Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 08/06/2013 3:58:20 PM PDT by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: marshmallow

Will the Mormons baptize him?


2 posted on 08/06/2013 4:04:38 PM PDT by Rio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: marshmallow
Very strange. There was no Anglcan Church when he died? Why should he be buried anywhere other than a Catholic cemetary given the fact that he known to have been Catholic?
4 posted on 08/06/2013 4:08:07 PM PDT by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: marshmallow
Ecumenicalism has screwed up a whole BUNCH'a thought processes.

If the guy's Catholic ... he should be in a Catholic cemetery.

How did the state enter into the negotiations and why is the Bishop so acquiescent ?

5 posted on 08/06/2013 4:08:36 PM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: marshmallow

Richard III was a member of the Church of England, which happened to be allied with Rome at his death, and later, broke with Rome.

It’s perfectly fit and proper, and legal, that her majesty’s government and the Church of England inter his remains as they see fit.


8 posted on 08/06/2013 4:12:59 PM PDT by AnalogReigns (because the real world is not digital...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: marshmallow

Well, it is Richard III. He’s not exactly a hill to die on when it comes to claiming monarchs.


11 posted on 08/06/2013 4:15:56 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: marshmallow

Grrr. This aggravates me tremendously.


14 posted on 08/06/2013 4:28:30 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: marshmallow

Will there be a wake at the local pub?


16 posted on 08/06/2013 4:32:18 PM PDT by forgotten man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: marshmallow
"When his brother Edward IV died in April 1483, Richard was named Lord Protector of the realm for Edward's son and successor, the 12-year-old King Edward V. As the young king travelled to London from Ludlow, Richard met and escorted him to lodgings in the Tower of London where Edward V's brother Richard joined him shortly afterwards. Arrangements were made for Edward's coronation on 22 June 1483, but before the young king could be crowned, his father's marriage to his mother Elizabeth Woodville was declared invalid, making their children illegitimate and ineligible for the throne. On 25 June, an assembly of lords and commoners endorsed the claims.
The following day, Richard III began his reign, and he was crowned on 6 July 1483. The young princes were not seen in public after August, and a number of accusations circulated that the boys had been murdered on Richard's orders, giving rise to the legend of the Princes in the Tower."
Source: Wikipedia

*****************************

Ah, well.

18 posted on 08/06/2013 4:32:49 PM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: marshmallow

Why not use the ancient Druid tripartite test?
1. Have his bones turned to wood?
2. Is he heavier than a duck?
3. Will he float?


23 posted on 08/06/2013 5:10:19 PM PDT by tumblindice (America's founding fathers: All armed conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: marshmallow

I think the funniest bit was after they confirmed that it was indeed Richard III.

“When notified, Her Highness was engaged in packing her suitcase, intending to flee to an unidentified nation that does not extradite to the UK. When assured that any possible prosecution was impossible because of the statute of limitations, and as sovereign she was immune from lawsuits brought by surviving Plantagenet or House of York descendants, she replied, “Well, bloody Hell, then. Fetch me a double Scotch on the rocks, boy! Chop chop!”


28 posted on 08/06/2013 5:43:37 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Be Brave! Fear is just the opposite of Nar!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: marshmallow

“In accordance with long-established ecumenical practice, Bishop Malcolm will be happy to take part in any form of ceremony which takes place to mark his final burial.”

The Catholic Church is taking this “ecumenism” crap to an extreme. The man was a Catholic and he deserves to buried in a Catholic cemetery. And, “Yes, it does make a difference whether a Catholic is buried in a Catholic cemetery”.

Shame on the “Catholic” bishops of England.


37 posted on 08/06/2013 6:39:17 PM PDT by ebb tide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: marshmallow

The guy just can’t catch a break.


42 posted on 08/06/2013 6:59:46 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Fight the culture of nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: marshmallow

Richard wouldn’t recognize the modernized Catholic Mass anyway. Perhaps a priest can say a private Requiem for him in the Traditional rite, or the Sarum rite(the rite used in England, and very close in most essentials to the Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory the Great).


57 posted on 08/07/2013 7:32:43 AM PDT by Bridesheadfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson