The end of Anglicans
Why Anglicans?
The reason is that this merry ol King could not get a divorce. To fix all things Roman, the King or Queen was made the head of the church.
Now what would happen do you suppose if a Catholic were to become head of the Anglicans? Yup, that would be the end of that. No more Anglicans. Sort of like an ecumenical atomic bomb. They would immediately become Roman Catholics.
Since logic created their being, logic could uncreate them also.
So in 1701, the crucial safeguard law was made... no Catholic may become royal.
Except for that tiny dike all of Anglicanism would fall like a house of cards.
That proud sissy practicing homosexual bishop Gene Robinson would have to go too. Well, since Anglicans practice apostolic succession, I guess it wouldn't be that easy. Perhaps he could be banished to Sodom to find some repentance.
This past week Buckingham Palace announced the engagement between Peter Phillips and Autumn Kelly, a Canadian management consultant, but no mention of a date for their marriage was made.
Even more interesting, is the fact that Autumn Kelly is Catholic. Ms. Kelly’s Catholicism brings to the light of day the 1701 Act of Settlement which bars any member of the Royal family from becoming or marrying Catholics.
The Tablet, the Catholic weekly, has now established that she was baptized on June 18, 1978, at St. John Fisher parish church in Point-Claire, a suburb of Montreal. A spokesman for the church told the Daily Telegraph that Ms. Kelly's mother, Kitty, had authorized the information to be disclosed, saying that her daughter was proud of her religion.
According to the Act, which discriminates uniquely against Catholics, there is nothing barring a monarch from marrying a Hindu, Muslim or someone from any other faith.
posted by Joseph | Sunday, August 05, 2007
3 Comments:
get your facts straight
unbiblical practices, liturgical abuses, immoral conduct of church clergy, obvious political interference in papal decision making, need I continue? Continuing REAL apostolic succession and upholding the rightful practices and traditions of the early church are the obvious reasons for the Anglican church and thank God for it.
Thanks for your comments.
I am glad to hear there are better reasons for current Anglicans to be Anglicans than Henry.
I have heard none of that before. It was always Henry, St. Thomas Moore, Cromwell, and the divorce.
Perhaps your issues were mentioned in royal documents, but I wouldn't think anyone took them seriously. It sounds perhaps like rational invented to explain the continued separation.
Certainly England had the same liturgy, number of immoral clergy, and political Henry's interference in papal decision making.
As for unbibical practices, I would hope that to be the only real point of contention between all the 1000's of denominations protestants have spawned. Yet that leaves us with 1000's of current arguments. I still think it was the divorce alone.
Let's fast forward to the 1800's and John Henry Newman. With the King's divorce issue long gone, I don't remember John Henry getting stuck on any of your issues. He may have had to work through them during his long road to conversion, but he never mentioned them as current 1800's problems which should prevent reunification.
That's really my whole point. Why be stuck today with Henry's divorce problems? It's over.
Post a Comment
<< Home