M
Mannyfit75
Guest
This isn’t Catholic. We have no female priest. This could be Anglican. I like to add that Anglican don’t have valid sacraments.
- Status
L
lak611
Guest
It is Episcopal. I found their website.
M
mercygate
Guest
St. Paul’s Chapel is an Episcopal church. Been there since 1766.
If you go inside, you can see the pew and the kneeler where George Washington led the Te Deum as the last of the British ships left New York harbor for good! I HOPE they didn’t take that out when they removed the pews (gag).
V
Valke2
Guest
That’s the one. Thanks.
L
lak611
Guest
You’re welcome.
V
Valke2
Guest
ALexander Hamilton is also buried in teh graveyard there.
M
Mirdath
Guest
Really now. Please, do continue with your analysis of an entire group of people whose sole common characteristic is having at one time been a member of the Catholic Church
G
Genesis315
Guest
Just the other day the Pope told the Church in Portugal to put the decrees of the Council into practice.Maybe you should comment on this part too:
zenit.org/article-20998?l=english
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Let me just clarify. A trade mark for most Ex-Catholics.Really now. Please, do continue with your analysis of an entire group of people whose sole common characteristic is having at one time been a member of the Catholic Church
If you are an Ex-Catholic and are pleased with your Catholic upbringing and have no shame on it, then this does not pertain to you.
S
swariffin
Guest
Dear Manny,
Was the soon to be ex-catholic person you are talking about live in the US?. I just don’t expect such closemindedness ever exist in a highly educated population such as the US. If I compare him/her with our friend Agnostheist, I respect Agnos more, eventhough his thinking is different to ours. Agnos was a former Christian (that what he said), but I believe there is some Christianity left within him. I don’t believe that person was quoting Mahatma Gandhi. If only Gandhi knew Mother Theresa…, I wonder what he would say.
Was the soon to be ex-catholic person you are talking about live in the US?. I just don’t expect such closemindedness ever exist in a highly educated population such as the US. If I compare him/her with our friend Agnostheist, I respect Agnos more, eventhough his thinking is different to ours. Agnos was a former Christian (that what he said), but I believe there is some Christianity left within him. I don’t believe that person was quoting Mahatma Gandhi. If only Gandhi knew Mother Theresa…, I wonder what he would say.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Agnos Theist I do respect him more than the person in question.
V
Valke2
Guest
I’m sure in his experience Christianity was associated with the imperialism that he was fighting agianst.
D
deb216
Guest
There were so many things to address in his post, but the one that struck me was the attack on Benedict XVI. I can’t help but wonder if Saul, too, should have been condemned because of his prior affiliations. After all, Saul literally contributed to the deaths of many Christians- gruesome, terrible deaths. But once the Lord got hold of him, Paul became one of the most influencial men in all Christendom.
Whatever Benedict XVI might have been, and whatever he might have done, is nothing. It is what he has become that matters. That youth who was marginally affiliated with evil has become the leader of the largest Church on the face of this planet. Thanks be to God, whose works are far greater than men give Him credit for.
Benedict XVI dedicated his life to the Church. That is a testament to his faith. If the OP cannot see that, it is because he has a plank in his eye. We should pray for him…
Whatever Benedict XVI might have been, and whatever he might have done, is nothing. It is what he has become that matters. That youth who was marginally affiliated with evil has become the leader of the largest Church on the face of this planet. Thanks be to God, whose works are far greater than men give Him credit for.
Benedict XVI dedicated his life to the Church. That is a testament to his faith. If the OP cannot see that, it is because he has a plank in his eye. We should pray for him…
F
FCEGM
Guest
Indeed we should. This old post of the OP gives insight:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2130194#post2130194
S
socalsurfnici
Guest
Are you saying that a Protestant can’t be saved because their sacraments aren’t valid? I think us Catholics should be careful about what we say since this is what turns people off to Catholics in the first place, since nowadays the only acceptable prejudice is to bash the Catholic Church.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
I’m saying he would not be receiving Jesus in Holy Communion anymore if he leaves the Catholic Church for a Protestant one.
The majority of Protestants don’t have weekly communion, and they don’t even believe in the real presence. They view communion as symbolic means of unity. There those who adhere real presence but their sacrament are invalid.
I don’t really care if this turns people off. Protestants don’t have Real Presence in their Communion. Period. Unless they had any form of Holy Order that is valid, then fine.
I am completely against the theology behind Protestantism. Their lack of reverence of the Blessed Mother, the constant Anti-Catholic misconception, the lack of respect of their Christian heritage of Apostolic Succession, etc. I can go on. Their doctrine sickens me.
U
uglygal
Guest
I wonder what happened to make this person so blatantly hateful.
His words betray him. They are spiteful, almost lingering on illogical. This person seems to be on an emotional rant rather than composing a set of arguments for why he/she left the church. Maybe this person has been hurt deeply? The arguments seem like a cry of desperation intermingled with a deep seated bitterness.
I think it will take much love and prayer to heal a soul as sad as this
His words betray him. They are spiteful, almost lingering on illogical. This person seems to be on an emotional rant rather than composing a set of arguments for why he/she left the church. Maybe this person has been hurt deeply? The arguments seem like a cry of desperation intermingled with a deep seated bitterness.
I think it will take much love and prayer to heal a soul as sad as this
R
ralphinal
Guest
Your insight serves you wellI wonder what happened to make this person so blatantly hateful.
His words betray him. They are spiteful, almost lingering on illogical. This person seems to be on an emotional rant rather than composing a set of arguments for why he/she left the church. Maybe this person has been hurt deeply? The arguments seem like a cry of desperation intermingled with a deep seated bitterness.
I think it will take much love and prayer to heal a soul as sad as this
J
jpsheehn
Guest
This is why things do not add up for me. Its long but I hope you read it. I worked on this and formulated this for a long long time.
Welcome to factual history the Catholic church never want you to know. Key word here being FACT using the Catholic churchs own papers, dogma, councial etc all verififiable. If this post even survives that along will a miricle of itself.
(Oh by the why I like my former RCIA teacher very much. She was really great. She was one of the few catholic whom I can honestly say I respect. She really knows her stuff.)
As a child in a family of devout Roman Catholics, I could recite by heart Matthew 16:18 and 19 long before I could read or write. On cue, when prompted by parent or sibling, I would emote as follows:
Those words, I was taught, spoken by Christ to the Apostle Peter, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Peter was the first pope, and that he was the rock on which Christ built His Church - the Roman Catholic Church, the only true Church. It is upon these two vitally important Scriptures, therefore, that the entire Roman Catholic monolith is supported. For, if Peter is not Catholicism’s foundation rock, if he was not the first pope, if he was not endowed with infallibility, then all its popes have been frauds, and all its claims of divine authorization are reduced to wishful vagaries. In this critical matter, history – not anti-Catholic “heretics” – is the Vatican’s most relentless, indefatigable enemy.
History shows, for example, that no bishop of Rome considered himself to have any greater authority than the many other bishops, nor sought monarchial authority over all Christendom, until the 3rd century was well underway. Then, Calixtus I, whose most celebrated accomplishment recorded in Britannica is the transfer of the Roman Christians’ cemetery from the Via Salaria to the Via Appia, attempted to hijack our Lord’s legacy by citing Matthew 16:18 as the establishment of Peter and all succeeding bishops of Rome to be rulers over all the churches. Putting a wagon in a garage does not make it an automobile; and declaring oneself to be the boss doesn’t produce a boss. The great Tertullian, bishop of Carthage, ridiculed Calixtus and his claim, referring to him as a “usurper.” In its Catechisms the Vatican quotes Tertullian whenever it is expedient, but you won’t find his appellation for Calixtus I in any RCC printed matter.
Nor will you find Rome confessing to the faithful Roman Catholic laity, that the great Augustine, joined by Cyril, Hilary, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome, Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, and delegates to the Council of Chalcedon, declared the rock upon which Christ would build His Church was Christ himself, not the Apostle Peter. That is not this writer’s opinion or pipedream. That is hard, cold, unyielding history. In his 13th sermon, preserved I believe by divine intent, Augustine made his belief perfectly clear.
“Thou art Peter, and on this Rock – petra – which thou hast confessed,
on this rock which thou hast known, saying: ‘Thou art Christ, the Son
of the living God,’ I will build my church upon Myself, who am the Son
of the living God; I will build it on Me, and not Me on thee.”
Roman Catholic apologists have called this writer some unflattering names for stating that there was no pope and no papacy for more than 500 years after Christ returned to heaven. But history is history, and all the name calling in the world will not alter the fact that Augustine spoke the previously quoted words during his years in Africa as bishop of Hippo – get this, now – in the first third of the FIFTH CENTURY. Moreover, Augustine’s conviction – based on a correct interpretation of the Scriptures - that Jesus Himself was the foundation rock of Christianity, was shared almost 100% by the churches existing at that time.
Following the abortive attempt of Calixtus I to seize control of Christendom, Stephen I, bishop of Rome AD 253-257, took a shot at it citing as his authority some newly discovered documents now known as the pseudo-Clementine Letters and Homilies. This spurious collection contained a forged letter allegedly written by Peter to James the Lord’s brother in which he appoints Clement to be his successor as bishop of Rome, with binding and loosing authority unlimited. Since Linus and Cletus, according to church historian Eusebius, were, in that order, the first two known bishops of Rome, the authenticity of the purported Petrine letter was at once an issue, and Stephen’s effort failed as miserably as that of Calixtus I. continued
Welcome to factual history the Catholic church never want you to know. Key word here being FACT using the Catholic churchs own papers, dogma, councial etc all verififiable. If this post even survives that along will a miricle of itself.
(Oh by the why I like my former RCIA teacher very much. She was really great. She was one of the few catholic whom I can honestly say I respect. She really knows her stuff.)
As a child in a family of devout Roman Catholics, I could recite by heart Matthew 16:18 and 19 long before I could read or write. On cue, when prompted by parent or sibling, I would emote as follows:
Code:
"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will
give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and what-
soever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound in heaven,
and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth shall be loosed
in heaven.”History shows, for example, that no bishop of Rome considered himself to have any greater authority than the many other bishops, nor sought monarchial authority over all Christendom, until the 3rd century was well underway. Then, Calixtus I, whose most celebrated accomplishment recorded in Britannica is the transfer of the Roman Christians’ cemetery from the Via Salaria to the Via Appia, attempted to hijack our Lord’s legacy by citing Matthew 16:18 as the establishment of Peter and all succeeding bishops of Rome to be rulers over all the churches. Putting a wagon in a garage does not make it an automobile; and declaring oneself to be the boss doesn’t produce a boss. The great Tertullian, bishop of Carthage, ridiculed Calixtus and his claim, referring to him as a “usurper.” In its Catechisms the Vatican quotes Tertullian whenever it is expedient, but you won’t find his appellation for Calixtus I in any RCC printed matter.
Nor will you find Rome confessing to the faithful Roman Catholic laity, that the great Augustine, joined by Cyril, Hilary, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome, Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, and delegates to the Council of Chalcedon, declared the rock upon which Christ would build His Church was Christ himself, not the Apostle Peter. That is not this writer’s opinion or pipedream. That is hard, cold, unyielding history. In his 13th sermon, preserved I believe by divine intent, Augustine made his belief perfectly clear.
“Thou art Peter, and on this Rock – petra – which thou hast confessed,
on this rock which thou hast known, saying: ‘Thou art Christ, the Son
of the living God,’ I will build my church upon Myself, who am the Son
of the living God; I will build it on Me, and not Me on thee.”
Roman Catholic apologists have called this writer some unflattering names for stating that there was no pope and no papacy for more than 500 years after Christ returned to heaven. But history is history, and all the name calling in the world will not alter the fact that Augustine spoke the previously quoted words during his years in Africa as bishop of Hippo – get this, now – in the first third of the FIFTH CENTURY. Moreover, Augustine’s conviction – based on a correct interpretation of the Scriptures - that Jesus Himself was the foundation rock of Christianity, was shared almost 100% by the churches existing at that time.
Following the abortive attempt of Calixtus I to seize control of Christendom, Stephen I, bishop of Rome AD 253-257, took a shot at it citing as his authority some newly discovered documents now known as the pseudo-Clementine Letters and Homilies. This spurious collection contained a forged letter allegedly written by Peter to James the Lord’s brother in which he appoints Clement to be his successor as bishop of Rome, with binding and loosing authority unlimited. Since Linus and Cletus, according to church historian Eusebius, were, in that order, the first two known bishops of Rome, the authenticity of the purported Petrine letter was at once an issue, and Stephen’s effort failed as miserably as that of Calixtus I. continued
J
jpsheehn
Guest
In that fourth century, five episcopates emerged as jurisdictional centers to which individual independent churches could look for counsel in ecclesiastical matters. These five were Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Rome. In AD 387, just before the Roman Empire split into separate East and West divisions, Siricius, another bishop of Rome, once again tried to highjack Christendom, and with the same result as Calixtus and Stephen. Nobody paid any attention.
More history, easily checked by those seeking truth and not vindication of false teachings: at the FIFTH CENTURY Council of Carthage, (AD 412) convoked by that city’s bishop Aurelius, the assembled prelates drafted a letter to the bishop of Rome warning him not to accept for ruling appeals from African bishops, deacons or other clerics. Besides that, he was forbidden to send any further emissaries or legates to the African churches. In another council of African churches, that one at Melvie, Augustine was the secretary. History shows he fully supported the synod’s decree of excommunication leveled at any in the African churches who would seek settlement of appeals or disputes outside of Africa or from the Roman See.
The actual hijacking of Christendom by the bishops of Rome, then, did not take place in the first 500 years after Christ. In truth, it hasn’t really taken place at all, because the eastern branch of Christendom has never accepted Rome’s self-assumed primacy. For the beginning of the successful takeover of the western branch of Christianity – the Latin churches - we must move to the very middle of the FIFTH CENTURY, to the episcopate of Leo 1 (Leo the Great), bishop of Rome AD 440-461. He assumed the title, “Primate of All Bishops,” and for validation of his theft obtained the endorsement of Western Roman Emperor Valentinian III. Wonderful! A self-styled “Vicar of Christ” seeking – not the approval of God - but the approval of a secular entity to be the “Vicar of Christ.”
Leo intimidated a lot of people by his various claims, one of which was, “Lord of the Whole Church,” but when he declared that resisting his absolute authority would condemn a soul to the fires of hell, the delegates to the AD 451 Council of Chalcedon put their collective feet down. Leo was denied his endorsement, and at the end of the fifth century, there still was no pope and no papacy. What amazes about all this is how the Vatican has been able to obliterate the actual early Church history, successfully replacing it with the fairytales of “apostolic succession” and an “unbroken chain of popes” stretching all the way back to Peter.
The first bishop of Rome to wield the kind of power for which the papacy is now known, was Gregory 1 (Gregory the Great) whose 14-year episcopate began in the very last decade of the SIXTH CENTURY – AD 590-604. But this man was adamantly opposed to the very papal office that the Vatican insists he occupied as the 64th successor to the Apostle Peter. In a letter to Maurice, the Emperor, Gregory had this to say:
“I confidently affirm that who so calls himself, or desires to be called Universal Priest, (Pontifex Maximus), in his pride goes before anti-Christ……St. Peter is not called Universal Apostle ….Far from CHRISTIAN (not Catholic) hearts be that blasphemous name.”
To the bishop of Antioch in another letter, Gregory wrote that the title of Universal (Catholic) Bishop was:
“profane, superstitious, haughty, and invented by the first apostate."
No matter that Gregory I refused such a signal honor, and believed that anyone claiming to be universal (katholikos) bishop would in fact be Anti-Christ. A successor, Boniface III, AD 607-8, coerced the Emperor, Phocas, to confer upon him that very title of Universal Bishop, papa, or pope, of all Christendom. The eastern churches refused to submit to his self-assumed authority, however, so Boniface and all his successors have had to settle for a partial monarchy ruling only the western churches. Historically, then Rome’s claims of a papacy begun with Peter and stretching down the annals of time to the present are proven falsehoods.
And, even after Boniface III succeeded in gaining for bishops of Rome the coveted title of papa, there was stubborn resistance to their claimed authority lasting into the ninth century. Then, in the episcopate of Nicholas I (Nicholas the Great), bishop of Rome AD 858-867, documents known today as the pseudo-Isidorean Decretals appeared on the stage of history. Contained in this fortuitous discovery were letters allegedly written by “popes” prior to Nicaea (AD 325) and from Clement 1 to Miltiades. All are blatant forgeries! (They had to be, for there were no popes and no papacy in that time frame.)
contined…
More history, easily checked by those seeking truth and not vindication of false teachings: at the FIFTH CENTURY Council of Carthage, (AD 412) convoked by that city’s bishop Aurelius, the assembled prelates drafted a letter to the bishop of Rome warning him not to accept for ruling appeals from African bishops, deacons or other clerics. Besides that, he was forbidden to send any further emissaries or legates to the African churches. In another council of African churches, that one at Melvie, Augustine was the secretary. History shows he fully supported the synod’s decree of excommunication leveled at any in the African churches who would seek settlement of appeals or disputes outside of Africa or from the Roman See.
The actual hijacking of Christendom by the bishops of Rome, then, did not take place in the first 500 years after Christ. In truth, it hasn’t really taken place at all, because the eastern branch of Christendom has never accepted Rome’s self-assumed primacy. For the beginning of the successful takeover of the western branch of Christianity – the Latin churches - we must move to the very middle of the FIFTH CENTURY, to the episcopate of Leo 1 (Leo the Great), bishop of Rome AD 440-461. He assumed the title, “Primate of All Bishops,” and for validation of his theft obtained the endorsement of Western Roman Emperor Valentinian III. Wonderful! A self-styled “Vicar of Christ” seeking – not the approval of God - but the approval of a secular entity to be the “Vicar of Christ.”
Leo intimidated a lot of people by his various claims, one of which was, “Lord of the Whole Church,” but when he declared that resisting his absolute authority would condemn a soul to the fires of hell, the delegates to the AD 451 Council of Chalcedon put their collective feet down. Leo was denied his endorsement, and at the end of the fifth century, there still was no pope and no papacy. What amazes about all this is how the Vatican has been able to obliterate the actual early Church history, successfully replacing it with the fairytales of “apostolic succession” and an “unbroken chain of popes” stretching all the way back to Peter.
The first bishop of Rome to wield the kind of power for which the papacy is now known, was Gregory 1 (Gregory the Great) whose 14-year episcopate began in the very last decade of the SIXTH CENTURY – AD 590-604. But this man was adamantly opposed to the very papal office that the Vatican insists he occupied as the 64th successor to the Apostle Peter. In a letter to Maurice, the Emperor, Gregory had this to say:
“I confidently affirm that who so calls himself, or desires to be called Universal Priest, (Pontifex Maximus), in his pride goes before anti-Christ……St. Peter is not called Universal Apostle ….Far from CHRISTIAN (not Catholic) hearts be that blasphemous name.”
To the bishop of Antioch in another letter, Gregory wrote that the title of Universal (Catholic) Bishop was:
“profane, superstitious, haughty, and invented by the first apostate."
No matter that Gregory I refused such a signal honor, and believed that anyone claiming to be universal (katholikos) bishop would in fact be Anti-Christ. A successor, Boniface III, AD 607-8, coerced the Emperor, Phocas, to confer upon him that very title of Universal Bishop, papa, or pope, of all Christendom. The eastern churches refused to submit to his self-assumed authority, however, so Boniface and all his successors have had to settle for a partial monarchy ruling only the western churches. Historically, then Rome’s claims of a papacy begun with Peter and stretching down the annals of time to the present are proven falsehoods.
And, even after Boniface III succeeded in gaining for bishops of Rome the coveted title of papa, there was stubborn resistance to their claimed authority lasting into the ninth century. Then, in the episcopate of Nicholas I (Nicholas the Great), bishop of Rome AD 858-867, documents known today as the pseudo-Isidorean Decretals appeared on the stage of history. Contained in this fortuitous discovery were letters allegedly written by “popes” prior to Nicaea (AD 325) and from Clement 1 to Miltiades. All are blatant forgeries! (They had to be, for there were no popes and no papacy in that time frame.)
contined…
- Status