Split in Church of England

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7496216.stm

I'm not sure which side to take over this issue. There does seem to be some foundations for the argument against women bishops, but they are a little vague and the history of male bishops is irrelevant.

Hopefully things will not get to the point where they appoint openly homosexual bishops as has been done elsewhere. There can be a debate over women bishops, but no discussion regarding homosexual bishops.

One thing that surprised me was the talk of reconciliation with the Catholic Church. The BBC always struck me as being a bit hostile towards Rome. But then Anglicans IMO may as well be Catholic, if they want such a hierarchical structure then the Pope seems a better candidate than the Royal Family.

I'm Church of Scotland anyway so I suppose its not my problem.:shrug:

Well at least officialy, I'm not sure if I believe in predestination. Does that put me somewhere between a Calvinist and a Lutheran?

to paraphrase the great Bill Hicks...


"hell..make the women bishops....then there will bishops of 2 sexes I don´t listen too"


It´s their silly organization....they can make their own silly rules to their hearts content.

NEXT!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

One thing that surprised me was the talk of reconciliation with the Catholic Church. The BBC always struck me as being a bit hostile towards Rome. But then Anglicans IMO may as well be Catholic, if they want such a hierarchical structure then the Pope seems a better candidate than the Royal Family.

---

Do you see, InsaneApache!? Do you see!

NOW who was right about that Tony Blair quote, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

There can be a debate over women bishops, but no discussion regarding homosexual bishops.

---

Oh yes, there can. Give it five years. https://img58.imageshack.us/img58/3742/devil3ce6.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7496216.stm
Hopefully things will not get to the point where they appoint openly homosexual bishops as has been done elsewhere. There can be a debate over women bishops, but no discussion regarding homosexual bishops.

---

Here in the states the Espicol (SP?) Church, has alreadly split over the issue of homosexual bishops. Its revelant since the church uses as its basis the Church of England

I think their arguments against women bishops went out the window when they allowed women priests. If one, why not the other? :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I think their arguments against women bishops went out the window when they allowed women priests. If one, why not the other? :shrug:

---

Well, not necessarily, because, as the article says,

Quote:

---

Roman Catholic leaders believe this goes against the will of Christ, who chose only men as his apostles.

---

That being said, I'm not Anglican, so I don't care.

The liberal branch of the Anglican Church is the one that most closely resembles the church of the anti-Christ in relation to the image that I had in my head since I was a kid. I seriously think that it is what the founders believed would come about prior to the end times; Priests in full vestments that preach Biblical corruption and espouse leaving your wife and children and engaging in extra-marital homosexuality.

That branch is like the un-Holy Church of the Trinity: Vanity, Lust and the tide of popular Opinion.

I'm not saying that this is what it is obviously, but if somebody started dressing up and acting like what I believe a cowboy looked like, I would probably say "Hey, You look like a cowboy!"

High Church Conservative Anglican/Episcopalians simply should be aligned with the Pope in Rome. They could have their own rite and mass (like the Eastern Rite Catholics, etc.). Conservatives of all Christian denominations will find more and more solace in this church over the coming decades from what these trends show us. The second they begin defending their tradition their eyes open up to what the decent people in the Roman Church have been saying since the reformation.

The bible has very different opinions from modern popular culture. It is exceedingly bizarre to attempt to bend the bible to fit the secular mold.

Are these chicks like real butchy lesbos or something? Whats the big deal? Man, gay folks just can't figure out what the hell they want.:no:

The Church of England was dead anyway....at least now you protestants will get so bored as to actually convert back to Catholicism.
Heresy is so boring.

Idiotic liberal churches seem to be doing their best to put forward a case for everyone returning to Rome. I suppose they are highlighting a big problem with Protestanism. Some churches hold true (and IMO much more true than the Vatican), but there are these others who mutate the church to suit their own watered-down values and basically to make life easy.

I do not believe in the hierarchy of the Anglican Church or the Vatican, however I've been coming to symphathise a little bit with the Catholic Church these days (for all my previous Rome-bashing). I just can't understand how nobody besides the traditionalists thinks it is strange that the Church is blatantly ignoring scripture. You can't do that!:wall:

I don't know about England, but the Apocalype will come before its northern neighbours ever return to the Vatican.

I'm glad I'm with the Scottish Church.:dizzy2:

Blimey, I feel like I've been caught in a time warp and thrown back 500 years!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Well, not necessarily, because, as the article says,

---

Yes, and that was the same argument against women priests. It didn't stop them then, so I can't see why it would make any difference now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Yes, and that was the same argument against women priests. It didn't stop them then, so I can't see why it would make any difference now.

---

Well, that's the business of the Anglicans. I just hope it won't happen in the Catholic Church (which it probably won't in my lifetime).

I hate modular inconsistency. If you say that you are Christian and follow the Bible - follow the Bible. Even if you live in modern society. If you sin, repent - don't ask the church not to consider your sin a sin.

Btw - There are new Islamic banks that get rid of usurious fees. I have to work on my unforgiving wrath and my heavy addiction to internet pornography. Also, I need to marry my girlfriend to get out of this terminal state of sin. I think that I'm going to become a fundamentalist Catholic and see how that works for me.

I have a dichotomy in my understanding of the world. One part of me literally believes that there is no right or wrong. Anytime I hear about rights for gays beyond equal rights of all man in gods eyes, I get confused. If there is no real historical basis for the acceptance of their sinful acts (not the fact that they are alive) and the Bible treat it as an abomination; Where did we get the idea that it is "right" to allow them to marry or become bishops? We are literally starting to pull rights out of thin air and defending them with all ferocity.

I understand why people might want to allow a "Gay" bishop who is celibate and repents of his sins against god. If he views homosexual acts as abominable and takes any vows that he has made with the utmost sincerity, Then I'm not all that sure about my opinion on it.

When you give a bishopric to a guy like Gene Robinson, who left his wife and kids to start banging some dude as a priest and then moved into the rectory with him out of wedlock and continues to live an unrepentant abominable lifestyle - You are insane if you think that is appropriate in a Christian church.

Priests who are unrepentant in theft, murder, hetero/homo adultery or the use of gods name in vain too often etc should be eliminated from the runnings of Bishop and possibly "defrocked".

Also - Jesus took no women to join him as one of the 12 disciples. Are you saying that he was wrong and sexist? Thats what you'd say if he lived today. What makes you more knowledgeable about right and wrong than Jesus (If you are a Christian)?

Come back to the mother church. Hierarchy is here for a reason. The church was never meant to be a representative democracy.

I agree with everything you say, except the last sentence. The Vatican's hierarchy means nothing in terms of direct religious importance. If you feel that hierarchy has its benefits, fine, stick with it.

But I'm quite sure that practicing Protestants are just as likely to make it to Heaven. And there are still plenty of them, who have plenty of good reasons for not returning to the Vatican.

EDIT: And if a 'gay' bishop fully repents and sorts himself out, then he should be treated as anyone else. If he does not he should be barred from ever entering a church.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

I agree with everything you say, except the last sentence. The Vatican's hierarchy means nothing in terms of direct religious importance. If you feel that hierarchy has its benefits, fine, stick with it.

But I'm quite sure that practicing Protestants are just as likely to make it to Heaven. And there are still plenty of them, who have plenty of good reasons for not returning to the Vatican.

---

Fair enough. As the basic tenants of heresy modify themselves, you may find that Vatican hierarchy is an effective tool in helping to retain biblical values much longer than churches full of people who are not theologians making democratic theological decisions that fly in the faces of their brother and sister churches. Run on sentence

Who knows.

Caledonian - Come back to the mother church! You may not want to now, but I think that you would find alot of people who agree with your opinions.

Wow, the ignorance regarding the CofE here is actually a little scary. True anglicans CANNOT become Catholics because Anglican Theology differs in several fundamental ways which have nothing to do with Gays or Women.

the two of the biggest examples are transubstantiation and the issue of "bad" priests. These Anglicans who don't want women Bishops will have to sacrifice much more important things than gender issues to join Rome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Wow, the ignorance regarding the CofE here is actually a little scary. True anglicans CANNOT become Catholics because Anglican Theology differs in several fundamental ways which have nothing to do with Gays or Women.

the two of the biggest examples are transubstantiation and the issue of "bad" priests. These Anglicans who don't want women Bishops will have to sacrifice much more important things than gender issues to join Rome.

---

A number of High Church Anglicans believe in Transubstantiation. What is a "bad" priest?

Anglicans convert all the time. We have an absurd amount in common. they "CANNOT" convert?

Quote:

---

Also - Jesus took no women to join him as one of the 12 disciples. Are you saying that he was wrong and sexist? Thats what you'd say if he lived today. What makes you more knowledgeable about right and wrong than Jesus (If you are a Christian)?

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
So Jesus didn't appoint any woman as one of the twelve , yet as soon as he died and there was this thing called Christianity there miraculously appear women disciples doing the same job as the men in spreading the word....seems like a bit of a precedent to me that does :yes:, and hey you don't even have to go to scriptures that were removed from the bible by the later church to show that to be the case .(though you might have to go back to the greek because the later church wasn't happy with what the scriptures said so changed the words):book:

The Church of England is experiencing a failure of leadership, and the Archbishop is largely at fault. The man doesn't have the guts to stand up for the traditional Church principles. So, the best solution for the Anglicans is indeed to re-enter the communion with Rome.

Step 1: Anglicans re-unite with Rome

Step 2: Orthodoxes re-unite with Rome

Step 3: Crusade!

Step 4: ???

Step 5: Profit!

Oh well, I can dream, can't I? Though I really do think that the world would be a better place if xtians ran the show everywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

(though you might have to go back to the greek because the later church wasn't happy with what the scriptures said so changed the words):book:

---

Changed the wording? You don't say? :rolleyes:

Welcome to the miraculous world of God’s word, as seen through the eyes of His denominations. I remember taking apart Exodus 21:22-25 some time ago for the benefit of Caledonian Rhyfelwer.

Maybe Mr Tribesman, my esteemed coleague in exegesis, could be persuaded to do the same for another verse.

Might I humbly suggest the "Thou shalt not kill" command, which has been miraculously changed to "Thou shalt not murder" in the New American Standard Version (1971), the New International Version (1978), the New King James Bible(1982), the New Revised Standard Bible (1989) and the Revised English Bible (1989).

The reason given for this change is that the Hebrew 'rtsh' as used in Exodus 20:13 means 'murder' in every other instance in the Bible. This is not factually true; it has different meanings in different verses and in Numbers 35:29-30 it even means 'judicial execution' (''Moreover, 'thou shalt not take ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death').

Go tell the Texans that Exodus 20:13 reads: "Thou shalt not execute"! :laugh4:

Of course the motive for the change is political. It is no coincidence that the change occurred in Bible translations published by (or on behalf of) Evangelical Protestants and Protestant state-church denominations who support the death penalty as well as military interventions on behalf of their countries.

Who'd have thunk the Lord's word was so flexible?

Anyway, something tells me Tribesman will think of an example of his own. So many instances to chose from, eh? :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Caledonian - Come back to the mother church! You may not want to now, but I think that you would find alot of people who agree with your opinions.

---

I come from a background of Scottish/Northern Irish ancestry. I think that is good enough reason not to look to Rome.

And talk of returning to the 'mother church' does little to repair relations with other churches. Despite mainstream views where I come from*, I am not anti-Catholic (and I'm sorry if I ever came across as being so, I am a bit insensitive at times). This is not the seventeenth century, I can't exactly be threatened with a forced conversion or burning at the stake.

But as far as I can see the hierarchy of the Vatican is unfounded. It is one thing to keep a congregation organised, it is another to actually integrate these things into religious practises. It is wrong, and any form of hierarchy should not be seen in a church. You are all equal!

The Vatican hierarchy does work to an extent (although lets be honest it can fail spectacularly at times) in keeping its clergy and congregation on, the 'right path'.

To me though it is not a problem if the Anglican bible-bashers drive their more honest congregation away from them, I hope the traditionalists are succesful in keeping their churches as they should be.

* That would be mainstream views outwith the liberals who think that even pointing out a flaw with another religion makes you some sort of sectarian maniac living 300 years in the past. Some people here have already made similar comments from what I've bene saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

A number of High Church Anglicans believe in Transubstantiation. What is a "bad" priest?

Anglicans convert all the time. We have an absurd amount in common. they "CANNOT" convert?

---

Uh uh, the Articles of Religion: http://www.churchsociety.org/publica...B_Articles.htm

Particually:

Quote:

---

XXII. Of Purgatory.
The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Reliques, and also invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

---

Quote:

---

XXV. Of the sacraments.
Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.
There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.
Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.
The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.

---

Quote:

---

XXVI. Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacrament.
Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and, Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in the receiving of the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.
Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally being found guilty, by just judgement be deposed.

---

Quote:

---

XXVIII. Of the Lord's Supper.
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

---

There's plenty more. The Articles are quite specific on the Theological reasons for breaking with Rome. A traditional Anglican cannot remain true to their proffessed beliefs and theology while at the same time entering into communion with Rome.

The differences between the Anglican and Roman churches are negligible when compared to other Protestant churches.

But that's what happens when your Protestant reformation is carried out by a greedy monarch rather than true reformers eg John Knox.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

The differences between the Anglican and Roman churches are negligible when compared to other Protestant churches.

But that's what happens when your Protestant reformation is carried out by a greedy monarch rather than true reformers eg John Knox.

---

Anglican/Episcopalian = Catholic Light. All the salvation, half the guilt! ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Do you see, InsaneApache!? Do you see!

NOW who was right about that Tony Blair quote, eh?

---

:laugh4:

Are you a gay christian?

"Come out of the toilet, so to speak!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

The differences between the Anglican and Roman churches are negligible when compared to other Protestant churches.

But that's what happens when your Protestant reformation is carried out by a greedy monarch rather than true reformers eg John Knox.

---

Hah! That's a Myth. The substance of the Anglican Church is very different to Roman Catholacism, and very close to Methodism. As to a "greedy monarch" for are correct that Henry VIII personally wrote the original, irrc, 15 Articles but they are VERY different to the current 39, which were devised under Elizabeth I by the Churchmen, along with the BCP.

Anglo-Catholics aren't Catholics, they're Anglicans who don't like the direction the Church has taken.

Catholics believe the same thing about "bad" priests. Just because a priest was evil doesn't mean that marriages performed, communion administered, etc were evil.

Those are pretty negligible differences compared to actively homosexual priests/bishops and female ordination.

A large number of Anglo-Catholics would have a hard time mentioning the differences between the two churches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Catholics believe the same thing about "bad" priests. Just because a priest was evil doesn't mean that marriages performed, communion administered, etc were evil.

Those are pretty negligible differences compared to actively homosexual priests/bishops and female ordination.

A large number of Anglo-Catholics would have a hard time mentioning the differences between the two churches.

---

Your Pope is infallable and speaks with the authority of God, he is an absolute Monarch within the church. as to the ordination of Gay Clergy, it isn't permitted in the CofE, nor is the blessing of same-sex unions. A lot of people skip over the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury instructed the Episcopalians to reverse their policies or face the consiquences.

The Church of England does not support homosexuality.

Can somebody explain to me what prayers to saints is all about, anyway? Even as a non-christian, the practice seems to be silly, if not watered down polytheism.

Church Schisms - The greatest spectator sport ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

Can somebody explain to me what prayers to saints is all about, anyway? Even as a non-christian, the practice seems to be silly, if not watered down polytheism.

---

Prayers THROUGH Saints. Saints are our intercessors. If you believe that people live after death and can pray, maybe they get better reception if they are already in heaven?

We have "Patron Saints" because they provide an example of how better to carry our crosses. They are not Gods or anything like that. I used to believe it was a round about way of being polytheistic, but if done correctly it is simply a more personal way of praying for/with a loved one or motivational figure. A different angle if you will.

think of it as a letter sent to God/Father/Son/Holy Spirit Care-Of St. so and so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Church Schisms - The greatest spectator sport ever.

---

I am incredibly interested in them. I went to a Mets game and all I could think about was arguing about Politics and Religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Prayers THROUGH Saints. Saints are our intercessors. If you believe that people live after death and can pray, maybe they get better reception if they are already in heaven?

We have "Patron Saints" because they provide an example of how better to carry our crosses. They are not Gods or anything like that. I used to believe it was a round about way of being polytheistic, but if done correctly it is simply a more personal way of praying for/with a loved one or motivational figure. A different angle if you will.

think of it as a letter sent to God/Father/Son/Holy Spirit Care-Of St. so and so.

---

FYI this is a problem MANY other Christians have with Catholicism because they believe christ was the only intercessor between man and God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

FYI this is a problem MANY other Christians have with Catholicism because they believe christ was the only intercessor between man and God.

---

"In Christian practice, intercessory prayer is the act of one person praying for or on behalf of another"

"Intercession in liturgical Protestant churches (as well as in the Anglican Church) is a regular part of the worship service, often spoken by one or more people with the congregation responding, "Hear our prayer." Protestant intercession is usually by the living and for the living, although many Anglo-Catholics and Lutherans share the Roman Catholic belief in the Communion of Saints (see above)."

"There is some evidence of a Jewish belief in intercession, both in the form of the paternal blessings passed down from Abraham to his children, and 2 Maccabees, where Judas Maccabaeus sees the dead Onias and Jeremiah giving blessing to the Jewish army."
- Wiki on intercession.

Do you ever ask your mother and father to pray for someone? What about a friend? Why would it be different to ask someone who is no longer alive? We are supposed to pray for the dead, why not pray along with them? Remembrances are a big part of Christianity - you just need to make sure that you are doing it in a way Not insulting to God. To invoke their name in the hopes of achieving an outcome isn't what I'm talking about. Praying in community with them is another thing altogether. Praying with them because they are a patron of a specific thing gives you perspective on that thing as well as it brings you into a prayer community with those passed.

I'm saying that a number of Anglo-Catholics respect the more appropriate way of asking saints to pray for them or loved ones. You arn't asking for any god-like treatment from them, just for them to pray to God as you or your family would while you reflect on their experiences. Individual Anglican/Episcopal churches are free to decide their own opinions on the issue and many are in line with Rome.

I don't think that the differences are as substantial as some may claim.

I don't like the idea of praying through Saints. You do not have to pray to someone to put in a good word to God for you.

And becoming a Saint does not give them an advantage in prayer over anything else. If you pray properly, you should believe 100% that your prayer will be answered, and so therefore people should not have to pray through saints.

If you feel a Saint may pray better than yourself (in having more faith)... I am not sure on this. If God would not hear you, then the Saint would probably not either. There is certainly no reference in the Bible to this happening.

It may be an idea, I suppose. As long as it remains a case of praying through the Saints, rather than to them directly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

I don't like the idea of praying through Saints. You do not have to pray to someone to put in a good word to God for you.

And becoming a Saint does not give them an advantage in prayer over anything else. If you pray properly, you should believe 100% that your prayer will be answered, and so therefore people should not have to pray through saints.

If you feel a Saint may pray better than yourself (in having more faith)... I am not sure on this. If God would not hear you, then the Saint would probably not either. There is certainly no reference in the Bible to this happening.

It may be an idea, I suppose. As long as it remains a case of praying through the Saints, rather than to them directly.

---

Praying individually and in community is important. I'm not sure why anyone should be left out of it, living or passed, particularly if they might have insight into your particular dilemna.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

I don't like the idea of praying through Saints. You do not have to pray to someone to put in a good word to God for you.

And becoming a Saint does not give them an advantage in prayer over anything else. If you pray properly, you should believe 100% that your prayer will be answered, and so therefore people should not have to pray through saints.

If you feel a Saint may pray better than yourself (in having more faith)... I am not sure on this. If God would not hear you, then the Saint would probably not either. There is certainly no reference in the Bible to this happening.

It may be an idea, I suppose. As long as it remains a case of praying through the Saints, rather than to them directly.

---

Gah! For a thousand years Scotland has been a country faithful to God and the Mother Curch. And now you nefarious blasphemists scoff at the plight of your martyrs and snub at the Mother of God! Saint Andrew turns in his grave at your blithe heresy!

Repent, sinner, repent! A thousand Hail Mary's to cleanse your your soul!

As you are reading this, I am writing a letter of complaint to the BBC, demanding all their presenters wear ostentatious crosses from now on. Europe shall be won back for its native civilisation!

Scotland is a Calvinist country and always will be! And down with the nationalists who look back to the days of Alba and see Catholicism as the religion of the nation. Rome said you were heretics!:wall:

John Knox will be spinning in his grave...

~:smoking: And thus we see the problem of organized religion. No figuring everything out for yourself... it ALWAYS has to be about everybody else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

Scotland is a Calvinist country and always will be! And down with the nationalists who look back to the days of Alba and see Catholicism as the religion of the nation. Rome said you were heretics!:wall:

John Knox will be spinning in his grave...

---

Come on, Calvin was a Puritan bastard and all other Christianity knows it.
If you can accept the fact that sex outside marrriage, drinking and all other small misdemeanours ware punishable by death under Calvinist jurisdiction than you can agree that Henry VIII was a visionary and a sensible man with a Christian vision.

As Calvin would say - "I hope tiny chickens dig out your eyes a thousand times!"

:clown: