www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Call to lift Catholic monarchy ban

As I have said before...
If the British wish to spend their tax money to allow that family to live in splendor and perform ceremonial functions - it's their money. What was that part about a fool and his money being often parted?

Moving to an earlier point:

Friends, I do believe "sedes vacante" that Fr. Stephanos refers to means something similar to "the Seat is vacant", refering to the Seat of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Some number of persons believe that the See of Rome does not have a "real" Pope, and are therefore called "sedevacantists".

In this case, "sedes vacante" accurately describes Rome's position on the validity of the Archbishop of Canterbury, to my knowledge.

LV, who is WAY past bedtime...........

Isn't it Westminster that is now the primary See for the RC in England? I don't think Rome ever filled the Canterbury post after it became the principal Protestant See.

Don't look at me - I'm a Scot


Anhelyna

Good morning to all.

The Roman Catholic metropolitan see of Canterbury is not "sede vacante." It is extinct. There is a real difference between extinct sees and vacant sees. If Canterbury, as a Catholic see, were considered "sede vacante", it would be listed in the "Annuario Pontificio", but it is not, and likewise for the other pre-Reformation sees. The Roman Catholic hierarchy was re-established in England and Wales on 29 September 1850 with new sees whose titles did not duplicate those of the extinct sees. I hope that this clarifies this issue.

Have a blessed day!

Charles

Dear Friends,

Relations between Rome and Canterbury are good, nevertheless.

When Pope John Paul II was there at one time (and I belong to those Catholics who consider John Paul II to be a valid Pope, by the way), the Archbishop of Canterbury said that His Holiness should really lie down for a nap after a hectic day.

To this the Pope shrugged and said, "In Canterbury, the Pope listens to the Archbishop!"

There's more ecumenical feeling there than on this thread for some reason . . .

Alex

At the time of the restoration of the Latin hierarchy in England (I forget the exact date, but it was the middle of the 19th century), the issue arose of what territorial titles should be used. It is against English law for Catholic bishops to use any title employed by the Church of England. On the other hand, the CAtholcs in England were very anxious that this should be, clearly, a revival of the hierarchy, not the creation of a new hierarchy. So Rome compromised. With one exception, all the titles were new - but the one exception is a medieval see which already had an Anglican incumbent. There was a great noise, and Mrs Saxe-Coburg-Gotha's nose was definitely out of joint, but eventually life settled down to other problems.
To this day, if one cares to go to Westminster Cathedral, one can see on large brass (or maybe bronze) plates the names of the Catholic Primates of England, from Saint Augustine to Murphy-O'Connor, so evidently Westminster is considered the direct Catholic continuation of Canterbury (or Cantuar, if you prefer).
Incognitus

Dear Incognitus,

If that is the way you wish to refer to my Queen and Sovereign, then please put it into your pants behind your riassa and hide it there.

If the Roman Catholic Popes had stuck to spirituality rather than secular politics with respect to Britain, they wouldn't have had the bad reputation they continue to have there - and elsewhere ie. Orthodoxy.

I'm a member of the Society of King Charles the Martyr and love the Stuart line.

We have Stuart supporters in the Monarchist League of Canada.

I've yet to meet one who is as deplorably disrespectful to Her Majesty the Queen of Britain, Canada and her other realms and territories as you.

Shame on you and if you had an ounce of Christian decency you would apologise and withdraw that remark as unbecoming a gentleman.

But I won't hold my breath.

Alex

If only modern day monarchists have an enduring fealty to the throne of Peter as they unabashedly do to the UK royalty, my day is done! :p

Amado

God shave the Queen!
Stephanos I

Dear Amadeus,

Some of the most loyal Catholics I know are also monarchists!

Historically, as you know, the two go hand in hand, as they do in Orthodox Russia today.

Our Anglican Monarchist League chaplain always commemorated the Pope during his services.

He belonged to a movement to unite the Anglican church to Rome.

Alex

Bless Father Stephanos,

I'm sure you meant to say "Save the Queen!"

She has no facial hair that she needs to shave. I've met and spoken to her more than once and I know that for sure.

"Long may she reign over us!"

And as for you Americans, it's never too late to come home!

Perhaps being a monarchy will calm you down a bit. . .

Alex

I have heard the English really look up to their queens - in fact, they even allow them to marry Sorry, bad joke, but I couldn't resist.
Although I am definitely not a monarchist - I tend to be more of an admirer of the Stuarts than those German immigrants now in place. But I could do without monarchy altogether. It's a great system when you have a saint on the throne, but an incredibly evil system when a monster occupies it.

Dear ByzanTN,
'
Most governing monsters today are republican dictators - and some of your presidents, I daresay.

Constitutional monarchy is the best system of government yet devised by sinful humanity.

Some believe that if the US was still in union with the Crown, you would never have had the Civil War. Your head of state is the same as your head of government - a potentially dangerous situation to begin with.

The German "immigrants" you describe so respectfully were invited to come when the Stuarts became Roman Catholic. It wasn't anything personal against the Stuarts - who were never exactly what one might call 'stellar' rulers to begin with, although they did produce some saintly monarchs, like Mary Queen of Scots, Charles I and James II.

And the Americans during their Revolution imported more "German immigrants" in the person of soldiers to help them fight the British and the Loyalists than Britain ever did.

As a point of information, American Loyalists fighting the Patriots outnumbered the British and other soldiers. Those Loyalists moved northward to Canada to avoid persecution by the new, "democratic" USA and settled here, estalishing the foundations for the Dominion of Canada.

Remember also that the way in which you honour your President reflects some royal ways, as some "Sons of the Revolution" have shown me on other occasions.

That's fine and it's great that the US is now supporting monarchies for other societies that it now knows need them.

Alex

Hey, anymore I would agree that our government is just as screwed-up as anybody's - yours included.