CK15
PRINCE CHARLES AND CATHOLICISM
"Certainly, the Prince is more sympathetic to Catholicism than many of his predecessors (as his thwarted desire to attend a Papal Mass in Rome shows)". -(Charles A. Coulombe)
HE WILL USE IT.
It is my personal opinion, based upon the present evidence, and the words of the bible, that Charles prince of wales, will forge very close links with the Pope and vatican , when he becomes Defender King of faith in general.
Only a few years ago the palace were so distinct from the vatican in all there personal in public faith issues(and especially in a official capacity ) that no one would believe the apparrent change of heart we see displayed by HRH Queen Elizabeth the second today.
The Queen as The Defender of "THE" Faith and Supreme Head of the church of England was always seen to be Anglican in the deepest sense, which by definition opposed Roman catholicism and the Pope.
However her son HRH Prince charles of wales, the story has always been different, and recently the Queen herself has been influenced seemingly by her sons attitude towards ROME, and not just Rome but ALL FAITHS.
It is also my hunch that the church of england and rome will be joined under Charles the eighth's Kingship. which i feel will be a soveriegnty not just over the united kingdom and The Commonwealth , but over the entire European union, which today is rapidly growing.
This i base upon the fact that prince charles of wales has made it clear in the past that he sees the uk model of a crown over a government as the best way to run a government, and by his applying to be King over the EEC in a letter to the leglisating body of the EEC , back in the late 80's , just before the EEC finally drew up its Officail plans for government of the EEC in writing.
if the above happens it falls precisely into the mould the CATHOLIC PROPHECIES SAY THINGS WILL TURN OUT.
A christian King crowned by a pope, a king whos empire stretches further than the former Roman empire , over the entire EEC and even the Commonwealth of Great britian.
I think its about 45% of the world population that that Commonwealth covers!!
Acccording to that prophecy this king or great monarch , will bring peace and security to Jerusalem and the entire world, with the aid of this Pope.
Also all this will happen in a time the WEST is at WAR with the KINGS OF THE EAST or MOSLEM islamic nations in otherwords.
In these prophecies the Great monarch subdues the ISLAMIC THREAT from the EAST, and champions catholicsm, which today is hardly a strict club is it?
I mean to be MOSLEM NOWADAYS IS TO BE CATHOLIC RIGHT?
after all the Efagy called mary is given supreme honour by both for an example.
And apparantly to worship allah is to adore and worship the same god as the catholics isnt it?
(At least according to pope john Paul who made that very statement)
And i dont think Prince Charles would argue much with that either.
So even though these prophecies give the imppression of this great monarch subduing Islam by war, i think almost certainly, IT WILL BE BY THE MONARCHS MASSIVE INFLUENCE OVER THE ISLAMIC NATIONS AND PEOPLE.
PRINCE CHARLES IS THE MAN EQUAL TO SUCH A TASK
But the key to this is still being seen as christian by the Nations with power namely THE WEST
SO PRINCE CHARLES AND CATHOLICISM ARE A JOB UNDERWAY SO TO SPEAK
And i believe Charles will take giant steps in the future to forge that working relationship..
.
Even Lawrence of Arabia only had war influence, prince charles has far
more ( he has the war influence to though through his the uk.governemt
that he seems not to have any sway over ). Infact i dont think there
is , or has been in world history , ANY other who has held such respect
with the islamic world as HRH ,prince charles of wales.
Let Catholics Become Kings, Says Charles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Such is the Banner Headline of the Catholic Herald 27th November 2000
Dr. Ian R.K. Paisley
The Catholic Herald states that Catholics have responded cautiously to a claim that the Prince of Wales supports the repeal of the law forbidding a Catholic to ascend to the throne.
The claim was made this week by Paddy Ashdown who revealed that Prince Charles saw no reason why a Catholic shouldn’t become a British sovereign – even though this is forbidden by the Act of Settlement 1701. The disclosure has led to renewed calls for the repeal of the Act that was unsuccessfully challenged in the House of Lords last year. Opponents of the law – which states that the British monarch cannot be, or marry a Catholic – branded it as an ‘anachronistic and anomalous injustice’.
The Prince is said to have shown his support for repeal during a private discussion on a plane journey five years ago with the then leader of the Liberal Democrats and Tony Blair, then leader of the Opposition.
Mr Ashdown’s diary, serialised by The Times this week, recorded the Prince’s contribution to a conversation about religion and the Crown:
‘Charles looked at me, smiled broadly and said – "I really can’t think why we can’t have Catholics on the throne"’ Mr Ashdown wrote.
The remark – the first public indication of the Prince’s views – was seen to be fully in line with his belief that Britain should embrace all cultures and faiths. He said several years ago that he wanted to be ‘defender of faiths’ rather than the Defender of The Faith.
Philip Daniel of the Catholic Union agreed that there should be no obstacle to a Catholic monarch, but felt there was a lack of political will to overturn the Act of Settlement.
He said, ‘Acts can be rescinded. But I think there are bigger things to worry about than whether the sovereign can be a Catholic. I don’t think there’s a strong campaign to repeal the Act of Settlement, because I don’t think it really disturbs enough people now.’
The interesting thing of course is that no mention was made of the fact
that the King of the Vatican must be a Roman Catholic. In fact the King of
the Vatican is not even allowed to marry let alone marry one of a faith other
than that of his own. What is good for the Papist they can hardly argue is
not good for others!
My comment on the above is this.............
IF Charles wants to allow catholics to become kings of england, does this mean Charles himself wants to become CATHOLIC>?
If so, it fits the general drift of my thoughts on what Charles plans to do with regards the E.U the VATICAN and fits the Great monarch prophecies of the King of Europe( the revived Roman Empire!) Crowned by a Pope.
This will pave the way for a continual struggle to bring peace and security to Jerusalem.
ck15
Catholic World News — News Brief — 10/07/1999
Catholic World News is available for daily delivery by email and news stories may be browsed and searched online. For details, visit the Catholic World News web site.
Prince Charles Receives Catholic Blessing
LONDON (CWNews.com) - Prince Charles, heir to the British throne and next head of the Church of England, on Wednesday received a blessing in the Mother Church of English Catholicism.
The Prince, who was attending a memorial Mass for the late Cardinal Basil Hume, processed to the altar rail with Catholic communicants and bowed his head to receive a blessing from Archbishop Michael Bowen.
The Prince -- who will one day inherit the title "Defender of the Faith" bestowed on his ancestor Henry VIII before his break from Rome -- was greeted with applause when he joined the 1100-strong congregation in Westminster Cathedral.
Charles' presence at the Mass was seen as yet another sign of the acceptance of Catholicism in a country where Catholics are still barred from holding certain government post including that of Prime Minister.
In his homily, Bishop David Konstant of Leeds, praised the late Cardinal Hume for changing the way the Church is seen in Britain. "Any vestige of the Catholic ghetto is gone," he said. "A Catholic is accepted now as no less a loyal citizen than anyone else."
"This almost tangible change took place because Basil Hume was the man he was. He was clearly a man of authority," he added.
Last year, Queen Elizabeth was booed by Anglican protesters when she
became the first reigning monarch in centuries to attend a Catholic service.
CHARLES EVEN AFTER THE ORTHADOX
Not only is Charles seeking out to gain catholic influence , but read this!
im shocked i know a lot on chalres but im finding more and more all the time.
ck15
Is HRH the Prince of Wales considering entering the Orthodox Church?
'We are hurtling into an abyss of depravity, profligacy, plunder, theft, complete immorality. The only place I see where there may be the beginning of some sort of regeneration is in Russia'.
HRH Prince Charles, quoted in the Russian journal 'Den' in September 1992.
Royal coversion to the Orthadox Church
Over the centuries several members of European reigning families have converted to the Orthodox Church, from the Swedish King Magnus in the Middle Ages, to members of Royal Houses in Denmark and Germany. According to the research of a good friend and Oxford scholar, Archbishop Macarius (Tyllirides) of Zimbabwe, in England in the sixteenth-century King Henry VIII, wishing to quit Catholicism, informed himself about the Orthodox Faith. Shortly after, Queen Elizabeth I enquired about becoming Orthodox with a view to marrying a member of the Russian Royal Family. In the nineteenth century two of Queen Victoria's grand-daughters not only became Orthodox, but also became Orthodox Saints - the New Martyrs Alexandra and Elizabeth.
When in 1948 HRH Princess Elizabeth, the present Queen, married the Greek Orthodox Prince Philip, the present Duke of Edinburgh, he was officially required to cease to be Orthodox (although he never ceased to make the Orthodox sign of the cross in public). His devout mother had become an Orthodox nun on being widowed, and she can be seen dressed as an Orthodox nun on the balcony of Buckingham Palace in photographs on various public occasions in the 1950's. Inside the palace a small Orthodox chapel was set up for her use. This was dismantled after her death in 1969 and her remains were buried at a Russian Orthodox convent in Jerusalem, as she had wished.
After many years of not practising his faith, HRH Prince Philip returned to Orthodoxy in the early 1990's. In an article of that time written by Giles Milton ('The Spectator', 14 March 1992), it was revealed that in May 1991 he had spoken in private to a Russian Orthodox bishop in London and for June 1993 he was planning a meeting with the Patriarch of Constantinople, a visit to the Holy Mountain of Athos in Northern Greece and a visit to the Patriarch of Moscow. In the same article, the Prince's words to an Orthodox conference on Ecology in Crete in November 1991 were also quoted:
'The Orthodox Church has always known that every form of religious expression, worship, prayer, festival, preaching, monastic life or mysticism - can provide the inspiration to a practical response to the ecological crisis'.
In some ways it should not therefore be surprising that HRH Prince Charles, his son and heir to the throne, should also be taking a keen interest in the Orthodox Church. Although rumours of this interest reached our ears in the mid-nineties, a recent article in "the Sunday Express' (28 April 2002) suggests that his interest has grown much more serious.
The article, entitled "Is Charles turning his back on the Church' (i.e. the Church of England), reports that: 'Prince Charles has become so fed up with the Church of England he has been having one to one instruction in the Greek Orthodox religion. Friends say that he has made a 'spiritual commitment' to Greek Orthodoxy, but constitutional implications make it impossible for him to consider a full conversion'. A close friend of the Prince is said to have informed the reporters of the national newspaper that: 'The Church of England's absolutely pathetic attitude drives him mad - trying to be everything to everybody, and in the end standing for nothing'. It is asserted that Charles fell in love with Orthodox Christianity when he first visited the Holy Mountain of Athos with its two thousand Orthodox monks of all nationalities in 1996. On another visit to the monastery of Vatopedi on the Holy Mountain, he spent four hours talking alone to the Abbot. It is claimed that there was some sort of 'spiritual ceremony'. (Surely this can only be the Prince's induction as a catechumen of the Orthodox Church?). It is also affirmed that Prince Philip, who is a patron of the Friends of Mount Athos, had an influence on his son, but that the final catalyst was the tragic death of Princess Diana in 1997. "This was when he really got hooked because they gave him a lot of comfort, and that was when the great bond started", quotes the article.
Although the article contains many factual errors and a certain amount of journalistic hype, the possible future conversion of Prince Charles, secret or otherwise, to the Orthodox Church would be the highest-profile conversion to the Orthodox Church in this country in the last one hundred years. For Orthodox it should not altogether be surprising, for he is carried by the prayers of his devout nun-grandmother, and Orthodox Christians never underestimate the powers of a mother's prayers over up to three generations of descendants. Whatever the situation, we will continue to pray that 'the Lord God will remember in His Kingdom HRH The Prince of Wales' at the Great Entrance at every Divine Liturgy. As ever, we await that God's Will may be done in the great work of the Reconversion of England and all these Islands to the Orthodox Faith. May the Paschal light of Bright Monday illumine the hearts of all.
Charles is wanting to be a muslim, an anglican, a catholic a hindu a jew
the list goes on and on........................................WHY?
History meets the HRC
by Colby Cosh
AS the Church of England changes to suit the modern world, the Church's old twin, the English Crown, is undergoing a parallel transformation. Like the Anglican church, the Crown has been an enduring tie between the nations of the Commonwealth. And like the church, the Crown is faced with those who believe it to be badly in need of an "update."
Not all of the modernizers are outside the royal precincts. The Prince of Wales has stated publicly a number of times since 1996 that he wishes to alter his coronation oath--should he eventually take one--so that he will no longer be recognized as the titular "Defender of the Faith." This phrase has traditionally referred to the faith of the Church of England, created by his ancestor Henry VIII (although the title was actually conferred on Henry by the Pope for his anti-Lutheran activities before Henry led England into the Protes-tant Reformation). Instead, Prince Charles would like to be known as the "Defender of Faith" generally.
In a country where Muslims are soon to outnumber Anglican churchgoers, the move may be a matter of survival for the Crown. Under a plan being prepared quietly by a multi-faith group which includes high-ranking Anglican prelates, the whole coronation ceremony would be revamped. The Archbishop of Canterbury, who has presided in the past, would be joined by a clerical scrum including Catholic and evangelical representatives, the chief rabbi of the UK, and an imam. Gone would be the sovereign's traditional vow to "maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed religion by law established." (The scheme will have to be hastily prepared between the demise of the Queen and the subsequent coronation, since arrangements for the succession are not supposed to be discussed while Elizabeth lives.)
Another blow to the established church in England came on November 9 of this year, when it was revealed that the Scottish National Party (SNP) is preparing a challenge to the 1701 Act of Settlement. This law, originally passed to prevent the reacquisition of the throne by the exiled House of Stuart, forbids Roman Catholics from becoming the head of state (and hence head of the Common-wealth). It also forbids the monarch and heirs to the throne from marrying outside the Protestant faith. It therefore conflicts with Britain's Human Rights Act, which bans discrimination on religious grounds. Leading human-rights lawyers told the Daily Telegraph that the act was "certain" to be struck down by the SNP's suit.
Such a change would not have any immediate effect, since no Catholics are in the near line of succession, but it would allow Prince Charles' children to marry Roman Catholics (or anyone else) without being excluded from the throne. And another change influencing the distant future is in the works: although no bill has been presented yet, the Queen gave the House of Lords her approval in principle last year to abolishing male primogeniture. This would allow the eldest child of a monarch (or some dead or otherwise ineligible successor) to be first in line for the throne, whether male or female. Gender equity, human rights, multiculturalism: it seems we left our throne in England only to have it turn into Canada while our backs were turned.
By: K. B. Napier
The Reformation was the biggest single blow to Romanism there has possibly ever been... but it was a ragged blow, leaving elements of 'unattended business'. One of those elements was the matter of church rule.
Henry the Eighth demanded the 'Submission of the Clergy' from the Church of England's Convocations in 1532. It effectively gave supreme church rule to Henry and two years later he ensured that this rule was enshrined in an Act of Parliament. Henry was acknowledged to be the 'Supreme Head on Earth of the Church of England'. Elizabeth the First later renounced Romanism (again) and royalty instead assumed the title 'Supreme Governor' of the Church of England. There were many fights over this (and other similar issues), including the Civil War, but, under Charles the Second the Church of England again became the 'state' or established church. Time and again, those who dissented were punished. Even today, the Church of England is considered to be the representative of Christians in the UK and around the world, even though they are not.
But what of the 'Supreme Governor'? As in other spheres of life, royalty are now figureheads and not true rulers in their own right. Thus we can say of their Church of England role, that it is more 'decorative' than functional. Nevertheless, even such a vague and non-functional role must be challenged and disclaimed. Modern monarchs may not be 'Supreme Head' of the church anymore - but the title 'Supreme Governor' is still not appropriate, for king, queen or cleric. The title is less, but the implied meaning to the majority of people remains the same. And that is why it cannot remain intact.
Scripture tells us that we must obey those placed in civil authority over us. Therefore, it is my duty to obey the law and other civil authorities including the monarch, providing they do not oppose God's word. But, that does not mean I also have to accept the monarch's role as 'Supreme Governor'. I cannot do so because the title itself contravenes God's own plan for His Church on earth. No man or woman can ever rule the Church on earth, or be its 'governor'. Thus, to me, the popes are free to rule their own man-made edifice, because it is not a church or a part of the true Church of Jesus Christ. But when they claim (as they do) that they are God's Vicar on earth and they stand in the place and stead of Christ, they overstep their boundary. The popes have no rule over the Church whatever.... only over their own heresy.
Neither do the Archbishops of Canterbury have rule over the Church. They may be allowed rule over the so-called 'church of England', because it is also man-made: many of its clergy exist contrary to scripture and practice unbiblical functions. It is true that local clergy have limited freedom (so long as their parishioners do not object strongly) to act as they wish and so there are some who stand against the general flow - they preach Christ crucified and are true to God. Nevertheless, this does not clear up the objection that they belong to an apostate denomination under the overall 'rule' (however esoteric) of archbishops and a 'Supreme Governor'. Nor does it rid the fact that Archbishops/'Supreme Governors' have no rule over the Church of Christ itself. The Church of England is NOT the Church of Christ. It is a self-fashioned, man-made denomination containing many heretics and unbelievers (like all other denominations). Thus, the 'Supreme Governor' (who is seen by many to be the actual 'Head' of the C of E) is governor over a denomination, but not over the True Church.
We come to the matter of that 'Supreme Governor'...the present Governor is Queen Elizabeth the Second, to whom all UK Christians are subject, pertaining to things civil. But, she is not a Christian, as her various activities and statements adequately prove. She has bowed the knee to the heretical 'church' of Rome, in a black dress symbolising national repentance. In this way she has helped to make smooth the transition of this country back to Romanism. She had no right whatever to do this. Some in her family are now openly declaring their soul-slavery to Roman Catholicism. Many of them consult mediums and spiritualists. In no way is our Queen 'governor' of the True Church!
Her son Charles, who may become king, is not a Christian, either. Nor does he show interest in the True Faith once delivered by the saints. Rather, his interests are the other way. He is hooked on New Age concepts and on a mish-mash of religious ideas. One of his closest friends, Sir Laurens van der Post, advised him in his 'religious quest' into the 'spirit world'. Between them, they devised a plan whereby the Prince may contact Post after his death... something condemned by God. (King Saul died ignominiously as a punishment from God, for asking a medium to call up the dead). Significantly, the Queen advises him to keep quiet about his occult interests....yet she and others regularly visit psychics and 'healers'. One of Post's friends, the psychologist Winifred Rushforth, told Charles that "maybe the spirits were guiding him" in all that he did!
What can we say about this? Charles is certainly not a Christian. But, so it seems, nor are his so-called 'spiritual advisers' within the state church. Therefore, he obtains no spiritual guidance from them at all. Rather, by their silence (or encouragement) they condone his behaviour. Charles is in a dangerous position. He may soon assume the title 'Supreme Governor' and yet he is doing what king Saul did to incur God's wrath! If ever a man needed our prayers, it is he.
No man, including Charles, can ever be 'Supreme Governor' of the True Church of Christ on earth. It does not matter if he will be the actual 'head' or not - the fact remains that the populace believes he is the 'head' of the Church! Thus, he will become the 'face' and the representative of the True Church, in the eyes of billions around the world. That he is not, and is not, seen as such by Anglican clergy, is irrelevant. Charles, by his contrary beliefs and behaviour, has no right to be Governor of a denomination.
What should we do about it? Christians are duty-bound to speak out. There is no way that real Believers can get the ear of the Prince. We must, then, reach him externally...pray for him: if he ever attains to the throne, all of the world is at risk from Roman Catholicism. Like his mother, Charles is pro-Romanism. Like Queen Mary, our present queen could help to bring back the terrible darkness of a Romanist regime. It is up to Charles to shun that step, but he will not do this, so long as he is being advised by evil men. Another step is to publicly disclaim Charles' occult interests as being contrary to scripture. The Roman Catholic system must constantly and continuously be discredited, through a public witness to God's word. False preachers must be removed from pulpits and the truth of God must be declared. Fight evil and preach Truth...the twin bastions of Christianity! If Charles is to stand a chance, then Christians must obey God...as he must, whether or not he knows salvation.
---oOo---
Bible Theology Ministries
© June 1993
PO Box 415, SWANSEA SA5 8YH
United Kingdom
If you would like to make a donation to support the work of Bible Theology Ministries
click here Make a Donation
As Christians we are bound to obey the monarch…unless he or she disobeys God. So, what of the UK Queen, who unveiled a statue to a late adversary of the true Gospel, Cardinal Hume?
Bishop Ambrose Griffiths said “It’s the first time ever – certainly since the Reformation – that the Queen has unveiled a statue to a Catholic prelate. This would have been inconceivable until recent years.” Thus our Queen has swept aside hundreds of years of Biblical truth in this land.
The Queen is indeed blind to truth, as are her family and spiritual advisers. They have made sure that the Reformation has been replaced by Catholic lies and have given to Rome its greatest desired prize – the ‘Dowry of Mary’, Britain! Rome knows and has said, that once it has regained Britain the rest of the English-speaking world will fall into her grasp.
Pope as God
By using the title ‘Vicar of Christ’ the popes claim to be God on earth. The present pope recently sent out a strongly-worded instruction to all Catholic leaders to urgently bring back the full confessional (the ‘Sacrament of Reconciliation’). General absolutions are okay for some things he said, but “Catholics must make an individual and integral confession of all their mortal sins to a priest to gain reconciliation with God.”
This blasphemy is so blatant! Scripture says that we do not need priests or to confess to them. We have direct access to God through Christ alone, and gain reconciliation through salvation in Christ, not through continually confessing our sins to a priest who prevents direct access to God.
The 15 page letter (Misericordia Dei – ‘mercy of God’) was sent via senior cardinals to a press conference, motu proprio (‘on the pope’s own initiative’). He says that only when a person is prepared inwardly can he have the ‘right’ of reconciliation with God, via the Church (of Rome).
This right can only be dispensed by a priest. “...for the priest to know the penitent’s spirit, with a view to granting or withholding absolution, the faithful must confess each and every mortal sin and show they are truly sorry. Individual confession and absolution are the sole means by which the faithful…are reconciled to God and the Church.”
In his letter the pope is trying to combat a general or communal ‘anonymous’ absolution pronounced over a congregation as a whole, in an effort to bring back Catholics who feel too ashamed of their sins to confess them personally to a priest. Cardinal Ratzinger told the media that Christ Himself instituted the confessional!!
Rome provides for communal or general absolution in certain cases, such as on a battle-field, in a disaster, etc. But to use it in normal circumstances, Rome says, is to break Church rules. Needless to say, these Romanist rules have nothing to do with God or with the true Church. These rules show us why so many Catholics are afraid of Rome’s powers, for she claims she can give or withhold absolution for sins and the reception of God’s grace.
Cardinal Preaches to Queen
January 2002
The Queen invited Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor to preach to her at her home in Sandringham, on December 12th, 2001.
A well-known royal-biographer says that this is an historic invitation that will lead to ‘decisive change in English society’. (Do our Christian brethren realise that?). Roman Catholic leaders are more explicit and say what we have known for years – that the Queen is very close to Romanism!
This I believe, because our monarch has overturned the hard-won freedom from Rome that was our heritage since the Reformation. A Palace spokesman said that the Queen was aware of the historic significance of this action (though I do not think she is aware at all): “This is in the spirit of cooperation, unity and friendship…a sign of the ecumenical age we are in.” The cardinal chose to speak on, yes, you’ve guessed it – ecumenical unity, with a sprinkling of Mariolatry thrown in for good measure.
In 1995 the Queen was the first monarch since Stuart times to attend a Catholic service. Now she is the first to invite a Catholic to preach. The cardinal said that this event “was seen as even more significant…it shows the Queen is closer to Roman Catholicism…” It also shows she is immersed in heresy and cultism and is willing to destroy the freedoms won by the blood of martyrs! Fifty ‘regular attenders’ at the chapel gave up their seats so that Roman Catholics could attend, and a group of nuns stood by – a portent of what is to come, when Catholicism will rule once again.
During his ‘sermon’, which was nothing more than blatant propaganda, the cardinal spoke of the “two aspects of Mary that unite all Christians” and, with great sleight of hand managed to convince the Queen that when Christ turned water in to wine, it was a sign to us that we must be united (?? Don’t ask me how this interpretation comes about – I’m only reporting what was said!). He saw his presence at the service as a work of the Holy Spirit and so “Ecumenism is like a road with no exit. There is no going back.” Then, with a sugary appeal that sickens, at the end of his sermon, he praised the Queen’s “enormous dignity, dedication and faithfulness”. What a far cry from the accolades made to Queen Elizabeth the First, who knew first hand the desperate danger the country was in from Romanism. Not only did he preach, but he stayed on as a guest for the weekend.
Rector of Goldsmith’s College, London, Ben Pimlott, in an interview with an Italian newspaper, says that the Church of England is no longer seen to be the church of the UK, because of the inroads made by Rome and Islam. He rightly views the UK as a secularised society that sees no relevance in religion.
He went on to say that nowadays the media automatically go to Roman Catholics for ‘church’ views on most topics in the news. Indeed, this has been noticed by ourselves. Pimlott adds that the Queen’s invitation is a clear sign of two things – the ecumenical leaning of the Queen and a desire by her to reinforce national unity. She and the cardinal see closer union as beneficial to Northern Ireland. One World is coming closer!
We receive many angry emails on our web site, concerning our stand against Roman Catholicism. Even so, we will continue our opposition to this gross deception of Satan.
THE NEW ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY PICKED BY PRO CATHOLICS.
In similarly grotesque fashion the ‘chief officership’ of the Anglican Archbishop is now up for grabs and, according to the front runner, bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, his name is being smeared. He says it is racial. We should note that if this man gets in to the post, he will take us even closer to Rome, as he was himself once a Roman Catholic, with training in a Romanist college before entering the Anglican church. Thus he admits to being “Catholic and evangelical”.
When the Crown Appointments Commission puts forward two names for the post to Tony Blair, he will choose one and forward it to the Queen for ratification. So, a pro-Catholic Prime Minister will give his choice to a pro-Catholic Queen. It will be interesting to see who wins this little rat-race.
taken from:
http://www.christiandoctrine.net/news/roman_catholic_news/roman_catholic_news_january_2002.htm
