Comments on: Queens, Kings and Churches

By: John Wrake

John Wrake — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 11:49:30 +0000

Dear Matthew Reynolds,
Apart from just defending my point of view, as you condescendingly put it (incidentally, what are you doing?), I note that you do not explain in your reply how the Pope can be a foreign power and successor of Roman Emperors and also not a foreign power, all at the same time.
It is good that you approve of better relations between the C of E and the R C church. The same might be said of the relations with the Orthodox church, but these thoughts are hardly relevant to questions about the propriety of a Roman Catholic on the English throne.
Whether you like it or not, the English monarchy is committed to uphold and defend the Protestant faith. That is historical fact, written into our Constitution.
How might a Roman Catholic monarch do that in good conscience?
I think that another word which our leaders in State and Churches should ponder is the word “fudge”.

By: Matthew Reynolds

Matthew Reynolds — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:01:31 +0000

You are just defending your point of view and I applaud your candor and honesty. I accept that you where attacking PC nonsense rather than the Roman Catholic Church and of course what pleases me is that relations between the C of E and the Church of Rome are friendlier than has hitherto been the case. It is good that we can exchange these views freely – that at least suggests that things are better than in the past.

By: John Wrake

John Wrake — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:41:00 +0000

Dear Matthew,
It is difficult to reconcile your statement that the Pope is not a foreign power with your statement in an earlier comment that he rules over a large number of people as a successor to the Roman Emperors.
If you can convince me that the Pope is not foreign and that he has no power, your argument would have more weight.
As for the honesty and faithfulness of the Roman Catholic martyrs you mention, I don’t doubt thair faithfulness to the Pope, but I find it strange that you mention HenryVIII, the Roman bugaboo, but fail to mention Elizabeth I, who was the subject of a number of plots involving Roman Catholics, not to mention an invasion attempt by His Catholic Majesty, Philip of Spain, nor the failed attempt to destroy the King in Parliament on 5 Nov. 1605.
As for early Christianity here, Celtic Christianity owed nothing to the Roman variety.
My comments on John’s Diary entry are not aimed at bashing the Romans, but at the folly of those who use words loosely to support ridiculous arguments.
I applaud your call to follow Christ, rather than any human leader, a call which Martin Luther endorsed.

By: Matthew Reynolds

Matthew Reynolds — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 11:30:24 +0000

But surely people even the Monarch ought to put loyalty to Christ first as the Papacy is not a foreign power. There were abuses & bad Popes but the Reformation was an overreaction. My point is that during a recession it is not a wise time to be banging on about this and I may say that as an Englishman I am not stupid because I went to a state school and that there was Roman Christianity in England prior to St Gregory & St Augustine’s time as it was run from Rome from the time of St Constantine onwards when England was under Roman rule.

The Romans brought it here and then Saint’s Gregory & Augustine codified and clarified matters. I admire the ‘honesty’ ,’ faithfulness’ and’ loyalty’ of the Catholic martyrs who suffered under the anti-Catholic regimes of Henry VIII , Joseph Stalin , Adolf Hitler and the Socialists in 1930′s Spain. I believe that God is for everyone not just the English. As a Christian one should tell the truth about history and should put fidelity to Christ ahead of secularism & nationalism. Judas was a warning about bad people in the Church – not a reason to ignore true Christianity. So it is the case with bad Pope’s.

By: Matthew Reynolds

Matthew Reynolds — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 21:15:30 +0000

I could also add to that by saying that Michael Portillo was wrong to suggest on Channel 4 recently that Emperor St Constantine I corrupted Christianity as it sold out to gain privileges from the Roman state. That is not the case at all the Good Lord rewarded the Emperor with sainthood because he ensured that Christianity went from being persecuted to being actively promoted thus getting more believers and thus seeing more people bound for eternal bliss. After the Roman Empire ended there was still a Bishop of Rome so the secular monarchy ended but had left the Church the machinery to run a worldwide religion. In a way the Papal system is the successor to the Roman Emperors as it rules over a large number of people throughout the known world.

So the Catholic Church seems alien because it is the latter day successor to the ancient Church. The Church of Rome is different to the C of E as Catholicism can claim rightly to date not just from the time of our Lord but from Old Testament times. God used the Roman Empire as part of the divine plan to spread the Gospel – the British State from Henry VIII onwards has used the Anglican Church as a propaganda device.

The Papacy is not really a foreign power at all – it is Almighty God’s way of ensuring the Church is defended from corrupting secular influence by maintaining the purity of its teaching.

By: John Wrake

John Wrake — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 18:20:58 +0000

Dear Matthew Reynolds,
You would seem to have confused Catholic with Roman Catholic.
Despite the views of Pharaohs and cardinal Newman, as English people we need to remember that there was a Christian Church in this country long before the Pope sent Augustine, that the Reformation was a correction to Roman Catholic abuses, that English monarchs of both sexes have taken oaths to uphold English law and customs and that all who hold office in this country, whether in Parliament, Courts or the Queens Forces have promised allegiance to the Queen.

Those who prate about discrimination in an ignorant fashion might encourage their fellow office-holders to consider the meaning of the word “oath” in relation to their oath of allegiance to the Queen.

It appears that the poor quality of education provided by the State for our children reflects the poverty of thought and understanding amongst those who, at present, claim to govern us. I might suggest “honesty”, “faithfulness” and “loyalty” should feature in studies for would-be representatives of the people. Like “discrimination”, too few in power seem to know what the words mean

By: mikestallard

mikestallard — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:28:36 +0000

Actually, I don’t think the Catholic question is the most important today. How about Prince William marrying a Muslim – lots of extremely well brought up and well educated girls there!

By: mikestallard

mikestallard — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:24:53 +0000

Yes! Harriet Harman for President!

By: Matthew Reynolds

Matthew Reynolds — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 15:40:42 +0000

But surely the point is that God’s Holy Church should be universal (i.e. Catholic) and superior to secular government ? Looking a Holy Scripture in the Old Testament the King’s of Egypt bowed to the pronouncements of the Court Vizer and the scribes as heirs to the Tradition of Moses were always listened to with respect. When Our Lord came along he took the machinery of Old Testament religions and perfected them according to the mind of God. St Peter had the special ministry to run the Church not the Roman Emperor – to be faithful to that now is to want His Holiness The Pope to govern the Church in succession to St Peter. As Cardinal Newman always maintained the early Church is as like the latter day Catholic Church as – just like seeing a photo of a man in youth and then in later life. It is basically the same just more developed. The Old Testament is imperfect on purpose as it shows that trying to serve God without the revelation of Christ will not workout.

The Papacy is only a foreign power in the sense that it is not an appendage of the secular British state but it was created by God and the Pope will face the consequences of his actions in the next life like we all will. Bad Popes just prove that we all need God’s Grace – they themselves do not disprove the need for successors of St Peter.

By: Matthew Reynolds

Matthew Reynolds — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 15:26:38 +0000

Why ask the French to ax the Salic Law when they do not have a monarchy ( thanks to Henri V deciding that exile in Austria was better than compromising over La Tricolor being the French Flag rather than the Bourbon Lilies) ?

I cannot see how the French ending the Salic Law would help since it is just surely a private matter for the Imperial Claimants of the Bonaparte Dynasty and the Royal members of the Royal Houses of Bourbon & Orleans respectively ?

Whether they stay a republic or opt for either Napoleon VII or Louis XX or Henri VII is a matter for them as our Monarchs stopped calling themselves Kings of France in 1807. It cannot have any implications for our Royal Succession surely ?

The only scary thing is that equal rights for Princesses could in 1901 have lumbered us with Kaiser Bill as King William V of England . Queen Victoria’s daughter only outlived her mother by a few months and so Germany could have taken over the British Empire and vast swathes of the globe would have been run along Prussian lines from Berlin.

Surely those who think that we were right to fight Louis XIV’s plans to merge the Spanish & French Crowns with his grandson becoming King of Spain & France must also think that having Kaiser Bill running roughshod over our constitutional liberties would not have been good. In short if waging the Wars of The Spanish Succession was right against Louis XIV then having a quirk in our laws of succession in 1901 to stop the Kaiser becoming King of Great Britain was a stroke of luck.