Discussion:
Carey calls for "multi-faith" coronation....
(too old to reply)
Michael Rhodes
2006-06-06 13:10:56 UTC
Permalink
Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, has surprised senior
clerics by calling for a "multi-faith" coronation when the Prince
of Wales succeeds to the throne.

Carey is to argue for a revision of the Christian oath taken by the
monarch and for changes to the exclusively Anglican coronation service.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2210096,00.html

He makes his appeal in a television documentary to be broadcast on Five
later this month. It puts him at odds with Rowan Williams, his
successor, - and with most Anglican bishops.

In Carey's broadcast, he will say: "When the time comes for the
next coronation, there will have to be very significant changes. The
Queen came to the throne at a time when there were no Muslims, Sikhs
and Hindus . . . in the life of the country and now it's a completely
different world so the coronation oath will have to be looked at more
critically."

A number of Carey's former bishops disagree. Last week, Michael
Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester, maintained such a proposal was
untenable. "You can't defend every faith, because there are very
serious differences among them," he said.

The present Archbishop of Canterbury, who succeeded Carey in 2002, made
it clear the following year that if a coronation happened during his
tenure its character would remain unchanged. He said: "As long as the
constitutional relationship between monarch and church is there, the
coronation needs to be within a Christian framework."

At her coronation in 1953, the Queen swore to uphold "the laws of God
and the true profession of the Gospel, maintain the Protestant reformed
religion established by law and maintain and reserve inviolably the
settlement of the Church of England".

The debate over the wording of the coronation oath began in 1994 when
Prince Charles expressed a wish to be seen as a defender "of faith"
rather than of "the faith".

While Charles clearly wishes to support other religions and has done so
particularly in the case of Islam, he also takes seriously his future
role as supreme governor of the Church of England and has never
indicated that he would want to see the oath changed.

The majority position of the House of Bishops of the Church of England
is that the next coronation ceremony should remain essentially
Christian in content but attended by the leaders of Britain's main
non-Christian religions.
Antonio
2006-06-06 14:01:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Rhodes
Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, has surprised senior
clerics by calling for a "multi-faith" coronation when the Prince
of Wales succeeds to the throne.
Carey is to argue for a revision of the Christian oath taken by the
monarch and for changes to the exclusively Anglican coronation service.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2210096,00.html
He makes his appeal in a television documentary to be broadcast on Five
later this month. It puts him at odds with Rowan Williams, his
successor, - and with most Anglican bishops.
In Carey's broadcast, he will say: "When the time comes for the
next coronation, there will have to be very significant changes. The
Queen came to the throne at a time when there were no Muslims, Sikhs
and Hindus . . . in the life of the country and now it's a completely
different world so the coronation oath will have to be looked at more
critically."
A number of Carey's former bishops disagree. Last week, Michael
Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester, maintained such a proposal was
untenable. "You can't defend every faith, because there are very
serious differences among them," he said.
The present Archbishop of Canterbury, who succeeded Carey in 2002, made
it clear the following year that if a coronation happened during his
tenure its character would remain unchanged. He said: "As long as the
constitutional relationship between monarch and church is there, the
coronation needs to be within a Christian framework."
At her coronation in 1953, the Queen swore to uphold "the laws of God
and the true profession of the Gospel, maintain the Protestant reformed
religion established by law and maintain and reserve inviolably the
settlement of the Church of England".
The debate over the wording of the coronation oath began in 1994 when
Prince Charles expressed a wish to be seen as a defender "of faith"
rather than of "the faith".
While Charles clearly wishes to support other religions and has done so
particularly in the case of Islam, he also takes seriously his future
role as supreme governor of the Church of England and has never
indicated that he would want to see the oath changed.
The majority position of the House of Bishops of the Church of England
is that the next coronation ceremony should remain essentially
Christian in content but attended by the leaders of Britain's main
non-Christian religions.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Don´t they dare change a centuries old
rite!!!!!
m***@yahoo.ca
2006-06-06 14:06:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Antonio
Post by Michael Rhodes
Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, has surprised senior
clerics by calling for a "multi-faith" coronation when the Prince
of Wales succeeds to the throne.
Carey is to argue for a revision of the Christian oath taken by the
monarch and for changes to the exclusively Anglican coronation service.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2210096,00.html
He makes his appeal in a television documentary to be broadcast on Five
later this month. It puts him at odds with Rowan Williams, his
successor, - and with most Anglican bishops.
In Carey's broadcast, he will say: "When the time comes for the
next coronation, there will have to be very significant changes. The
Queen came to the throne at a time when there were no Muslims, Sikhs
and Hindus . . . in the life of the country and now it's a completely
different world so the coronation oath will have to be looked at more
critically."
A number of Carey's former bishops disagree. Last week, Michael
Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester, maintained such a proposal was
untenable. "You can't defend every faith, because there are very
serious differences among them," he said.
The present Archbishop of Canterbury, who succeeded Carey in 2002, made
it clear the following year that if a coronation happened during his
tenure its character would remain unchanged. He said: "As long as the
constitutional relationship between monarch and church is there, the
coronation needs to be within a Christian framework."
At her coronation in 1953, the Queen swore to uphold "the laws of God
and the true profession of the Gospel, maintain the Protestant reformed
religion established by law and maintain and reserve inviolably the
settlement of the Church of England".
The debate over the wording of the coronation oath began in 1994 when
Prince Charles expressed a wish to be seen as a defender "of faith"
rather than of "the faith".
While Charles clearly wishes to support other religions and has done so
particularly in the case of Islam, he also takes seriously his future
role as supreme governor of the Church of England and has never
indicated that he would want to see the oath changed.
The majority position of the House of Bishops of the Church of England
is that the next coronation ceremony should remain essentially
Christian in content but attended by the leaders of Britain's main
non-Christian religions.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Don´t they dare change a centuries old
rite!!!!!
The form and ceremony of the Coronation changes every time.
Louis Epstein
2006-06-08 01:02:30 UTC
Permalink
***@yahoo.ca wrote:
:
: Antonio wrote:
:> Michael Rhodes wrote:
:> > Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, has surprised senior
:> > clerics by calling for a "multi-faith" coronation when the Prince
:> > of Wales succeeds to the throne.
:> >
:> > Carey is to argue for a revision of the Christian oath taken by the
:> > monarch and for changes to the exclusively Anglican coronation service.
:> >
:> >
:> > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2210096,00.html
:> >
:> > He makes his appeal in a television documentary to be broadcast on Five
:> > later this month. It puts him at odds with Rowan Williams, his
:> > successor, - and with most Anglican bishops.
:> >
:> > In Carey's broadcast, he will say: "When the time comes for the
:> > next coronation, there will have to be very significant changes. The
:> > Queen came to the throne at a time when there were no Muslims, Sikhs
:> > and Hindus . . . in the life of the country and now it's a completely
:> > different world so the coronation oath will have to be looked at more
:> > critically."
:> >
:> > A number of Carey's former bishops disagree. Last week, Michael
:> > Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester, maintained such a proposal was
:> > untenable. "You can't defend every faith, because there are very
:> > serious differences among them," he said.
:> >
:> > The present Archbishop of Canterbury, who succeeded Carey in 2002, made
:> > it clear the following year that if a coronation happened during his
:> > tenure its character would remain unchanged. He said: "As long as the
:> > constitutional relationship between monarch and church is there, the
:> > coronation needs to be within a Christian framework."
:> >
:> > At her coronation in 1953, the Queen swore to uphold "the laws of God
:> > and the true profession of the Gospel, maintain the Protestant reformed
:> > religion established by law and maintain and reserve inviolably the
:> > settlement of the Church of England".
:> >
:> > The debate over the wording of the coronation oath began in 1994 when
:> > Prince Charles expressed a wish to be seen as a defender "of faith"
:> > rather than of "the faith".
:> >
:> > While Charles clearly wishes to support other religions and has done so
:> > particularly in the case of Islam, he also takes seriously his future
:> > role as supreme governor of the Church of England and has never
:> > indicated that he would want to see the oath changed.
:> >
:> > The majority position of the House of Bishops of the Church of England
:> > is that the next coronation ceremony should remain essentially
:> > Christian in content but attended by the leaders of Britain's main
:> > non-Christian religions.
:>
:>
:>
:> NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Don?t they dare change a centuries old
:> rite!!!!!
:
: The form and ceremony of the Coronation changes every time.
:

But the only changes that should be contemplated at present
are the reversals of ones that have happened in the past,
e.g. bringing back the banquet with the Champion's Challenge
and the procession from Westminster Hall.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
f***@southernskies.co.uk
2006-06-06 14:09:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Antonio
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Don´t they dare change a centuries old
rite!!!!!
Personally I think that the religious element should be stripped out in
its entirety, but I imagine that I'll be in a minority on that around
here.

But leaving that aside, has the coronation ceremony changed much over
the years? I'd imagine that in fact it has, as supposedly ancient
traditions often turn out to be a lot younger than is generally
assumed. What say the people here who will know about this sort of
thing?
--
AGw.
George Lucki
2006-06-06 16:44:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Rhodes
Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, has surprised senior
clerics by calling for a "multi-faith" coronation when the Prince
of Wales succeeds to the throne.
Carey is to argue for a revision of the Christian oath taken by the
monarch and for changes to the exclusively Anglican coronation service.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2210096,00.html
He makes his appeal in a television documentary to be broadcast on Five
later this month. It puts him at odds with Rowan Williams, his
successor, - and with most Anglican bishops.
In Carey's broadcast, he will say: "When the time comes for the
next coronation, there will have to be very significant changes. The
Queen came to the throne at a time when there were no Muslims, Sikhs
and Hindus . . . in the life of the country and now it's a completely
different world so the coronation oath will have to be looked at more
critically."
A number of Carey's former bishops disagree. Last week, Michael
Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester, maintained such a proposal was
untenable. "You can't defend every faith, because there are very
serious differences among them," he said.
The present Archbishop of Canterbury, who succeeded Carey in 2002, made
it clear the following year that if a coronation happened during his
tenure its character would remain unchanged. He said: "As long as the
constitutional relationship between monarch and church is there, the
coronation needs to be within a Christian framework."
At her coronation in 1953, the Queen swore to uphold "the laws of God
and the true profession of the Gospel, maintain the Protestant reformed
religion established by law and maintain and reserve inviolably the
settlement of the Church of England".
The debate over the wording of the coronation oath began in 1994 when
Prince Charles expressed a wish to be seen as a defender "of faith"
rather than of "the faith".
While Charles clearly wishes to support other religions and has done so
particularly in the case of Islam, he also takes seriously his future
role as supreme governor of the Church of England and has never
indicated that he would want to see the oath changed.
The majority position of the House of Bishops of the Church of England
is that the next coronation ceremony should remain essentially
Christian in content but attended by the leaders of Britain's main
non-Christian religions.
Interesting proposal to include non-Christian faiths in a meaningful and
inclusive way. I hope it is more than political correctness. I wonder if
this sense of multi-faith will ever extend as far as Roman Catholic... Some
small adaptations of the service and oath might be necessary so as to not
offend.

George Lucki
rc
2006-06-06 16:59:34 UTC
Permalink
George Lucki wrote:

. I wonder if
this sense of multi-faith will ever extend as far as Roman Catholic... >
George Lucki
Of course it won't. When coverage of a Guy Fawks celebration in the
21st century includes posters reading no Pope and no Romanism do you
expect anything to change?

RC

(pre Vatican II Cradle Catholic)
Sacha Hubbard
2006-06-06 17:23:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Lucki
Post by Michael Rhodes
Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, has surprised senior
clerics by calling for a "multi-faith" coronation when the Prince
of Wales succeeds to the throne.
Carey is to argue for a revision of the Christian oath taken by the
monarch and for changes to the exclusively Anglican coronation service.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2210096,00.html
He makes his appeal in a television documentary to be broadcast on Five
later this month. It puts him at odds with Rowan Williams, his
successor, - and with most Anglican bishops.
In Carey's broadcast, he will say: "When the time comes for the
next coronation, there will have to be very significant changes. The
Queen came to the throne at a time when there were no Muslims, Sikhs
and Hindus . . . in the life of the country and now it's a completely
different world so the coronation oath will have to be looked at more
critically."
A number of Carey's former bishops disagree. Last week, Michael
Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester, maintained such a proposal was
untenable. "You can't defend every faith, because there are very
serious differences among them," he said.
The present Archbishop of Canterbury, who succeeded Carey in 2002, made
it clear the following year that if a coronation happened during his
tenure its character would remain unchanged. He said: "As long as the
constitutional relationship between monarch and church is there, the
coronation needs to be within a Christian framework."
At her coronation in 1953, the Queen swore to uphold "the laws of God
and the true profession of the Gospel, maintain the Protestant reformed
religion established by law and maintain and reserve inviolably the
settlement of the Church of England".
The debate over the wording of the coronation oath began in 1994 when
Prince Charles expressed a wish to be seen as a defender "of faith"
rather than of "the faith".
While Charles clearly wishes to support other religions and has done so
particularly in the case of Islam, he also takes seriously his future
role as supreme governor of the Church of England and has never
indicated that he would want to see the oath changed.
The majority position of the House of Bishops of the Church of England
is that the next coronation ceremony should remain essentially
Christian in content but attended by the leaders of Britain's main
non-Christian religions.
Interesting proposal to include non-Christian faiths in a meaningful and
inclusive way. I hope it is more than political correctness. I wonder if
this sense of multi-faith will ever extend as far as Roman Catholic... Some
small adaptations of the service and oath might be necessary so as to not
offend.
The prince wishes to be Defender of Faith, with no particular faith
specified. To name any one faith could well offend those who think that e.g.
the Pope or Mohammed are their religion's actual leaders. And of course, it
could deeply offend all those who are not named and belong to some obscure
religious sect. The Defender of the Right to Worship As One Sees Fit seems to
be the proposition, AIUI. I don't think it's political correctness. I think
it's an awareness of how very greatly the components of our society have
changed.
I'm not sure what you mean by "will ever extend as far as Roman Catholic" but
if you mean that the monarch or those in line to the throne are not able to
marry RCs, from what I recall, there were political, rather than religious,
reasons for the last block being put on that. Someone here might remember
the details.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
email address on web site
Stan Brown
2006-06-07 02:52:37 UTC
Permalink
Tue, 6 Jun 2006 18:23:10 +0100 from Sacha Hubbard
Post by Sacha Hubbard
The prince wishes to be Defender of Faith, with no particular faith
specified.
I know he has said that, and I have never been able to see it as
anything but meaningless.

If you defend "faith", you deny that any one is correct.

It may be politically correct, but it's so namby-pamby that it's
meaningless.

As Heinlein said, "The man who takes a side may sometimes be wrong,
but the man who refuses to take sides will always be wrong."
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040722191706/http://users.uniserve.com/
~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Jan Böhme
2006-06-07 09:11:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
Tue, 6 Jun 2006 18:23:10 +0100 from Sacha Hubbard
Post by Sacha Hubbard
The prince wishes to be Defender of Faith, with no particular faith
specified.
I know he has said that, and I have never been able to see it as
anything but meaningless.
If you defend "faith", you deny that any one is correct.
Not necessarlily. Even if we limit yourselves to the abrahamite
religions, with their peculiar claim of exclusivity, you may also
embrace the position that factual correctness is a) impossible to
ascertain for mortal human beings, and b) irrelevant for the actual
function of religion in society.

And we also have to realise how very specific to the abrahamite
religions this claim of exclusivity, and its corollary protestation
that any other faith by necessety must be Wrong, is. Defending "faith"
in general would be quite easy to do in large parts of East Asia, where
religions generally are not regarded as mutually exclusive, but as
concepts that may very well be blended together more or less ad hoc.

Besides, it would seem to me as it would be a good deal easier to be
_Defender_ of Faith, generically, than to be _Promoter_ of Faith.

Jan Böhme
Louis Epstein
2006-06-08 01:00:42 UTC
Permalink
Sacha Hubbard <***@privacy.net> wrote:
: On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 17:44:48 +0100, George Lucki wrote
: (in article <4iihg.13988$***@edtnps89>):
:
:> "Michael Rhodes" <***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
:> news:***@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
:>> Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, has surprised senior
:>> clerics by calling for a "multi-faith" coronation when the Prince
:>> of Wales succeeds to the throne.
:>>
:>> Carey is to argue for a revision of the Christian oath taken by the
:>> monarch and for changes to the exclusively Anglican coronation service.
:>>
:>>
:>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2210096,00.html
:>>
:>> He makes his appeal in a television documentary to be broadcast on Five
:>> later this month. It puts him at odds with Rowan Williams, his
:>> successor, - and with most Anglican bishops.
:>>
:>> In Carey's broadcast, he will say: "When the time comes for the
:>> next coronation, there will have to be very significant changes. The
:>> Queen came to the throne at a time when there were no Muslims, Sikhs
:>> and Hindus . . . in the life of the country and now it's a completely
:>> different world so the coronation oath will have to be looked at more
:>> critically."
:>>
:>> A number of Carey's former bishops disagree. Last week, Michael
:>> Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester, maintained such a proposal was
:>> untenable. "You can't defend every faith, because there are very
:>> serious differences among them," he said.
:>>
:>> The present Archbishop of Canterbury, who succeeded Carey in 2002, made
:>> it clear the following year that if a coronation happened during his
:>> tenure its character would remain unchanged. He said: "As long as the
:>> constitutional relationship between monarch and church is there, the
:>> coronation needs to be within a Christian framework."
:>>
:>> At her coronation in 1953, the Queen swore to uphold "the laws of God
:>> and the true profession of the Gospel, maintain the Protestant reformed
:>> religion established by law and maintain and reserve inviolably the
:>> settlement of the Church of England".
:>>
:>> The debate over the wording of the coronation oath began in 1994 when
:>> Prince Charles expressed a wish to be seen as a defender "of faith"
:>> rather than of "the faith".
:>>
:>> While Charles clearly wishes to support other religions and has done so
:>> particularly in the case of Islam, he also takes seriously his future
:>> role as supreme governor of the Church of England and has never
:>> indicated that he would want to see the oath changed.
:>>
:>> The majority position of the House of Bishops of the Church of England
:>> is that the next coronation ceremony should remain essentially
:>> Christian in content but attended by the leaders of Britain's main
:>> non-Christian religions.
:>>
:>
:> Interesting proposal to include non-Christian faiths in a meaningful and
:> inclusive way. I hope it is more than political correctness. I wonder if
:> this sense of multi-faith will ever extend as far as Roman Catholic... Some
:> small adaptations of the service and oath might be necessary so as to not
:> offend.
:>
:
: The prince wishes to be Defender of Faith, with no particular faith
: specified. To name any one faith could well offend those who think that e.g.
: the Pope or Mohammed are their religion's actual leaders. And of course, it
: could deeply offend all those who are not named and belong to some obscure
: religious sect. The Defender of the Right to Worship As One Sees Fit seems to
: be the proposition, AIUI. I don't think it's political correctness. I think
: it's an awareness of how very greatly the components of our society have
: changed.

Or rather,a cowardly evasion of responsibility to
stand against the very idea of societal change.

Both religion and Monarchy have eternal bases that
demand dismissal of things that change as irrelevant
because they change,and the forceful advocacy of
treating inability to change as the measure of
importance.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
f***@southernskies.co.uk
2006-06-08 02:09:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Or rather,a cowardly evasion of responsibility to
stand against the very idea of societal change.
Both religion and Monarchy have eternal bases that
demand dismissal of things that change as irrelevant
because they change,and the forceful advocacy of
treating inability to change as the measure of
importance.
I can't see how you could genuinely believe the Church of England to
have an "eternal base", since it's only been around since the second
half of the sixteenth century! Not to mention that it owes its very
existence to the sorts of changes that you seem to object to...
--
AGw.
Louis Epstein
2006-06-08 23:06:54 UTC
Permalink
***@southernskies.co.uk wrote:
: Louis Epstein wrote:
:> Or rather,a cowardly evasion of responsibility to
:> stand against the very idea of societal change.
:>
:> Both religion and Monarchy have eternal bases that
:> demand dismissal of things that change as irrelevant
:> because they change,and the forceful advocacy of
:> treating inability to change as the measure of
:> importance.
:
: I can't see how you could genuinely believe the Church of England to
: have an "eternal base", since it's only been around since the second
: half of the sixteenth century! Not to mention that it owes its very
: existence to the sorts of changes that you seem to object to...
:

Any religion,to the extent that it changes,
thereby discredits itself.A religion must base
itself on eternal truths.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Antonio
2006-06-09 14:14:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@southernskies.co.uk
Post by Louis Epstein
Or rather,a cowardly evasion of responsibility to
stand against the very idea of societal change.
Both religion and Monarchy have eternal bases that
demand dismissal of things that change as irrelevant
because they change,and the forceful advocacy of
treating inability to change as the measure of
importance.
I can't see how you could genuinely believe the Church of England to
have an "eternal base", since it's only been around since the second
half of the sixteenth century! Not to mention that it owes its very
existence to the sorts of changes that you seem to object to...
--
AGw.
I am not an Anglican, I am a Catholic, and yet, I don´t want to see
any change to the Coronation.

Since the times of King Edgar the Coronation has been a Christian
cerimony, involving the anointing, prayers to Jesus Christ, to God the
Father, to the Holy Spirit, etc. And all that should remain the same.

Furhermore, the Coronation rites presently in use by the Anglican
Communion have several elements that have been developed from, or that
are simply a copy of, the formulas used in Catholic Coronations.
Indeed, the Coronation rites in several Christian denominations,
including the Orthodox, have a common base, and share common elements.
The Coronation is a centuries-old rite, the features of which have
slowly and organically developed since ancient times.

Monarchy is all about that: about tradition, continuity, centuries old
rites being renewed, new generations having a strong link with the
past.

An abrupt change in the cerimony of Coronation to make it into a
multi-faith carnival will kill that spirit of tradition. It would be a
total break with the past, and the Coronation would have nothing in
common with past Coronations; the gift of continuity would be lost.
What is more, the charism of a Christian anointing of the Sovereign
would be lost.

Then, we might as well consider a change of venue: From Westminster
Abbey to the Millennium Dome.

s***@example.com
2006-06-07 17:27:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Lucki
nteresting proposal to include non-Christian faiths in a meaningful and
inclusive way. I hope it is more than political correctness. I wonder if
this sense of multi-faith will ever extend as far as Roman Catholic...
Hardly.
A Roman Catholic monarch would be bound to recognize the validity of
Pius V's bull /Regnans in Excelsis/ of 1570 deposing Elizabeth I and
absolving her subjects from their natural allegiance to her.
He or she would also presumably have to accept the ability of the
present Pope to depose her or him regardless of any decision of the UK
Parliament.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...