“PROTESTANT” – TIME TO SEPERATE CHURCH AND STATE.

The UK is a theocracy. It and Iran are very similar in having reserved places for clerics in their legislature as of right. Imagine if the President of Ireland swore at his installation that he was a Catholic.

LikeLike

Bishop Pat, I think your assessment is harsh and unfair. Granted, we all have different opinipns. I feel Eamon and + John Charles were harshly judged historically. .

LikeLike

+Pat: your last words, “we must move to a total separation of church and state” equally apply to the church and education: ie. “we must move to a total separation of religion and education.”
MMM

LikeLiked by 1 person

Even in Éamon de Valera’s day, nobody proposed that the Irish legislature have guarenteed seats for bishops, yet the Anglican bishops have guarenteed seats in the House of Lords, have more elaborate benches on the Government side of the chamber and can initiate and vote and pass laws on any matter that comes before Parliament, whether or not it is related to church matters.

LikeLiked by 1 person

The bravery of survivors is making the courts better in providing positive outcomes for victims and survivors. Now we need the government to back survivors and invest to improve core processes.
when there is not an early response to any form of church related abuse it has a negative impact on a victim mentally, physically and financially.
The shameful consistency of the Roman Catholic Church in its use of its power and wealth and its teams of professional connections in church and state to discredit and silence victims and survivors deserves to be vigorously challenged all the time and every time in all jurisdictions.

LikeLike

Origin and meaning of the word “Protestant”.
The Diet of the Holy Roman Empire, assembled at Speyer in April, 1529, resolved that, according to a decree promulgated at the Diet of Worms (1521), communities in which the new religion was so far established that it could not without great trouble be altered should be free to maintain it, but until the meeting of the council they should introduce no further innovations in religion, and should not forbid the Mass, or hinder Catholics from assisting thereat.
Against this decree, and especially against the last article, the adherents of the new Evangel — the Elector Frederick of Saxony, the Landgrave of Hesse, the Margrave Albert of Brandenburg, the Dukes of Lüneburg, the Prince of Anhalt, together with the deputies of fourteen of the free and imperial cities — entered a solemn protest as unjust and impious. The meaning of the protest was that the dissentients did not intend to tolerate Catholicism within their borders. On that account they were called Protestants.
In course of time the original connotation of “no toleration for Catholics” was lost sight of, and the term is now applied to, and accepted by, members of those Western Churches and sects which, in the sixteenth century, were set up by the Reformers in direct opposition to the Catholic Church. The same man may call himself Protestant or Reformed: the term Protestant lays more stress on antagonism to Rome; the term Reformed emphasizes adherence to any of the Reformers. Where religious indifference is prevalent, many will say they are Protestants, merely to signify that they are not Catholics. In some such vague, negative sense, the word stands in the formula of the Declaration of Faith to be made by the King at his coronation; viz.: “I declare that I am a faithful Protestant”. During the debates in Parliament it was observed that the proposed formula effectively debarred Catholics from the throne, whilst it committed the king to no particular creed, as no man knows what the creed of a faithful Protestant is or should be.

LikeLike

Very silly suggestion, Patrick.
The British monarch is both head of Church and head of State. The two cannot be separated. I assume you knew this, so I can only further assume that you are mischief-making.

LikeLike

The UK, being a theocracy, is unusual in having a coronation, and in the extent of the accession oaths. A brief
summary of practice elsewhere is as follows:
Coronations: no other European monarchy holds one. Belgium and the Netherlands have never had one; Denmark, Norway and Sweden discontinued theirs from 1849, 1908 and 1873 respectively; and there have been no Spanish coronations since medieval times.
Religious tests: all three Scandinavian sovereigns have to be members of their respective Lutheran churches. There are no formal religious requirements for any of the other sovereigns.
Accession/inauguration ceremonies: all swear at their parliaments to observe their constitutions. Only in Norway does the law require the new sovereign to invoke the help of God, the Almighty and Omniscient’ and there have been services of consecration (.e. short of
coronation) in addition to the parliamentary accession procedure in Norway since 1957. The royal regalia are on display but not worn in most ceremonies of accession, though in Denmark the crown is displayed only on the deceased monarch’s coffin at the funeral. In Spain the restored monarch and his queen in 1978 sat on elevated thrones in a church service: that non-statutory event does not seem to have been repeated following the accession of his son in 2014.
At his inauguration in 2013, the Dutch King swore as follows before a joint session of the Dutch Parliament as follows:
I solemnly swear (affirm) to the people of the Kingdom that I shall constantly preserve and uphold the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Constitution. I swear (affirm) that I shall defend and preserve the independence and the territory of the Kingdom to the best of my ability, that I shall protect the freedom and rights of all Dutch citizens and residents, and that I shall employ all means placed at my disposal by the law to preserve and promote prosperity, as is incumbent upon a good and faith. So help me God! (This I solemnly affirm!)

LikeLike