Because she's the fucking QUEEN goddamnit. When Jesus Christ himself anoints you as His representative on Earth, then you can talk smack. For godssake, watch the freakin' movie and tell me you don't love her.
Fucking Anglophile.
And incidentally, isn't the Pope Jesus's main man (and I do mean man) on Earth?
Sweet Jesus Himself. The Pope is the head of the Church. The Queen is the head of the State. This isn't hard. You're average yahoo in the Dark Ages knew this much. The state of education today.
So what you're saying is that Jesus has two representatives on Earth, and that the notion of secular power as embodied by the State is nothing more than a shabby loincloth with which to cover the Lord's all-encompassing, um... power?
Is this like that Holy Trinity thing folks keep yammering on about?
I ♥ pre-Enlightenment Dave.
God knew that that investing in any one man (or woman in the case of the State) power over the spiritual life of the world AND the secular life of a geographically contiguous area would be a temptation to corruption, so he wisely divided these powers. He inarguably established Peter (and those that follow Peter) with the job of guiding His people spiritually. Then, 400 years later (which might mean something to you, but means nothing to Him), he gave Constantine dominion over the political realm. God then quickly realized (using your words, God knew this all along, but He also knew that 4th century "Romans" couldn't "handle it") that it was better to have one Earthly--strictly secular--ruler for each ethnic, language, geographic, and/or other ethnically defining characteristic--let's say "nation." It just makes sense.
I think the lesson to be learned from the adventures of Henry IV of the HRE (go ahead and say it, it was neither Holy, Roman, nor an Empire) can answer a lot of the questions for you. Now I imagine that you think you never learned about Henry IV of HRE because you didn't go to Catholic school, but you did learn about him in any "Western Civ" or European History class you took, you just don't remember. Let me remind you.
Long about the 11th century, Pope Gregory was reminded (probably by God) that it made no sense for secular rulers to be appointing bishops and charging them money for it, so he declared that from thensforth only the Pope could appoint bishops and other Church officials. Henry, forgetting his (and His) place, refused the Pope's decree, sending the Pope a rather nasty letter, which ended, "I, Henry, king by the grace of God, with all of my Bishops, say to you, come down, come down, and be damned throughout the ages." Additionally, he had the Pope kidnapped and beaten. Fortunately, God had the Pope rescued. The Pope then excommunicated Henry and all his bishops.
Guess who ended up wearing a hairshirt and walking through the snow to beg forgiveness. 'Twasn't the Pope, I can tell you that.
And from then on everything was going perfectly as far as the separation of Church and State until Satan got involved in 1517.
I do now remember the story of Henry IV, but as I was taught it in the secular public schools of the United States, this wasn't seen as a good thing, but rather the assertion of religious power over a subservient secular authority, thus rendering Europeans unable to use the first-person in personal correspondences for another 400 years.
And while I enjoy your slap at Martin Luther, by that logic, we also must also include in your list of Satans Henry VIII, who rejected the line of religious authority inarguably established by Jesus in Peter. Going back to your original comment, then, Jesus himself did not annoint QEII his representative on earth in either a strictly literal sense (I saw the film, it was the Archbishop of Canterbury, who answers to the Sumpreme Head of the CofE, who he happened to be anointing in a lovely tautology) or in a figurative sense, as the CofE is an explicit rejection of the religious authority of the papacy and thus, by your logic, in Jesus. Which begs the question, can one invoke "divine right" if the Divinity to which one is basing one's authority is clearly not-divine, and possibly diabolical?
I imagine these things keep you up at night.
I have always been comfortable with the notion that Queen Elizabeth wiped away her father's sin by remaining a virgin. You see, she "rebirthed" England into a new and everlasting covenant with God through her own denial of Earthly pleasure. This covenant was obviously sealed when God destroyed the Spanish Armada.
And before you even have to think about it, yes, this covenant was destroyed by the voters of England when they rejected Churchill in favor of the socialists. The 1960s were clearly the glory of Satan. Henry IV would have been right at home.
Which I should note, Queen Elizabeth II has never enjoyed the kind of England that has been enjoyed since the 1960s. 'Cause she's still right with Jesus.
Fucking Anglophile.
Am I the only one the finds it absurd that the formal head of the CofE (not to mention the entire Empire) can be a woman, but, if by accident of birth, she had not been made the Queen, that she could not then be a bishop in said same Church?
I thought that the Anglican church allowed women to be clergy - I'm fairly certain the Episcopalians do. I figured if that this would allow them to be bishops as well.
Did Mike just call God absurd?
God is absurd, but we should be comfortable with that, as He's beyond all human understanding.
I almost yelled "Have some dignity, man!" out loud in the movie theater in that scene where "Tony Blair" gets down on his knees to ask "the Queen" for permission to form a government. Fucking monarchists.
See! Alyssa gets it!
Commenting by HaloScan
