipodean is enjoying the game....

2 June 2013 at 21:48  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Oh no! 2-2 draw!

2 June 2013 at 22:08  
Blogger Peter D said...

david kavanagh said...
"I agree Inspector needs to find another half. Is there such a thing in Catholic teaching as a match maker?"

Miracle worker, more like! I'm sure there is a Mrs Inspector out there waiting for her hero .... but how to find her!

(Interesting research just published suggesting left handed people are more prone to bouts of agressive ill-temper.)

2 June 2013 at 22:34  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Peter D,

I'm left handed... so i'm prone to being 'aggressive' as well as being on the side of the devil?

Oh no!

2 June 2013 at 22:43  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Peter D,

Ah well. Despite Inspector thinking I'm always on a 'high horse' *I am sure his horse must be a Wholly Mammoth* I really do hope that he finds love in his twilight years...

2 June 2013 at 22:51  
Blogger Peter D said...

Hannah

Passive aggression ... maybe? Besides, predisposition isn't the same thing as determinism. I'm sure you're always sweetness and light, with never a harsh word for anybody.

It seems dogs are left and right 'pawed' too.

(Not a bad match, by the way. And the result was acceptable.)

2 June 2013 at 23:02  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

# The Inspector never drank water, but Guinness by pints
and the “Mouse” it did rock to his songs and his fights #

2 June 2013 at 23:06  
Blogger Peter D said...

David

He's in his prime - mid 50's. Having a woman to love would so enrich his life. Could we approach a shadchan on his behalf?

2 June 2013 at 23:07  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi peter, 'he's in his prime' etc. Sounds like you've just got the job of match maker!

2 June 2013 at 23:21  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Dodo/Peter D,

Passive aggressive?

LOL!

Nah.

I just decide whether to hit back with humour or with full force, depending on my mood, as some one once said here.

2 June 2013 at 23:29  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Peter D,

Inspector is Roman Catholic, so the answer is no (unless he wants to convert). There are a billion plus Catholics on this globe. I am sure that he can find some-one with that amount of people....

2 June 2013 at 23:33  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Besides which, unless Inspector is going to marry some-one under the age of 40, why should he marry? I got the impression that Christians viewed marriage etc, as simply being about procreation, not companionship. Which is why 'gay marriage' was wrong and would spell the end of the world (don't forget, Hannah is guilty for not speaking about enough about this, despite her numerous blog posts about the subject).

2 June 2013 at 23:39  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Hannah
I can find a nice Japanese lady for him.

3 June 2013 at 03:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

David E, having watched the footage of the 1953 coronation yesterday, I can certainly see where you are coming from. To an atheist's eyes like mine, it's merely tradition and symbolism going back a thousand years but clearly it's been designed to be significant and the monarch, if he or she is Christian, must feel bound by it. Our constitution is a curious thing, and clever too, in its attempt to balance stuff and make things as unchangeable as possible. As for how a secular State might work, it does rely on the legislature and the executive deliberately acting in the public interest ... and clearly that doesn't always happen as the expenses scandal and the various cash for questions things have shown. That's stuff that has happened under what you see as a system under god, by the way.

3 June 2013 at 05:49  
Blogger Katie said...

Oh come on, the invocation of the Holy Spirit over an English monarch at this point would be a blasphemy. The so-called Christian monarchy was destroyed when the Queen signed the legislation permitting abortion. It will be no different when the gay marriage legislation passes. She will sign it and thus abrogate her coronation oath yet again. It's not her fault exactly (tho she could abdicate). You can either have a monarchy which is a fancy dress parade or you can have a monarch who upholds Church teaching. Anglican fudge will not work here. The Queen who signs legislation of the sort that Elizabeth II signs cannot be a Popess at the same time. Constitutional re-thinking needed, boys and girls. Not to mention that the Catholics could have told you so etc. etc.

3 June 2013 at 10:06  
Blogger Peter D said...

The Christian Monarchy ended on Tuesday, 30 January 1649. His last words:

"I shall go from a corruptible to an incorruptible Crown, where no disturbance can be."

3 June 2013 at 10:50  
Blogger Jon said...

Surely the Queen assenting to democratically- passed legislation is consistent with her view of the Church? That of a quiet voice of moral leadership, seeking common ground, understanding and compassion, coupled with effective social action, rather than shrill condemnatory voices proffering absolutist philosophies and little in the way of love.

And those who suggest that she take a hard line against any legislation she disagrees with forget the oath she took to dedicate her life to her role.

I would suggest that the Queen's exemplary dedication to public service (with very few mis-steps in a life lived almost wholly in public) does more to bring glory to her God than any abdication on grounds of principle (with which she may privately disagree - who knows?).

Brother Ivo's previous post reminded people of the virtue of allowing for differing interpretations of events and debates (even ones attended by those who could be expected to understand them most fully). Perhaps it's time for the hardliners here to accept that equal marriage has passed the democratic hurdles placed in its way, and your hopes for its failure rest with undemocratic Lords, assuming that they can tear themselves away from personal enrichment for long enough to vote!

3 June 2013 at 14:38  
Blogger Oliver Nicholson said...

Her Majesty does not sign Acts of Parliament. La Reine le veult (or s'avisera).

3 June 2013 at 23:58  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Thank you, Your Grace. Nary a mention of the anniversary in our media here, perhaps due to its clinical obsession with and pathological hatred of our (Toronto's) mayor. I did see one small Unions flag flying from a car window, though. God save the Queen.

4 June 2013 at 00:54  
Blogger Peter D said...

Jon said ...
"Surely the Queen assenting to democratically- passed legislation is consistent with her view of the Church? That of a quiet voice of moral leadership, seeking common ground, understanding and compassion, coupled with effective social action, rather than shrill condemnatory voices proffering absolutist philosophies and little in the way of love."

Possibly but this view is hardly in accord with her Coronation Oath, her role in the Established Church or with orthodox Christian teaching.

Frankly, if the Monarch and the Church of England cannot be relied upon to defend and promote Christianity above all other faiths and beliefs, then what's the point of having an Established Church or a sham Coronation Ceremony with christian 'frills'? It'll just be fancy dress and theatre. A further affront to God.

4 June 2013 at 12:53  
Blogger Jon said...

Dodo, maybe the Queen sees Christianity as a having a broader theological base than the Pope's skirts?

The Quakers for one are in favour of equal marriage...

5 June 2013 at 15:20  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older