Posted on 11/14/2012 3:52:19 PM PST by greyfoxx39
he probably does...and Catholics are not a "denomination" they are the true Christian church on earth....the protestants have exploded into 20,000 or so "denominations" all of which assume that they are right....sad
Oh, what a shame . . . no one is religious. No one but you, and Mitt Romney.
how on earth did you come up with that conclusion based on what I said??????????
I didn’t call you a liar, I pointed out that it is common for anonymous posters claiming to be Catholics, to be the biggest fighters for Mormonism, and very anti-Christian.
You do seem to fit into that category.
Do you know what your denomination teaches about Mormonism, and declares it an entirely new religion?
Rereading it, I missed it . . . mu bad.
mu = my
I doubt that he does know what his claimed denomination teaches about Mormonism.
I think that 1rudeboy just likes to tweak conservatives and Christians.
’ Rewriting Romney as a hero doesn’t wash for those of us who watched him destroy good men in his quest for power. ‘
i think the MSM had more than a little something to do with the fact that all the other good men who were running for the GOP nomination lost out during the primaries. I thought that Newt would have been a stronger candidate, but that was not to be either.
Too bad Romney wasn’t able to dethrone the Won who has quested for power for some time. but then again, you and your ilk here on FR, never missed an opportunity to bash our only chance to defeat BO after the GOP convention.
i’m sure, tho you would never openly admit it, that you are more pleased that Romney lost, than that you are upset that a man who obviously despises all that has made America great, our Muslim-hiding-in-plain sight prez, won reelection.
Isn’t that “vision” contained now in Mormon “scriptures?”
What? Does McKay Coppins not know either the Mormon “first vision” or their “scriptures?”
__________________________________________-
“Our entire case as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests on the validity of this glorious First Vision.”
-Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, Nov 1998
Thank you for re-focusing on the issue that really pisses me off: do you know that the First Amendment mentions the "free exercise" of religion?
No, think of it as a liberty-thing. You might not get it.
And all of these Catholic-based "religious orders" from the chart below (& many other dozens/hundreds NOT included) exploded from how many originally?
And all these Catholic-based orders assume that their rule--their order-- is the right one...because obviously...if a previous order had it all correctly, then they were a needless overlap overkill...superfluous
Hence, haven't all these Catholic-based religious splinter orders operated as a sort of mini-denominations operating under the broader umbrella of Roman Catholicism?
Sorry...but Catholicism isn't as "united" as Catholics LOVE to pretend...It's not -- as is oft' presented by Catholics -- one giant monolith.
Even theologically, it's not monolithic. Liberation theology has invaded Catholicism. Solid theological reform movements like Jansenism hit Catholicism in the 1600s.
Some of the Roman Catholic order jumpstarters themselves bounced around before getting them off the ground. Take Isaac Thomas Hecker, founder of the Paulists (latter 19th century). Hecker was a Methodist-turned-transcendentalist-turned-member of the Catholic Redemptorist order before founding the Paulists. Hardly a model heritage deeply rooted Catholic.
And the Romanizing party was itself a party that grew stronger in the 7th century. As I look at the book of Acts, I don't see mention of the Romanizing party in the earliest church. Do you?
Instead of all these diverse Catholic orders, why couldn't have one said, This is the rule of Christ. We'll follow it and Him ??? And then the rest of these man-made orders could have followed suit if generational stability and a unified front is so important.
Year Founded | Name of Order [a 'Mini-Denomination' of Sorts] | Man-Made Founder | |
6th century onward | Benedictine-Based [Break-offs Included] | ||
525 | Benectines | Benedict | |
Early 6th century | Female Benectines | Scholastica | |
Early 10th century | Cluny [many Southern France orders were reformed under 'Clunaic lines] | Odo | |
11th century | Vallumbrosians | John Gualbert | |
1100 A.D. | Fontrevault | Robert of Arbissel | |
1701 | Mechlarists | Mechitar [w/16 others] | |
Dominican/Augustinian Rule-based | Note: The Dominican order was NOT initial order based on Augustinian rule; hence not listed first | ||
1120 | Premonstratensions [also known as Norbertians] | Norbert [German-born who set up French orders and died residing in Italy]...so hardly a Middle-Ages localized presence only | |
Late 12th century | Trinitarians [reformed group called 'Barefoot Trinitarians' still exists] | John of Matha | |
1206 | Dominicans | Dominic | |
1210 | Franciscan-Based | Francis of Assisi | |
Franciscans also known as Friars Minor; Some Lay Franciscans known as Franciscan tertiaries; some Franciscans came to be known as 'Observatist Franciscans' others as 'Recollect Franciscans' and then 'Discalced Franciscans'...Such 'unity' of names even within the Franciscan bunch, eh? | |||
1557 | Alcantarines [Spanish Discalced Franciscans] | Peter of Alcantara | |
Late 16th century | Camillans | Camillus [break-off of first Capuchins and then recollect Franciscans] | |
1540 | Jesuit-Based | ||
1540 | Jesuits originally known as The Society of Jesus | Ignatius Loyola | |
Cistercian-Based | |||
About 1099 | Cistercian | Robert of Molesne [with Stephen Harding as key early leader] | |
1084 | Carthusians | Bruno | |
1128 | Knights of Templar | Bernard of Clairvaux | |
Mid-12th century | Gilbertines [no local presence only; a network of 25 monasteries] | Gilbert of Sempringham | |
Latter-17th century | Trappists | Armand-Jean le Bouthillier De Rance' | |
Ursulines/Carmelites-Based | |||
Early 1500s | Ursulines | Angela Merici [Later, Barbe Jeanne Acarie helped establish Ursulines] | |
Latter 16th century | Discalced Carmelites | John of the Cross a leader, but not founder | |
1603 | Carmelites | Barbe Jeanne Acarie | |
Other Orders Listed chronologically | |||
961 | Mt Athos | Athanasius the Athonite | |
Early 1000s | Camaldolesians | Romauld | |
1113 | Victorines | William of Champeaux | |
Early 1200s | Poor Clares | Clare | |
1235 | Mercedarines [Our Lady of Mercy] | Peter Nolasco and Raymond of Penafort | |
Latter 13th century | Celestines | Celestine | |
1346 | Bridgetines | Bridget | |
1360 | Gesuati | John Colombini | |
14th century | Sisters of the Visitation [the Jesuatesses] | Catherine, cousin of John Colombini | |
Latter 14th century | Brethren of the Common Life | Geert de Groote and Florentius Radewijns | |
1425 | Oblates of Mary [Later called Oblates of Torde' Specchi] | Frances of Rome | |
1436 | Minims [Ordo Fratres Minimorum] | Francis of Paola | |
1524 | Theatines [break-off of Orators of Divine Love] | Cajetan and Giovanni Pietro Caraffa (Pope Paul IV) | |
1532 | The Somaschi | Emiliani Jerome | |
1548 | Confraternity of the Most Holy Trinity | Philip Neri | |
1572 | The Brothers Hospitalliers | John of God | |
Cistercian-Based | |||
1575 | Oratorians | Philip Neri | |
16th century | Volokolamsk | Joseph of Volokolamsk | |
1597 | Piarists | Joseph Calasanctius | |
Early 1600s | Jansenism [not an order but a theological reform movement] | Cornelius Otto Jansen | |
Very early 17th century | Visitation | Francis of Sales and Frances de Chantel | |
1633 | Sisters of Charity, Lazarites | Vincent de Paul | |
1737 | Vincent de Paul Society | Frederick Ozanam | |
1737 | Passionists | Paul of the Cross | |
1835 | Pious Society of Missions/Pallottini Fathers | Vincent Pallotti | |
1843 | Similar Pious Society of Missions for women | Vincent Pallotti | |
Mid-19th century | Sisters of Providence/Fathers of Charity | Antonio Rosmini-Serbati | |
1859 | Salesians [Female version: Daughters of Our Lady Help of Christians, 3rd largest Catholic order today] | Giovanni Melchior Bosco | |
1880 | Sisters of the Sacred Heart | Frances Cabrini | |
Latter 19th century | Paulists [break-off of Redemptorists] | Isaac Thomas Hecker | |
1903 | Catholic Daughters of the Americas | ||
1917 | Baptized and Unbaptized Disciples | Narayan Vaman Tilak | |
1933 | Little Brothers of Jesus/Little Sisters of the Sacred Heart | Formed post-humously after the rule of Charles Eugene DeFoucald | |
1939 | Sisters of Jesus | Formed post-humously after the rule of Charles Eugene DeFoucald | |
1958 | Little Brothers of the Gospel | Formed post-humously after the rule of Charles Eugene DeFoucald | |
1965 | Little Sisters of the Gospel | Formed post-humously after the rule of Charles Eugene DeFoucald |
You could say yes or no, or even that you refuse to answer if you know what your claimed denomination teaches about Mormonism, thinking that you need to dredge up constitutional protection for it seems a little overly dramatic.
Kind of like Card Check, or performing a loyalty oath? Only the proper response is worthy, right? LOL
Yeah, rudeboy's been typically hostile & intolerant toward anybody who critiques Mormonism.
Could it be that he thinks that the lst amendment doesn't somehow apply to critiques of Mormonism and those who make them?
If so, pure hypocrisy...lst amendment for me (Mormon types & rudeboy types), but not for thee (those who critique Mormonism)
That post didn’t make any sense, being able to speak against Mormonism IS liberty, banning speech, is tyranny.
By the way, the whole Constitution-thing? It’s kinda’ important to me.
You seem to be fading, your posts are getting drifty and odd.
Here we go, Bozo arrives to inform everyone that I’m silencing their 1st Amendment rights. LOL
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.