Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Hi Howard, No theology in the last few posts, just disputed/uncertain and comparatively unimportant early church history.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Neil is right, there, Howard, in as much as theology is a different matter.
Church history as discussed here - including the claimed papal succession - does not come under theology.
In fact, I've never written an article on theology, only on Church history.
As for St. Mary in Castro, it is the Latin for St. Mary at the Castle.
Castro is the Latin dative form, where an "o" is required for masculine nouns, whereas in English we use the preposition "in", or "at".
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
So Neil,
Does the church at the castle recognise the queen like other church's or is it a stand alone church?
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
As per Howard's link, it is part of the Anglican Communion and its Vicar took the same oaths and made the same promises as every other Anglican Vicar and in accordance with the book of Common Prayer.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Neil
excuse my ignorance, could you explain please
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 977- Registered: 27 Jun 2013
- Posts: 1,031
Everything you want to know
hereKeith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Ray
Thankyou again for confirming my view that Alexander hasn't really understood the church he attends
and that the Queen is the supreme Governor of the church.
That's all I was asking.
When Alexander stated he attended a different church he gave the impression it was a stand alone church, when in fact its no different to/is part of the main stream.
It could well be that Alexander has given a personal view, but although he may not support the queen for whatever reason
even though the church he attends does, he could have just said that.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Said what, Keith?
The Church at the Castle is officially from Saxon times, around the year1,000. although it may be from Celtic rimes, around the third or fourth century, according to Reverend Puckley who was Vicar at Saint Mary in the Town and wrote a book in 1864.
I get on well with this Church, it has never rebuked me for heresy
Calm down, Keith, you are getting het-up over other people's Creed.
Guest 756- Registered: 6 Jun 2012
- Posts: 727
Back to the start of this thread, could we each draw a sensible and brief conclusion of whether we are for and against, allowing a modicom of respect, cut the oneupmanship, smile and move on?
I have no problem with faith schools, it did me no harm and still allowed me the freedom to make my own decisions.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Teaching different faiths in British schools is sectarianism, and is contrary to the Gospel.
This is my verdict.
Guest 1033- Registered: 23 Aug 2013
- Posts: 509
Surely though we've had roman catholic and church of england schools in this country for many years ? (and churches of Scotland and ireland respectively). If this is contrary to the gospel how do the heads of these schools rationalise their position of being in charge of such a school ? Not that it bothers me, not being a believer in any of them, but it seems that this separation of two branches of supposedly the same religion makes a bit of hyopocracy of state schools. Actually, come to think of it, there have been jewish faith schools about for a long time too, makes me wonder how they all fit into the grand scheme of things.
One ipside to all this of course is that come judgemant day, all you followers of different religions and their various branches will be fighting and arguing so much, us non believers will be able to sneak past you into heaven and make sure the last one in locks the gates behind him (or her !).
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
All I know is, Barrie, I go to worship at the English Church at the Castle.
I'm happy with this, and see no reason in having to argue with anyone about it.
I don't recognise Mrs.Windsor as my head or supreme governor.
I shall now pull out of this constant arguing on this thread.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
you seem to have serious problems tugging the forelock and bending the knee alex. you'll need to learn those skills if you ever want an m.b.e.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
Guest 1033- Registered: 23 Aug 2013
- Posts: 509
I was asking a straight question Alexander. I have no problem with where or who you worship, and all the 'evidence' put forward by others makes no difference as you would need to believe it to accept it. I also can't find it in my heart to kowtow to Mrs. Battenberg, as leader of any church, or sectarian leader by accident of birth. Keith Sansum takes great delight in winding you up in what I find to be a most puerile manner, but as I said, it was just a question I was asking, not a wind up or a way of starting an argument.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
To answer your question, Barrie, teaching the Gospel at school should come about solely through reference to the Gospel, as well as to prophecies from the Old Testament testifying to the Coming of Christ.
There should be no teaching of later doctrines that are not from the Gospel.
The English Church was founded in the sixth (Kent) and seventh (Northumbria) centuries.
Being English, I am a member of the English Church, regardless of what Keuth Sansum says or thinks.
Guest 1033- Registered: 23 Aug 2013
- Posts: 509
That's a nice theory. Why wouldn't christianity spread from Kent, rather than from some obscure island way up north. Sounds much more logical, and I would have thought any religion started that started from the north down would have been more likely to be the scandinavian one, Valhalla and Odin and so forth.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Barrie
its nice that you ask a question and you say that's sensible
I ask the same questions and im winding up???
To get back to the thread though,
Clearly Neil W has now answered for alexander and cleared up the issue
Church's(including the one at the castle that alexander attends) supports the Queen as the supreme head of the church
which alexander doesn't support.
I would like to thank Neil for his imput/explanation as from his information this has helped certainly a lot of information
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 756- Registered: 6 Jun 2012
- Posts: 727
And from these bigoted views Alexandar, can I assume that you support religious wars?