I mean, if a man can marry a man and a woman can marry a woman, why can't dogs rule Britannia?
There are consequences to re-writing nature, Your Majesty.
Strikes me the corgis have a better understanding of natural law than the reigning monarch.
God save the Queen and her subjects...and the corgis of course, because bestial marriage isn't far away now. If Parliament presented Her Majesty with a piece of legislation covered in dung would she sign it? Now, we have our answer.
Christian monarch, right? We now live in a country in which even dumb animals have a better understanding of nature's law than do Queen and Parliament. We can all of us fall into sin through error and weakness, but we see now how, outside of the Ark of Salvation, the Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, how easy it is for those who claim to be Christians to become active participatory members of the mystical body of Antichrist, since this law will undoubtedly lead to the persecution of those who are loyal to Jesus Christ.
Let us be quite clear about this. On 2nd June 1953, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II made an Oath before Almighty God during the ceremony of her Coronation. She has always made a public appearance that she takes these oaths seriously. This is what was asked of Her Majesty:
Archbishop: "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?"
Queen: "All this I promise to do."
Your Majesty, you are henceforth a liar and not just any kind of liar, but a liar to Almighty God Himself at whose Throne you shall answer upon your Death. Many Christian monarchs have broken marital vows before their Death and Judgment. Only one has destroyed the inherent meaning and definition of marriage itself. That monarch is you.
Update: Some seem to think our Sovereign had 'no choice' in this matter. Perhaps constitutionally this is the case, but Stonewall obviously do not see it that way.
28 comments:
Sadly, she was a liar when she signed the abortion act.
Strong post but she should use her judgement on what and what is not acceptable, however CoE clergy that I have spoke with are quite happy with legislation so maybe her spiritual advisors have informed her of a similar view and she sees no problems - a bit like Henry number 8 who also could not see the wood for the trees!
In days gone by for calling the monarch a liar you would have been hung, drawn and quartered. You should thank God that you live in a constitutional monarch (which limits what the monarch can do) or perhaps you have become God since you can see into someone else's soul.
Shame on her for signing these laws.
Savaronla,
In what sense did Elizabeth II not betray her Oath before God?
She is more accountable to God than her subjects because she inherits the Divine Right, therefore will be judged more severely than her subjects.
I don't see into her soul, but has she not condemned herself by own hand?
Has she not, by her own hand, destroyed marriage and turned it from being something ordained by God into something perverted from the natural order?
It was the Law of God she promised to defend before Almighty God. She has breached this Oath, therefore she has lied to God.
We should call on her to do as St John the Baptist asked of King Herod.
"Repent!"
The important point about the Coronation Oath is that everything the Queen promises to do is subject to the caveat "as by law established" Therefore since the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 has been passed "by law" the Queen is not in breach of her oath by consenting to it.
Once you have a state religion established "by law" then the state becomes the ultimate arbiter of what that Religion believes.
The Queen is a Constitutional Monarch and whatever anyone's personal views are regarding the Act the Queen acted properly and Constitutionally in signing it
Yes, but the Oath uses the words, 'the Law of God'.
Are you saying the Law of God can be changed by men?
I repeat
"Once you have a state religion established "by law" then the state becomes the ultimate arbiter of what that Religion believes."
Well, I'm intrigued as to whether the Court of Heaven sees things in such nuanced terms, Mr Addison.
I like your blog and your strength of character. I have been following what is happening in your country. America is next... all this is fast approaching my own country. God help us all! Keep up the good work and fidelity to Christ and His Church!
As the Queen has seen fit to break her Coronation Oath, I now do not regard myself as her loyal subject.
As she is also the Governer of the Church of England, which now obeys Cameron's laws rather than God's laws who in their right mind could claim to be an Anglican?
Joke Church led by a joke Governor
"Equal marriage", huh? What a corruption of language, but then these people specialise in that. Sorry, Stonewallers, despite your delusions it's not "equal" and it's not "marriage". Although maybe there's a certain perverted (hah) logic there all right, because 0 + 0 = 0.
Bones: You say "Well, I'm intrigued as to whether the Court of Heaven sees things in such nuanced terms, Mr Addison."
Well of course Heaven has never seen the CofE as anything other than a usurpation of the role of the Pope by the Monarch. But Mr Addison is technically correct as a matter of English law.
I imagine the court of heaven sees things with compassion and that the Queen will submit herself to its judgment trusting in God's mercy - as we all must for all our various misdeeds. Let the one among you without sin ...
Incidentally, St. Paul says that in Christ there is no distinction of male and female. What might that mean for same-sex marriage? The Gospel is always more radical than our limited interpretations of it can encompass. As someone said the trouble with Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it has never been tried.
'Incidentally, St. Paul says that in Christ there is no distinction of male and female. What might that mean for same-sex marriage? The Gospel is always more radical than our limited interpretations of it can encompass.'
Hmm...sounds a little Protestant.
Hmm ... is St. Paul a Protestant? It is his words I quoted. Sticking on a disparaging label is a good way of evading having to face the radical implications of the Gospel.
Savonarola
You have read what St Paul said about homosexuality, haven't you?
Yes, why would you think I haven't? But you misunderstand my point. Galatians 3: 28 expresses what seems to be very much the message of the Gospel that in Christ all human distinctions and divisions evaporate. This is true catholicism - universal, inclusive, all-embracing. I am merely asking what that might say about our Catholic opposition to same-sex marriage. How it squares with what St. Paul says elsewhere in Romans is another question. I am not giving an answer, but would suggest that if we are serious about our faith we have to address such questions and not hide behind our barricades or imagine that we - or someone - has already got it fully and properly worked out.
Romans 1:26-27:
[26] For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, [27] and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
St Paul, I think, had it right first time. The Apostolic Constitutions of the Catholic Church too condemned sodomy and it still ranks in the top four sins crying out to Heaven for vengeance.
What makes you think the Church does not have an answer for the morality etc of homosexuality?
Again you misunderstand. I did not say that the Church has no answers to moral questions. I simply ask you to consider how the two quite different views of St. Paul might hold together. That might also lead you to consider that things are not always as clear-cut and straightforward as some Catholics like to think, which is not surprising seeing that God is mysterious and beyond our complete understanding - or perhaps you believe that Catholics have got him fully and finally worked out so that there can be nothing more of God for us to discover? I don't think that is the general Catholic position.
Galatians predates Romans, so the opinion expressed in the latter is not Paul's first thoughts. The one in Galatians is!
So, in the 21st century, after now millennia of Catholic thought on the subject, from the Apostles, through to the Doctors and Fathers of the Church, right up until the present day, you think that in this century, in which the Face of God is scantily sought in the West, at least, the minds of modern men will perceive something about homosexual relationships that will have the Church decreeing that homosexual acts are okay?
Are you really a Catholic?
I don't know how to get you to understand that I am not advancing any opinions at all (for what it is worth I am against same-sex marriage) - and I am just as much a Catholic as you are as I am a baptised member of the Catholic Church. All I am suggesting is that the Gospel is bigger than us and bigger than the Catholic Church. If there is no distinction between persons in Christ that should at the very least cause us to question the way in which we do make distinctions between people. Whether we have been doing it for two or more millennia is neither here nor there. People often persist in erroneous views for centuries, which is what one would expect seeing that God is the same yesterday, today and forever, but our perceptions and understandings of God are bound to change and develop.
If all you can do is hide behind authorities I think you are never going to get the full import of the Gospel, as they are as limited as we are.
If you do not believe what the Holy Catholic Church has taught infallibly since the beginning then you are Catholic in name only.
The Gospel is not bigger than the Church. The Gospel is to be found in the Catholic Church, since the Church can never be separated from its Divine Spouse, Jesus Christ, since it is His.
He founded it, on Peter and the Apostles. He sent the Holy Spirit to Her from the Eternal Father. He taught the Apostles the Truth which the Apostles taught and this truth was passed down through each century to us.
Since the beginning of the Church and before, homosexual acts - and all sexual activity outside of marriage - has been condemned as an abuse of the gift of sexuality God has given for the union of spouses and procreation.
You say you are a Catholic. You sound like an Anglican.
You sound as if you are rather desperately trying to convince yourself that the Catholic Church must have got everything to do with God perfectly worked out for all time because it is the Church you are relying on, not God. If you do not think that God is bigger than the Church, then I think you are not a true Catholic. But it is typical of this kind of Catholicism that it can only feel alive if it is denigrating others for not being Catholic. You clearly do not want to address the questions I am asking, so rather than continue with this dialogue I will wish you every blessing and hope you may one day experience the glorious liberty of the children of God and leave you with this thought I saw recently:
“Jesus was consistently inclusive. You try to find an example where Jesus intentionally excludes anyone. He will name their relationships honestly and correctly, but he never creates “in groups” and “out groups” and, in fact, moves in the very opposite direction.
Yet the common image of most Christian denominations is that they are largely exclusionary institutions. How did we ever get to this point? I think it is because most church people, and their leaders, have never transcended the early egocentric level of life.
Even the Eucharist itself is still used, at least in my Catholic Church, to define the worthy, the pure, and the true members, or as a reward for good behavior. Where did this come from? And we do it right after piously mumbling at Catholic Mass, “Lord, I am not worthy.” But I guess we think we still really are! Almost every time Jesus eats, he seems to be eating with the wrong people, at the wrong table, saying the wrong things, or not washing his hands ahead of time. By doing so, Jesus potentially rearranged the social order, because meal etiquette defined and maintained the social order and social class, and this is what surely upset both religion and state. Eucharist still could and will redefine social relationships, but we have not had a lot of success up to now. When I was growing up we had white churches, Mexican churches, and black churches all proclaiming their fervent belief in the Real Presence of Jesus—in their safe, separate groups. And some dare to say we did not need the reforms of Vatican II.”
Of course God is bigger than His Church, but the Gospel is to be found within Her.
http://thatthebonesyouhavecrushedmaythrill.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/st-paul-for-homosexual-unionsapparently.html
The Truth doesn't change, Savaronola, and neither do the nature of debate over such matters as this.
There are those who want the 'broad road' that leads to destruction and those who accept that the way to Salvation is a narrow road that calls us to fidelity to Christ and His Church.
Of course, it is very easy for us to slip away from the narrow road and to seek the broad road - such are the vagaries of our fallen, fragile, human nature.
Always and everywhere, the Church has condemned homosexuality as being contrary to nature and to the Divine Law. Always and everywhere, the Church has held the homosexual to Her breast and fed him on the Sacraments that bring him peace, salvation and restored friendship with God through Jesus Christ.
Of course, Christ did not come to condemn the homosexual, but to save him, but this is worlds apart from arguing that Christ came to confirm him in his sin.
Savonarola is going on about St Paul saying we must not make distinctions between people. Quite what kind of distinction does he think St Paul was referring to and which he thinks we still make?
Mr. Bellord, I am not going on about St. Paul saying we must not make distinctions between people. I quoted his saying that in Christ there are no distinctions and suggested we might consider what the implications of that are. So you can consider your question for yourself.
Savonarola: Having looked up Galatians 3:28 all St Paul seems to be saying is that all people who have been baptised and have therefore put on the person of Christ are equal in that respect. What further can you read into that? Certainly nothing about same-sex marriage.
Post a Comment