Posted on 08/14/2006 12:07:57 AM PDT by freepatriot32
LONDON - The U.S. publishing company Ignatius Press has refused to sell any works by Welsh singer Charlotte Church after she called German-born Pope Benedict XVI a Nazi and mocked the Catholic Church.
The directors of Ignatius Press said they were offended when the Welsh singer mocked the Catholic Church in the pilot of a proposed eight-part television chat show.
Church, dubbed the "Voice of an Angel" before she turned her talents to popular music, also dressed up as a nun and pretended to hallucinate while eating "communion" wafers imprinted with smiling faces signifying the drug Ecstasy.
She smashed open a statue of the Virgin Mary to reveal a can of hard cider inside, said she worshipped "St. Fortified Wine," and stuck chewing gum on a statue of the child Jesus.
Ignatius Press announced that Church's products have been withdrawn from its Web site and catalogue.
"It is with regret that we do this," the company said in a statement to its customers on its Web site, www.ignatius.com.
"Miss Church possesses a great gift from God, and in the past she has used her talent often to offer praise and glory to Our Lord," the statement said.
"We cannot stand by a young woman who uses her stature in the media to mock the Eucharist, slander the Holy Father, and denigrate the vows of religious women," it continued.
"Therefore, our catalogues and Web site will immediately withdraw all compact discs, cassette tapes, DVDs and VHS tapes that feature Miss Church. Please join us in praying for this troubled young woman," the statement added.
Church declined to comment.
Church, 20, was raised a Catholic and sang for Pope John Paul II at the Vatican at the age of 12.
The pilot for "The All New Charlotte Church Show" was filmed before a live studio audience July 12.
Ignatius Press was founded by Father Joseph Fessio, a California Jesuit who studied under the future Pope Benedict at the University of Regensburg in Germany in the 1970s and who continues to be a close friend.
Pope Benedict, the son of a German policeman opposed to Nazism, was forced into the Hitler Youth movement as a child, and during World War II he served briefly in an anti-aircraft battalion
Do you think pictures of your family that you have in your house are an abomination as well then? That is ridiculous.
They are merely like the pictures you have of your family and they remind you of those who may not be directly with you. Christ on a cross reminds you that He died for your sins and what His sacrifice was.
Where I think you could be getting confused is you think people are worshiping the statues like false gods and that is not their purpose.
No, but I was responding to someone who thought the nasty 9/11 remarks came from Portman.
Perhaps, but I don't think it erases the MSM's hypocrisy. A few years ago, Cynthia McKinney sober was spouting her anti-Semitic garbage, and the press barely said a word, and she was a woman with actual power in this country, unlike Mel. Sorry for the run-on sentence there!
Bowing to Mecca five times a day, is no different than Catholics genuflecting towards a defeated Christ! It is a requirement of their faith. In their mind, it is different than setting up tables in the temple!
(By the way, is there a money jar beside the candle rack!)
Family photos!
Christ gave us not only our New Testament of the Bible, but also established through Peter the first Pope the Authority of the church.
It is the Authority of the church that is missing in all the other various break off versions of Christianity, but the one thing that makes them Christian is their accepting Christ as their Lord and Savior for their Salvation, and that is why Catholics do accept some of the other Christian faiths as being Christian at all.
The problem though with those others not having the Authority of the Church is the massive amount of humanism among all the people who self interpret the Bible through the filter of their own life and image. That is blowing out there aimlessly in the wind without the Authority Christ established on earth.
I suspect most Catholic bashers here would rather hate than to learn the truth about who they hate, but there's always a chance that some may be fair-minded enough to actually seek out legitimate information about us, and not just rely on their standard anti-Catholic rhetoric.
looks like they need to buy some vowels.
That is what your church wants you to believe... but it is not retelling the entire Scripture passage! In the same passage, Peter is rebuked by Christ! (23Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.")
Matthew 20:1ff
1"For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. 2He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.
3"About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4He told them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.' 5So they went.
"He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. 6About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, 'Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?'
7" 'Because no one has hired us,' they answered.
"He said to them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard.'
8"When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.'
9"The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. 10So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12'These men who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.'
13"But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? 14Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?'
16"So the last will be first, and the first will be last."
These little things you take offense to are just little steps we may take while praying for others. We also when we enter the Church bless ourselves with Holy water which is in memory of our original Baptism in Christ and we don't pray to the water either.
Bottom line is Catholics are totally submissive to God and realize it is His will that be done in our life, not ours. We may pray our needs, but know His will shall be done on earth as it is in heaven, not ours.
Images in Church are comforting and reminders of things like what Christ did and who are our faithful family members.
Christ loved His mother and did what she asked of Him before His time because Thou shall Honor thy parents. A statue of Mary does not mean we pray to Mary (unless you are uneducated), we believe in asking Her and others to pray WITH us to God over our concerns. Who better to ask to pray with you over your concerns to God than maybe Mary, or Joseph and perhaps asking all your passed on family to pray with you over your concerns to God as well.
If anything, it is all a giant celebration and expression of the power and variety in prayer all to be directed only to God... :-)
Don't bother worrying about her. She openly admits to being a complete alcoholic, and pretty much everyone assumes she's a drug addict as well. She'll be dead before age 25.
What a waste. I'd seen her on Leno some years back and she just seemed so opposite of what she is now. Money and fame is just so corrupting.
Matthew 15:1Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
2Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
3But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
4For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
5But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
6And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
7Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
10And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
11Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
12Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?
13But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
14Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
15Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.
16And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
17Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
18But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
21Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.
22And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
23But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
24But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
25Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
26But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
27And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
28Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.
29And Jesus departed from thence, and came nigh unto the sea of Galilee; and went up into a mountain, and sat down there.
30And great multitudes came unto him, having with them those that were lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others, and cast them down at Jesus' feet; and he healed them:
31Insomuch that the multitude wondered, when they saw the dumb to speak, the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see: and they glorified the God of Israel.
32Then Jesus called his disciples unto him, and said, I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days, and have nothing to eat: and I will not send them away fasting, lest they faint in the way.
33And his disciples say unto him, Whence should we have so much bread in the wilderness, as to fill so great a multitude?
34And Jesus saith unto them, How many loaves have ye? And they said, Seven, and a few little fishes.
35And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the ground.
36And he took the seven loaves and the fishes, and gave thanks, and brake them, and gave to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude.
37And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets full.
Your point is a disaster and very WRONG.
First, you missed the entire reason why Christ ever came to us as Savior and you forgot to mention the particular context here as it relates to Peter and us all. Many here would be driven off a cliff to humanism if they took your conclusions of the gospel as Gospel IMO. :-)
Peter's failings and Christ's rebuke of him were BEFORE Christ sacrificed Himself for the sins of the world on the Cross and BEFORE the Holy Spirit came upon the Apostles to give them the full Armor of God.
Christ's established His Church and the Authority of the Church here on earth.
Christ is not made false or a liar because Peter was sinning had not yet received the benefit of Christ's sacrafice on the Cross or the Holy Spirit.
Here is a better account of Biblical history for you.
Peter becomes Head of the Apostles. In especially solemn fashion Christ accentuated Peter's precedence among the Apostles, when, after Peter had recognized Him as the Messias, He promised that he would be head of His flock. Jesus was then dwelling with His Apostles in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi, engaged on His work of salvation.
As Christ's coming agreed so little in power and glory with the expectations of the Messias, many different views concerning Him were current. While journeying along with His Apostles, Jesus asks them: "Whom do men say that the Son of man is?" The Apostles answered: "Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets". Jesus said to them: "But whom do you say that I am?" Simon said: "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God".
And Jesus answering said to him: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter [Kipha, a rock], and upon this rock [Kipha] I will build my church [ekklesian], and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven". Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ (Matthew 16:13-20; Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-21).
I already responded to what some might call an bold example of pagan humanism here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1683220/posts?page=134#134.
Nice post. I'm Welsh-American and Welsh girls are hot!
Woo!
Jerome’s Mistranslation of the Bible and its cause of later errors.
It is made devastatingly clear in by A.J.Tait (1) that Catholic Tradition which has dominated modern Anglicanism, springs from serious and dishonest mistranslations in Jerome’s Vulgate. Tait very thoroughly examines Jerome’s Latin translation of the Bible and shows that his erroneous renderings in Hebrews were: ‘in no small measure responsible for the development of the mediaeval conception of a continual propitiatory offering, whether by Christ Himself in the heavenly sanctuary, or by Christ through His priests at the altars on earth.’. (2)
In brief, concerning references in Hebrews to Christ’s offering for sin, Jerome translated the Greek aorist that expresses a single event, usually in the past, by the continuous present. Since the Vulgate was the only version of the New Testament available to the West for over a thousand years, its errors took deep root. Thus it was believed that Christ is in this age continuously offering His sacrifice in heaven. That erroneous belief was promoted by such influential writers as Bicknell on the Articles and Dix on the liturgy, and was expressed liturgically in the A.S.B and currently in the Communion services in Common Worship.
The victors’ history!
Having discovered the immense effect on Church doctrine of Jerome’s mistranslations, I searched for some discussion of Jerome and the Vulgate in popular Church histories. Almost all the books I could access completely ignored Jerome. The one that paid him any attention only mentioned his influence on monasticism. Yet it can be shown that Catholic Tradition is the fruit of eleven hundred years of dependence on the errors of Jerome’s Vulgate. The ignorance of this scenario is almost universal; one colleague was of the opinion that Catholic Tradition was the ‘the wisdom of the ages.’ I am afraid that sadly this is far from the case.
The eclipse of Greek by Latin as the lingua franca of the West in the 4th century had made the New Testament increasingly inaccessible. Pope Damasus asked his secretary Jerome, to translate the Bible into Latin and it was published in AD 382. It has been authoritatively described as ‘perfunctory’ and ‘capricious’ with many ‘eccentricities’.(3)
J.N.D. Kelly in his biography of Jerome says, ‘…he does not hesitate to twist or suppress facts,’ and writes of his ‘theological prejudice.’(4) Jerome was a prime mover towards the worship of Mary winning a debate on her perpetual virginity not so much by logic as by insults and travesties of his opponent’s points. A consequence was that celibacy became the Christian ideal making marriage merely a remedy against sin and for the propagation of children. ‘Jerome’s treatment enormously helped to shape both the Mariology of the Latin church and the Christian sexual ethic that was to dominate western civilisation until the renaissance at least.’(5) Concerning his translation of the New Testament, Kelly comments: ‘On occasion, however, one has to admit that his choice of a reading was not governed by any scientific principle at all; it appealed to him, for example, because it was to his taste doctrinally.’ (6)
In over twenty places he translated the word ‘metanoia’ as ‘do penance’ instead of ‘repent’ but his errors in Hebrews were responsible for changing the Gospel message in the Holy Communion.
For example:
Hebrews 10: 12, ‘But when this priest (i.e. Christ) had offered (aorist) for all time one sacrifice for sins he sat down on the right hand of God,’
became in the Vulgate,
‘But this man offering (continuous present) one sacrifice for sins, for ever sitteth etc.’ (Douay-Rheims version)
Similarly in Hebrews 1:3, Jerome changed the aorist to the continuous present, so that Christ is continuously ‘making purgation of our sins.’
The Greek New Testament was soon lost to the West, so for eleven hundred years (a vast stretch of time roughly equal to the period from Alfred the Great to the present day), the only New Testament available was in the Vulgate.
Consequently, for over a millennium the Churches believed uncritically that in heaven, Christ is continuously offering for our sins. It is easy to see how, as Tait shows, this deeply influenced thinking about Holy Communion, moving people to integrate it with Christ’s alleged heavenly offering, involving the idea that the bread and wine become Christ.
There is no doubt about Jerome’s capabilities as a linguist, and so the inevitable conclusion is that he deliberately twisted Scripture to express his personal opinions.
Anglo-Catholicism perpetuates earlier errors.
The truth at last!
When Erasmus published the Greek New Testament in 1516 together with an accurate translation into Latin, his work was met with horror. He was accused of blasphemy and the Archbishop of York said that the Erasmus translation had over three thousand ‘dangerous differences’ from the Vulgate adding, ‘If we don’t stop this leak it will sink the ship.’(7)
The problem Anglican Catholics face is the one that the Council of Trent found unsolvable: how to reconcile the original Scripture and the Vulgate-based Tradition. The Roman Catholics cut the knot by rejecting Scripture as a source of authority in favour of that Tradition. This problem for Anglican Catholics applies particularly to the Epistle to the Hebrews where Jerome’s errors are the root of the Catholic Tradition of Eucharistic theology.
In spite of the fact that the death of Christ is referred to as a finished work some twenty-two times in the Epistle, (1: 3 & 13; 2: 9, 10 &14; 3:11; 4: 1, 3 & 9; 5: 9; 7: 27; 8: 12, 14, 25 & 28; 10: 2, 10, 12, 14 & 18 and 12: 2), tortuous attempts are made to show that it was not a finished work.
Many references could be given from the rest of the New Testament teaching that the work of Christ was finished at Calvary, but high on the list must be Mark 10: 45. For the Son of Man did not come to be ministered unto but to minister and to give his life a ransom for many. A ransom, or redemption, was secured by the price being paid once, after which the subject in jeopardy was permanently freed.
…the cross of Christ emptied of its power. 1 Cor. 1: 17.
In Dix’s The Shape of the Liturgy, the Work of Christ on Calvary’s Cross is relegated to being the mere preliminary to the provision of the Eucharist. Thus Dix said: concerning ‘…the atonement and reconciliation achieved by the sacrifice of Christ. It is important to observe that they are all here predicated not of the passion as an event in the past but of the present offering of the eucharist.’(8) Similarly Bicknell quotes Swete: “…the whole period of time from the Ascension to the Return is one age-long Day of Atonement,” and continues, ‘So our Lord, by His presence within the veil, is now making atonement for us.’(9)
The extremely serious issue that arises with Jerome based Tradition, is that it strikes at the very heart of the New Covenant, the experience of being saved and at the core of the Eucharist. Applying the prophecy of Jer. 31: 31 - 34 concerning the New Covenant, the writer to the Hebrews says:
The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: “This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts and I will write them on their minds. Then he adds: “Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.” And when these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice (but the Greek is prosphora: offering) for sin. Heb. 10: 15- 18, N.I.V
In the earliest account of the Last Supper, 1 Cor. 11: 25, the Lord said, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood.’ Without possibility of question, Christ was applying Jeremiah 31: 31 - 34 to the Last Supper and its proclamation of His death. The parallel passages in the Synoptics, although the word ‘new’ is not in the best MMS, can only refer to the prophecy of Jeremiah. What other covenant could possible be in mind?
Clinging to the Vulgate-based Tradition, Dix and Bicknell seem to denigrate the Lord’s greatest work by teaching that sins are perpetually being remembered, that Calvary is not complete and we can only be sure of forgiveness up to the last time we received Communion
Continual offering, by definition not complete, was the character and failing of the Old Testament offerings, for they ‘…can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly …make perfect those who draw near to worship.’ Heb. 10: 1.
The fruit of Christ’s sacrifice as a finished work, is that as Christ sat down at the right hand of God, so also the forgiven sinner is saved and enters the ‘rest’ of Hebrews ch.4, fulfilling Christ’s invitation, ‘Come unto me all you who are weary and burdened and I will give you rest’. Matt. 11: 28. Is the experience of being saved through complete and eternal forgiveness, which is clearly and graciously proclaimed in the New Testament message of Christ’s death, a common experience of those under Catholic Tradition? I have been told more than once that it is presumptuous to say one is saved.
Article XIX places as a mark of the visible Church of Christ the preaching of the ‘pure Word of God,’ thus excluding the adulteration of Scripture by mixing it with Jeromist Tradition. The Church of England Prayer Book of 1552 expressed the New Testament teaching on the Communion, closely returning to the example and commands of the Lord and His apostles. Thus the words of Christ concerning the bread and wine in the 1552 Book are rehearsed simply in a prayer before Communion.
Following Archbishop Laud’s Jeromist views, the 1662 revision misleadingly entitled that prayer, ‘The Prayer of Consecration’, ignoring Hooker’s demonstration of the fact that the Lord who commanded ‘Do this,’ gave the disciples unconsecrated bread and wine! The words, ‘This is my body…’ were said after the distribution; the words, ‘This is my blood…,’ were said after the wine had been drunk.(10) Current liturgy emphasises the supposed role of ‘Consecration’ by separating that prayer from eating and drinking, inserting the Lord’s Prayer, anthems and the Prayer of Humble Access. That isolation from the eating and drinking marks the ‘Consecration’ as an end in itself instead of being the words of administration as Christ used them, and as the 1552 Prayer Book provided.
The only explanations of the Communion in the New Testament are that it proclaims the Lord’s death to us (1 Cor. 11: 26, there using the downward prefix kata) and that it expresses the unity of the congregation redeemed by the death of Christ. (1 Cor. 10: 16).
Anglo-Catholics seem to take it for granted that John 6 is Eucharistic, e.g. ‘Turning our attention to other passages in the New Testament which have to do with the Eucharist, we find the most important in St. John vi.’ (11).
John 6 and the passages on Communion each use the metaphor of eating and drinking to illustrate our dependence upon the death of Christ for eternal life, but whilst the Communion preaches the death of Christ with the option for it to be accepted or rejected, John 6 develops the eternal results of true committal by faith to the death of Christ. Thus the passages are parallel but not interchangeable. If they were and John 6: 54, (Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day), is Eucharistic, then the only way to be saved would be to eat the bread and drink the wine of Communion.
I was brought up in the tradition where Confirmation candidates are told wonderful things about the Eucharist, but when they at last receive the Wafer—nothing happens! Many are disillusioned thinking either that they are not good enough for it to ‘take’, or else there is ‘nothing in it.’
The vast majority of lay people, sincerely look to eating the Wafer as the ground of their standing with God and the means of receiving spiritual help, and that because it has been ‘Consecrated’. Focusing their hopes and trust on the ‘consecrated’ Wafer, the death of Christ that is ‘the Gospel by which you are saved’, fades into the background and in practice is made irrelevant.
I resolved to know nothing among you…save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. 1Cor. 2: 2.
In the New Testament the death of Christ is the only source through which forgiveness and life are to be received. (1 Peter 3: 24; John 1: 29; 3: 16 etc). In the New Testament the Eucharist is mentioned three times in the Synoptics and twice in 1 Corinthians; the death of Christ is mentioned at least ninety times and the Gospel (that Christ died for our sins. 1Cor. 15: 1-3) over one hundred times. If the claims now made for the Eucharist were valid, one would expect the New Testament to be packed with references to it, and the letters to the Galatians and to the Romans would never have been written for they proclaim salvation by repentance and faith alone in the death of Christ, without any reference at all to the Communion.
Conclusion
If Church historians had looked objectively at Jerome and the Vulgate, Catholic Tradition would surely have been completely rejected and Eucharistic liturgy would point away from the ‘elements’ to the death of Christ as the only source of grace, as revealed in 1 Corinthians 11: 26.
The massive momentum of Jeromism has particular seriousness since the Christian ministry is preparing people for eternity, thus we ought to take seriously the Scripture, ‘We who teach will be judged more strictly.’ James 3:1. Jeromism is ‘another Gospel’ whose preachers are in danger of eternal condemnation, Galatians 1: 8-9.
The ignorance of the corrupt origins of Catholicism is almost universal. Hardworking clerics with a strong sense of integrity sincerely believe that their Anglo-Catholic theology is a legitimate ‘development’ (à la Newman?) of the teaching of the New Testament.
The enormity of the situation is breathtaking! Ninety per cent of the bishops who have ruled the Church of England during the last century and more, have implemented a theology based on the quite dishonest translation of a 4th century cleric of dubious reputation. They have corrupted the Gospel, changed the face of the Church of England and its liturgy and presided over a century of decline.
We have a responsibility to all in the Church of England to use a term that accurately describes the contents of the package! Used alongside ‘Roman Catholic’, the term ‘Anglo-Catholic’ implies a claim to be Anglican, but the title ‘Catholic’ marks its adherents as unashamedly ministering doctrines peculiar to Rome. The Anglican churches are based on the supremacy of Scripture but the Roman churches are based on the supremacy of Jerome’s Vulgate.
Would it not serve the cause of honesty, enlightenment and the glory of Christ in his Gospel, if we replaced the term ‘Anglo-Catholic’ by the more accurate name, ‘Jeromist’? Repeated use of this term might open people’s eyes to the fact that Anglo-Catholicism should not imply the label, ‘Made from Scripture’, but ‘Made from the Vulgate’, and the fiction that Anglo-Catholicism is a legitimate feature of the Church of England may be more vividly exposed, hopefully resulting in many clergy and laity being liberated from its Gospel denying tenets.
From the photos, I would say she butters both sides of her bread - and slops on lots of jam, too.
This Mr. Tait you write about. Did he have access to the same documents as did St. Jerome?
What website ws this copied and pasted from?
With all due respect, unless your Father can authenticate the Bishop who ordained him was in an unbroken line of Apostolic Succession, he was not a priest. He was a minister.
Ask your father if he thought he was offering the Sacrifice of the New Covenant to God as an act of propitiation and ask him if he confected the Eucharist at the altar and ask him if he participated in consuming the Heavenly Banquet, the Eucharist, the New Covenant Meal, consisting of the Boby and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.