Given The Lie To His Oath?

On Facebook, to which I shall be returning as soon as I had solved a technical conundrum, the following has been posted by the Reverend Kyle Paisley, son of Big Ian and twin brother of Little Ian:

This week we will see what is, perhaps, the most significant event in the religious world, when King Charles joins in prayer with Pope Leo.

It is the first time that this has happened since the Reformation, and it comes in the five hundredth year after the first printing of the New Testament in English by William Tyndale, a 'crime' which he paid for with his life a few years later in 1536. So is the forthcoming meeting a mere coincidence, or cynical timing? Whatever, we know that the Papacy is still licking the wounds inflicted on it by dissident priests like Tyndale, who defied their authoritarianism in order to get the Word of God to people in their own tongue.

Roman Catholic authorities may acknowledge the contribution made by William Tyndale to the English Bible. How could they not? But they will maintain their historic condemnation of his Biblical theology. Their words may be "smoother than butter and softer than oil", but they will still war against the truth he preached. A good student of Catholicism will not be surprised by this.

What is even more concerning is the willingness of the Royal House to agree to the meeting between Charles and Leo.

At his coronation, the King affirmed that he was a true Protestant, and promised to uphold the religion of the established church in England as well as the that of the Church of Scotland, which is historically Protestant.

But by an act of corporate worship with the head of a church which still describes England as "Mary's dowry", and who by the so-called "sacrifice of the Mass", offered up daily by her priests everywhere, denies the finality of Christ's sacrifice on the cross, our king has denied the Christian Gospel, flown in the face of Holy Scripture, given the lie to his oath and shown that he is not at all what he says he is - a true Protestant

Protestantism takes the Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice. Romanism does not. Her rule of faith and practice is the Scriptures as interpreted by the church - that is, by the Roman Catholic Church - and tradition. This effectively makes the church the rule of faith and practice. God's Word on its own is not enough for her.

It is a crying shame how far and fast the Royal House has departed from the Word of God and their professed Protestantism in recent days.

First, the attendance of the King and other senior royals at a Roman Catholic funeral for the Duchess of Kent at Westminster Cathedral in September. This was the first time a reigning monarch had attended a service of this kind in this country since the Reformation. It goes against the spirit of the Act of Settlement, which requires kings and queens in to be faithful to the established religion of their realm.

Now this, King Charles running against the vows he took when he became King.

Can we put this down to ignorance? He is a highly educated and intelligent man. He must understand what he is doing. But if he is acting in ignorance, the conclusion is still the same - should he be in the position he is in?

It is my view that King Charles should cancel his scheduled meeting with the Pope this week, and that if he is not prepared to do so he should do the only honest thing left to him - abdicate, and let someone else take his place, who is a true Protestant and who will take their vows seriously.

Kyle Paisley.

Sunday 19th October 2025.

What is now Northern Ireland has been constitutionally secular since 1871, and Mr Paisley's congregation in England is not part of the church by law established. Moreover, he does not know much about either William Tyndale or the Coronation Oath.

As that Oath reads: "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?" "All this I promise to do," replied the King.

Thus, within the meaning of the Oath, is the same thing said in four different ways. "The Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel" are defined as "in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law," which is defined as "the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England," which are defined as "all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to [the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge] or any of them."

Those rights and privileges are of course defined by Parliament. Within the understanding of the Coronation Oath, whatever Parliament defines as the rights and privileges, mostly in relation to incomes and property, of the Church of England's clergy are the only meaning of the settlement of the Church of England, thus the only meaning of the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law, and thus the only meaning of the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel.

The King is therefore bound by the Coronation Oath precisely and solely to sign whatever Parliament puts in front of him. That, and that alone, is his sworn duty as monarch. This has always been thoroughly repugnant to many. For as long as anyone has checked, then there have been at least as many Recusants, Dissenters and Nonconformists as there have been members of the Church of England, and there are now vastly more, albeit within an extremely secular society at large.

The status of the late Queen as Defender of the Faith did not preclude Royal Assent to assisted suicide in Canada or New Zealand, both of which retain the title. Pope Leo X did confer the title Fidei Defensor on Henry VIII, but in its present form it derives from its conferral by Parliament on Henry's son, Edward VI, meaning that, again, the Faith to be Defended is whatever Parliament says that it is. "Defender of the Faith" notably remained part of the Royal Title of the Irish Free State throughout that State's existence. Not that it has ever been peculiarly British or English; various monarchs have used it in various times and places, and Popes have conferred it on a number of people.

For example, Catherine of Aragon was a Defender of the Faith in her own right. A generation into his revolt, Martin Luther supported Catherine against Henry VIII. As did William Tyndale, who effectively went to the stake at Vilvoorde rather than return to an England that he did not regard as having really become Protestant at all. Like Luther, Tyndale had no truck with some king who wanted to get divorced because he had got his bit on the side pregnant. The robustly Protestant supporters of Lady Jane Grey sought to write Elizabeth as well as Mary out of the Succession, since while Mary was a Catholic, Elizabeth was a bastard. People who took Protestantism seriously, including as an international movement, lost a Civil War in England.

The reality of that defeat would be brought home for the first time in living memory, as the reality of the defeat of the Catholic England that held sway for a millennium would be brought home for the first time in a good two generations, when Royal Assent was granted to assisted suicide, not in defiance of the Coronation Oath, but pursuant to it, and not in spite of the King's status as Defender of the Faith, but because of it. Put not your trust in princes. Do not necessarily try to get rid of them. But put not your trust in them.

After all, there is only one Rock. Considering the claims that the See of Rome makes, then, while individual Popes might been charlatans or lunatics, the institution itself is either telling the truth in making those claims, or else it is indeed the Antichrist, and any professing Christian who did not submit to Rome on Rome’s own terms must believe it to be so. Who will call good evil by pointing to the Papacy's defence and promotion of metaphysical realism, of Biblical historicity, of credal and Chalcedonian orthodoxy, of the sanctity of human life, of Biblical standards of sexual morality, of social justice, and of peace, and by then saying, "Behold, the Antichrist"? That is the question.