Interesting letter in the Sunday Times (pg 18 and here) which reads:
QUESTION OF FAITH: Can Catholics, in good faith, pledge allegiance to a Protestant monarch? I can’t see Pope Benedict sitting still for this one.
It’s certainly another angle to an already contentious issue.
Great little review of Listening to Van Morrison by Griel Marcus… It’s a short book, not a biography or a career survey, but an attempt to follow those moments in Morrison’s music, as he’s made it from his first records with Them, from Belfast in 1965 to the present day, when something happens that breaks [...] read our review »
It’s not published until 3rd March, but one book I recommend you place an advance order for from Slugger’s Bookstore is James Harkin’s Niche. Belfast émigré Harkin examines a number of stories from business, culture and politics and comes to a single insight: everywhere the broad middle is collapsing. He offers Woolworths as an iconic exemplar [...] read our review »
I’m afraid this was settled in the C18th.
No, and I wouldn’t pledge allegiance to the Pope either. But, I do respect him, and would respect a head of state no matter what religion they are as long as they are chosen by the people or parliament.
My inability to pledge alegiance to the Queen is not based on religion, so if the Act of Settlement was overturned and a Catholic [i]could[/i] inherit the mantle of head of state it would not make a difference.
Monarchies are simply anachronisms and indefensible in the 21st century.
And I accept that the Pope is not elected by open vote as head of state of the Vatican! That’s probably a special case though. My respect for him is derived from his position as head of the church.
“It’s certainly another angle to an already contentious issue.”
No, it isn’t. And it was silly of you to waste broadwidth bringing it up for discussion. There are a hell of a lot of more sensible subjects to talk about than this ridiculous topic.
Use your head, mate. If you have nothing to say, say nothing. It’s as simple as that.
“And I accept that the Pope is not elected by open vote as head of state of the Vatican! That’s probably a special case though. My respect for him is derived from his position as head of the church.”
Ridiculous double-standards but completely expected…….
‘Monarchies are simply anachronisms and indefensible in the 21st century. ‘
Anachronism -Yes
Indefensible – well maybe . But as long as a majority of the Brits want a royal family and British taxpayers pay for their upkeep then long may she rain over them -God shave her !
‘to an already contentious issue.’
Is it ? I would’nt have thought so .
Yes, I believe Catholics can pledge allegiance to the Queen without upsetting the Pope. It is written in Canon law that:
“The constitutions of princes are not superior to ecclesiastical constitutions, but subordinate to them.”
[i](Corpus Juris Canonici, Decreti, pars i. distinct. x.)[/i]
“The law of the emperors cannot dissolve the ecclesiastical law.”
[i](Idem, Decreti, pars i. distinct. x. can. i.)[/i]
“Constitutions cannot contravene good manners and the decrees of the Roman prelates.”
[i](Idem, Decreti, pars i. distinct. x. can iv.)[/i]
“Whatever belongs to priests cannot be usurped by kings.”
[i](Idem, Decreti, pars i. distinct. x. can. vi.)[/i]
“The temporal power can neither loose nor bind the Pope.”
[i](Idem, Decreti, pars i. distinct. xcvi. can. vii.)[/i]
“It does not belong to the Emperor to judge the actions of the Pope.”
[i](Idem, Decreti, pars i. distinct. xcvi. can. viii.)[/i]
“The Bishop of Rome may excommunicate emperors and princes, depose them from their states, and assoil their subjects from their oath of obedience to them.”
[i](Decreti, pars i, distinct. xcvi. can. x., and Decreti, pars ii. causa xv. quest. vi. can. iii. iv. v.)[/i]
……it’s all self explanatory, according to the Vatican the Queen is a subject of the Pope, so if you pledge allegiance to the Queen, you’re pledging allegiance to the Pope too.
My very sketchy understanding of this is that a pledge of allegiance would be acceptable under catholic law as long as the monarch wasn’t excommunicated, at which point catholics are no longer allowed to recognise the monarch as head of state.
In RC Chruches in England, they pray for their Queen. Not Mary, Queen of the Gael but Elizabrit. RCs are forbidden by English sectarians to be monarchs. And Ulster’s sectarians quite naturally support that sectarian policy. The issue of monarchy itself is a different question from the sectarian issue of King Billy and those others who subsequently gotthe brit throne for themselves.
Good point Gav. I don’t think Elizabeth was ever excommunicated. We need the Popes to intervene on this issue and explain this matter to his subjects in Britain.
[i]“RCs are forbidden by English sectarians to be monarchs. And Ulster’s sectarians quite naturally support that sectarian policy. The issue of monarchy itself is a different question from the sectarian issue of King Billy and those others who subsequently gotthe brit throne for themselves.”[/i]
For goodness sake George V1, grow a brain.
Ok. As I said above, this issue was settled in the 18th century. With a clear yes. The idea that Catholics owed no allegiance to a heretical monarch was rejected. Hence all those prayers for His Majesty and the success of his armies and successors throughout much of the eighteenth, nineteenth and into the twentieth centuries. In the same way that German Catholics pledged allegiance to a Protestant monarch.
I hate to disappoint the fantasists from both sides but that’s the reality.
I’ll probably regret this but who is “Mary – Queen of the Gaels”?
Although it would be nice to hear it from the horses mouth, I think the Vatican sees everyone who is baptised into the Christian faith as Roman Catholics anyway. That would mean the Vatican sees Elizabeth II as part of the church because she hasn’t condemned the Bishop of Rome (Pope).
According to this particular Canon the temporal power has to go against the decrees of the Pope in order to be excommunicated, just like how Elizabeth I voiced her opposition when she got excommunicated.
“We ordain that kings, and bishops, and nobles, who shall permit the decrees of the Bishop of Rome in anything to be violated, shall be accursed, and be for ever guilty before God as transgressors against the Catholic faith.”
[i](Decreti, pars ii. causa xxv. quest. i. can. xi.)[/i]
I would argue the matter was settled in the 1st century AD (see Matthew 22:15-21). The problem is not the question of whether allegiance is split between the temporal and spiritual, it was when spiritual authorities chose to assume temporal powers and who disputed the tearing of those powers from them by the Treaty of Westphalia.
1 Samuel 10v24 “God save the King”
Where is the double standard, Democratic? I pointed out the seeming inconsistency myself. Churches can pick their leaders how they want – and so I respect the Queen as head of the English church. The Vatican hardly counts as a state for the purposes of this discussion.
Isn’t that fair? Or should I be calling for free and open elections for the head of state of the Vatican? It only has a temporary population of 50 or so anyway so I dont know how that would work.
It shows Gum that your morals views and standards on the subject of heads (Pope / Queen)of state and church unelected by their own people are heavily slanted towards that which you find agreeable only. I would suspect the same is true of many Monarchy haters on this forum. BTW – that is not to say that I disagree with you though either – I just like to see the same logic conclusions applied across the board.
no gods, no masters – anyone?
>>I think the Vatican sees everyone who is baptised into the Christian faith as Roman Catholics< <
Don't be daft!
A question to ponder.
Should as is expected a large section(if not the majority) of Anglicans/Episcopalians move to be in communion with Rome. Will there be mass baptisms at local RC churches, or would their standing baptism suffice?
>>Can Catholics, in good faith, pledge allegiance to a Protestant monarch?<<
As soon as the anti-Catholic Act of settlement is repealed, why not. If that is your bag, so olde worlde though isn’t it?
[i]“Should as is expected a large section(if not the majority) of Anglicans/Episcopalians move to be in communion with Rome. Will there be mass baptisms at local RC churches, or would their standing baptism suffice?”[/i]
as I said earlier the Vatican does not see baptism as the barrier, it is the communion or eucharist that will be the unifying factor. That has to be performed by an RC priest.
Does the Pope still have the power (in theory and only amongst Catholics obviously) to discredit a Monarch and negate their claim to said countrys throne should they offend the Catholic Church (e.g. Elizabeth 1)
Democratic
As a medieval total war addict, the bastardin pope can eff up your plans for world domination believe me. By excommunicating you he causes the great unwashed to question your ability to lead them, and the bastards tend to rebel.
UMH
I honestly don’t have a clue, but why would the first and most important sacrament(baptism) be bypassed?
“As a medieval total war addict, the bastardin pope can eff up your plans for world domination believe me. By excommunicating you he causes the great unwashed to question your ability to lead them, and the bastards tend to rebel”
LOL – Have played the Rome Total War Prince(no pun intended)- good craic it is too!
Democratic, we probably believe the same thing here to be honest. I don’t pledge allegiance to the Pope or any politician or any head of state. The fact that the Catholic church’s headquarters is a state confuses things a bit. The fact that there are no ordanary citizens of the Vatican besides the civil servants (clergy) that work there makes me consider it a bit of an anomaly. But your point is a theoretical one and I accept it.
Democratic
Naw! I hate Rome TW, I paid 30 quid for it when it came out. What a waste. Med TW/Viking invasion gold is the best.
[i]“but why would the first and most important sacrament(baptism) be bypassed?”[/i]
Prince Eoghan, I did read a Vatican Ecumenical document a good while ago which stated it viewed baptism, as long as it was Christian, as a unifying factor. The Vatican had no qualms about what religion your were baptised in, it had issues with the way the Lord’s supper is performed and who performs it.
There might well be other technical hitches, but I suppose one could look at there decision as an easy way of converting Protestants, without the need for a new baptism.
I don’t think the fact that the Queen is unelected makes any difference to this issue. I wouldn’t swear an oath to the President of Ireland either. She works for us not the other way around. She is the one who takes the oath.
UMH
>>I did read a Vatican Ecumenical document<<
What happened, don’t tell me you were knocked back? Don’t converts read these things, frig me! otherwise you need to get a hobby. LOL! Like I say I am a good Catholic, which means I know nothing of ecclesiastical issue ;¬)
Very true Henry!
>>I did read a Vatican Ecumenical document<<
[i]“What happened, don’t tell me you were knocked back? Don’t converts read these things, frig me! otherwise you need to get a hobby.”[/i]
I like to know what they’re planning next. You can always depend on the Vatican for a good story, there’s something new every day.
Mary Queen of the Gael is the Mother of God, who looks over Holy Ireland not only on St patrick’s day but on all days. All regular readers of An Phoblacht would have seen her mentioned many times in the death notices (Of Volunteers, who died for Ireland, just as Jesus died for us)
The Catholic Church is the one, true, holy and apostoliic church and so we proclaim every Sunday. To equate the German queen of Britland (who gets poked by a Greek) to God or the Pope is blasphemous.
The Brits still keep FD on their coins. But the Fs are not of the right faith. Many of them are not even Celtic supporters.
Britain is a sectarian state. Will Prince Charles, who wants to be a tampon, be head of the Harry Potty Anglican church and should we pray to him or his wife’s tampon? (if she still uses them).
Extra, what’s the need for the tasteless, sex-obsessed language ? You come across as a guy with issues, rather than with a point. Is that what Christianity is all about ? I didn’t think so.
Too much of the black stuff Extra Ecclesia, lol.
[i]She works for us not the other way around. She is the one who takes the oath[/i]
Exactly Henry! Well put.
Henry94: She works for us not the other way around. She is the one who takes the oath.
However, she’s not the only one:
http://www.thedukeofyork.org/output/Page4105.asp
That’s interesting Reader. You learn something every year in the blogsphere.
The Brits still keep FD on their coins. But the Fs are not of the right faith. Many of them are not even Celtic supporters.
Occasionally even trolls are funny.
Michael Shilliday with his orange pinnie on again.He learnt all this tripe from the cradle and furthermore he is a dissenter!!. To use our monarch and our country for cheap political point scoring is simply not the act of a gentleman. It is sheer naked triumphalism of the lowest possible type. Attitudes like this were a catalyst for the troubles and arrogant ill educated protestant twits fanned the flames with their point scoring sallies. Get a life, find a bird, and enjoy your youth. It only comes round once, and in the meanwhile start chasing skirt of all religous persuasions and down a few pints of stout whilst your at it.
‘Leave Ireland for the Irish, not for London nor for Rome.’
If only it were that easy…
But seriously, does this guy expect schools in West Belfast and South Armagh to do this too? What about all the Scottish and Welsh nationalists? One Britain, many cultures? Yer havin’ a laugh.