www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Church of Greece's Scandals

Dear Charles,

That is precisely the point of the Protestant Reformation.

It is a good thing that American Protestantism is so apolitical today!

Alex

Alex, some of it is apolitical, and some of it isn't. In many mainstream Protestant churches you will find some political indifference. In the fundamentalist churches, the opposite is true.

Hey Alex sorry if my sense of humour caught you off guard. I didnt mean it. I was just playing with you. I guess its that you cant see my facial expressions and tone of voice when I say these things?

Maybe I should use more smileys?

C'mon doc, you know me better than to hold a grudge. Love bears all things right? And I wasnt even offended in this case. I was just messing with you as per usual.

Once again my sincerest apologies if I upset you. In the sight of God and man I pray you accept my explanation and allow me, once more, to have your friendship.

Most apologetically
Myles

Dear Myles,

God bless you, Friend!

We loyal Subjects of Her Majesty need to stick together!

Especially on such a republican forum as this . . .

I keep telling them, though, that it's never too late to consider returning . . .

Alex

God save our gracious queen,
Long may Camilla reign....

Thank you for accepting my apology Alex, I re-iterate that I did not mean to appear rude in anyway. Having read Newman and Knox I'm sure you appreciate the 'English wit' and sense of humour, which is so intricately linked with sarcasm and satire. When I replied before I was just being British about it: Overstating my case simply as a rhetorical devise. I had no intention of questioning your intelligence in seriousness, just of making it so incredulous that I would support anyone called Cromwell that the very thought of it would be well...funny.

Naturally, were I serious I wouldnt call people brigands etc. I mean although I rue the destruction of England's monasteries and that all the Catholic monuments of this country are now in Parliament's hands, for one, its a word not even Oxionians use much anymore and, moreover, it denies the Christian spirit of love to be so bitingly judgemental. So please board in future if you see me do a vault face from writing about love on one post to being unberably rude elsewhere just remember I was born in England. Here thats how make laugh's, thats why nobody in the world can quite grasp our comedy except us. All in all, to speak 'on a level' as we Londoners say. I feel deeply sorry for the Protestants particularly the Puritans. They were people who had been practically brainwashed by Elizabeth I's 'sunday schools' into hating and fearing the Spanish/Catholic invaders. The idea of a Catholic monarch to these people was like the idea that the devil himself aka the Papist antichrist was going to come and take over their nation. They didnt realise the beauty of the mass or the sacramental grace they were denying themselves. It really wasnt their fault and we cannot really blame them for reacting as they'd been effectively programmed to by 'Gloriana'. Its sad though because they're missing out on such much because of it. I sincerely wish this country could be re-converted.

Away from that ByzanTN Camila will not be Queen. At the best King's consort and the worst another Wallis-Simpson. Whatever happens sir upon the death of Queen Elizabeth II the anthem shall ring out: "God save our gracious King" and until his death that shall not change.

Come, come pray for the conversion of William and Harry!

Oh, I know that. However, the thought of her appearing with Charles on Canadian money, stamps, etc. is kind of hilarious. However, is she any worse, morally, than many other royals? I suspect not. As an American whose ancestors fought in a war to be free from hereditary privilege, I don't accept for a moment that any of these completely mediocre people are superior to anyone else. As I have said before, if the British wish to support these folks in splendor so they can perform ceremonial functions, it's their taxes, not mine. There have been examples of royals who have been excellent and exemplary individuals, however, such as the Queen Mother. The current Queen does have a devotion to duty that is admirable. I have even heard that one of the early 20th-century Queens - Mary, I think - may have been secretly Catholic, but who knows? Wouldn't it be poetic justice if Camilla turns out to be a better person than most in that family?

Dear Charles,

In fact, the "taxes" that go to support the Royal Family come mainly from . . . the Royal Family.

The Royal Family pay over 57 million pounds sterling to the British government yearly - and from that they are given a smaller sum by the government to pay them.

The government - and the people - come out ahead.

We don't need political figures to be heads of state. Heads of government yes, but not heads of state, who have largely ceremonial roles.

Except for the U.S. where the head of state IS the head of the government.

This is a dangerous arrangement at best - as the Civil War showed.

Constitutional monarchy is, in my estimation and that of others, superior to republicanism.

But that is for another thread.

I've met many Americans, scholars and academics, who have confided to me that they think the U.S. should have a constitutional monarchy.

I was a parade marshall at a Queen's Birthday Parade in Toronto a few years back and there was a group of wonderful American tourists from Pennsylvania wondering what all the commotion was about.

When I told them, I added, "And if you didn't have the temper tantrum you call the 'American Revolution,' you could join us today . . ."

They immediately shot back, "Well, we'd love to have the Queen once again!"

Alex

Interestingly enough, I remember the Queen agreeing to pay taxes after Windsor Castle burned, so she hasn't been paying them for very long. I don't think you get your money's worth, but that's my American opinion, and you can keep your royalty. Britain is a subject I find fascinating. It was a world power, but in a short time turned inward on itself and self-destructed as a major power. Was it an early form of political correctness that caused the British loss of will and confidence, or perhaps something else? Was it a loss of Christian faith, since the Church of England also went into a decline? I don't know, but it is really fascinating. I hope that we can learn from it and not repeat it, whatever it was/is.

Dear Alex,

What is the difference between the head of a government and the head of state? I really am curious, because I recall reading once, that in reality we are a monarchy, while Britain is not.

What makes this so interesting, is that I once came across a book of old Catholic prophecies, and they kept referring to the great 'Monarch'. Somehow, I began to think of the great Monarch, as being the U.S., and the role we played in the Second World War.

Well, it makes me even more curious, because today a reporter from the Netherlands accused the U.S. of not being a democracy, I don't know for what reason, (couldn't hear him), but our President said, "isn't the Netherlands a monarchy?"

Explain! Explain! Explain please?

Zenovia

What was it? In a word it was both Christianity and policital liberalism. Both contributed to the end of British power and then got horribly mixed up resulting in the destruction of religion in the UK.

The British were a sea faring people whose money was made mainly from slavery. Inspite of our industrial revolution, which shot production up, it was a foregone conclusion that when the other countries caught up with their superior natural resources and their huge labour market (send us your poor, as the States said) Britain's strength would be sapped. The only way to maintain her economic power and thus maintain her world class navy and military was through the slave trade. However, thank heavens, in the 19th century people began to see that slavery was wrong and thus they ended the trade at the height of its prosperity. From then onwards Britain struggled to keep control of the colonies. It was simply too costly.

In the meantime Britain's openess to change inspired by those Christians who had played for equality opened the floor to Mr John Stuart Mill and the liberals of the 19th century. They began to erode traditional Anglicanism in the name of 'freedom'. From a Catholic stance initially this was VERY handy because it gave us freedom of worship in 1829. Moreover, with people free at last to choose Catholicism they began to flock in droves to the Church of Rome. The Oxford conversions and the Catholic literary revival at the start of the 20th century were testament to a movement that seemed it would engulf the nation. Puseyism tried t compete with "Romanism" by dragging up the Fathers' and restoring the liturgy but it didnt seem like anything would stop the Catholicisation of England.

Until the Second World War

People emerged from the War identifying Catholicism as a totalitarian ideaology. They didnt so much see it through the 'no popery' eyes of their Georgian forebears. But if you look in the Town Hall at the debates we're having on homosexuality you can see this became a Europe wide phenomena. The liberalism that had allowed the Church to flourish began to now work against it. Yes, people were free to be Catholic but they were to be private Catholics as Spinoza envisioned. They were not to try and influence the public and get in the way of civil liberties. The War and the threat of Communism in the East made religion, which demanded certain objective moral standards that 'infringe' on 'personal freedom' seem oppressive. In the anti-Communist cold war the biggest agenda was 'us' vs 'them', 'freedom' vs 'communism'. For those reared in the pre war days this was fine. But for those reared afterwards without the benefits of tradition it gave birth to the decadence of the 60's and its 'sexual revolution'.

Since then England hasnt been the same and neither has the Church, we did after all take our priests from this sex crazed society. Anyone who has taken the time to look at the documents of Vatican II can see how traditional they are. If a new convert i.e. myself, looked at the documents and then looked at the Church pre-council and post-council I'd wonder what happened. The documents especially Lumen Gentium but pretty much everyone says that the Magisterium is the interpreter of doctrine. That only the Magisterium can make changes. Yet, the spirit of the 60's with its emphasis on public demonstration, 'freedom', and whatever else it wanted didnt seem to view things this way. Instead of talking about Vatican II, people began to speak about 'the spirit of Vatican II' and began to simply implement their own agenda saying 'Vatican II said...' I mean I've heard nonsense from somepeople saying Vatican II said the Mass isnt a sacrifice or that we dont venerate Mary anymore etc. Its obvious they've never seen the documents. But they dont feel the need to because after all Vatican II was all about sharing in the concerns of the world. As if that means jettisoning Catholicism and turning it into liberal politics.

Well the Anglican Communion evidently thinks so. Women priests, Homosexually active Bishops etc.etc. Its freedom, its what God wanted they say. We live under grace not under law etc. The old Protestant move of taking Romans out of context (ironic which Church the letter was written to isnt it?) And thus our country has collapsed into neo-paganism. Our clergy betrayed the Council, the Anglicans simply adopted liberalism, and the people in general misinterpreted what it means to be liberal and threw themsleves into madness.

My advice to America is to think of what will happen to your country if the structures of sin that generate oppression i.e. subsidised farming will be removed. If America's economic power goes they wont have much else. For all her nukes even Communist Russia crumbled. If you guys to choose the right thing as Britain did and make world bank and IMF policy slightly fairer watch your step. Make sure the liberals arent lurking around the corner because if they are, just like Britain your country's power will dwindle.

But alas all world powers are doomed to rise and fall. Only one Kingdom persists no matter what and thats the Holy Catholic Church headed by the Messianic David King, Christ Jesus.

PS) In short Zenovia. In constitutional monarchy's the power to make the day to day decisions in government are not in the same office as the powers of overseeing the constitution is kept hence France, Germany and Italy etc. all have presidents and prime ministers. The prime minister is responsible for the governing of the country, whereas the president ensures those powers are not abused and takes care of state functions. In America those roles are placed entirely in one person, logical since if you look in your senate you'll see the straw and eagle both symbols of the Roman Empire which had the same system of government. What the Dutch are implying is that America isnt so much a monarchy as an Empire.

While the head of state and head of day-to-day government reside in the President, there are some checks and balances on that. Congress can always overrule the President if it has a sufficient majority to do so. Another weapon the Congress has is to simply cut off funds for any action it disapproves of. The Supreme Court determines whether laws or actions are Constitutional, and it can only be overridden with a Constitutional amendment, ratified with majorities in the Congress and the State legislatures. So our presidents don't exactly have imperial powers.

I never said they did, I just said thats what the Dutch were evidently trying to say. Although naturally I prefer the British arrangement

I think the shared British/American intelligence on "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, certainly made fools of both systems of government. Whatever weaknesses exist in Britain and America, I am glad we have not "liberalized" to the point the Dutch have.

Sorry for interrupting your so approprite for the Lenten season discussion (I am joking obviously, althought I am afraid I can not understand what is this discussion about(US President, Queen Elisabeth, monarchy, Duch people, puritanism), all this is Greek to me!!!) with more (unfortunately bad) news about the Greek Orthodox Church. Please, pray for the Orthodox Churches of Greece and Jerusalem and for their hierarchy so that they may find their way back to Christ during this Triodion and Lenten period. From yesterday the Patriarchate of jerusalem has also problems (econimicals) with the justice of the State Israel, wich call them to pay 8 million dollars to a South African-Israeli company.

From Kathimerini(http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_politics_100002_25/02/2005_53402)
Pressure on archbishop
Calls mount for Christodoulos to resign over links to shady pair
The head of the Church of Greece came under increasing pressure to step down yesterday after the emergence of claims linking him closer than ever before to a fugitive drug dealer and a priest alleged to be at the center of a trial-fixing ring, but the government refused to join in the calls for his resignation.

Archbishop Christodoulos�s press office issued a statement late Wednesday denying claims by Kyriakos, Bishop of Nazareth, a spokesman for the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, that Christodoulos had sent Apostolos Vavilis, a convicted drug smuggler wanted by Interpol, there in 2001 to help with the election of Patriarch Irenaios. Wednesday�s accusations came just a day after a senior member of the judiciary reportedly said that Archimandrite Iakovos Yiossakis � who is in jail pending trial for antiquities theft and is allegedly implicated in a trial-fixing ring � had helped him meet Christodoulos twice. The archbishop subsequently acknowledged the priest�s presence at the meeting, having previously denied knowing him.

Following Kyriakos�s claims, Chrysostomos, Bishop of Zakynthos, yesterday called for the archbishop to resign. He was backed by Efstathios Kollas, the head of a priests� union. Chrysostomos is the second bishop in less than a week to publicly display a lack of support for Christodoulos. On Saturday, at a plenary meeting of the Church of Greece�s bishops, Germanos, Bishop of Ileia, proposed an unprecedented no-confidence vote. The archbishop won the ballot comfortably but it appears the door has since opened to his critics. Sources close to Christodoulos yesterday indicated that he had no intention of standing down and is determined to change the tide of public opinion that seems to have turned against him in recent weeks.

The government continued to resist being publicly drawn into the crisis. �The government is not raising the subject of the archbishop�s resignation,� said Education and Religion Minister Marietta Giannakou, who also rejected the idea of a separation between the Church and State. Alternate Government Spokesman Evangelos Antonaros said that the government did not have the authority to intervene in the matter.

Meanwhile, Vavilis�s brother, Dionysios, was questioned by police yesterday. He told officers that the last time he saw his brother was just before Christmas and that he had no knowledge of his current whereabouts.