Amillia

Which part is not a historical fact? I won't be chatting with you anymore Jason. Jenda doesn't think I have a right. So enjoy talking to yourself.

No heartburn yet.... Amillia/Peace/whatever, I've spent the last year and a half studying Church history. I've investigated Old Catholicism to death, Coptics, Roman Catholics, and of course Eastern Orthodoxy. You have yet to present anything I've not read and studied throughly. Good luck with your quest. But I think I've got the advantage here. You must be feeling the pressure. LOL Calling me names and all.

It's a matter of historical fact, Amillia. The LDS church, on the other hand, has undergone relative mild persecution in comparison. Correct me if Im wrong, but I don't recall a mormon being burned at the stake, crucified, or thrown to the lions just for being mormon. And all of that done under the auspicies of the US Government. I don't agree. I think you are not facing facts. Too bad.

Is that where you got all your answers to the church? From the church itself? NOT!!! You expect me to just read the stuff your church puts out about itself? LOL Get real Jason. I am going to read everything I can from every source I can about your church and it's history! especially it's history! cause you challenged me to. :)

Give me a few years to study this stuff and I will have him running for the hills! In the mean time, what I have just skimmed has given him a little heartburn ~ LOL

Haha. No. The Church taught the truth from the beginning as received from the Apostles themselves. However, heresy is also a part of the Church. Wheat and Tares. Up until St. Constantine, Christianity was illegal in the Roman Empire. Heavily persecuted, many lost their lives in the arenas of the Empire. Meetings were held in the Catacombs (crypts) just to keep out of sight of the Imperial guards. Gatherings were small, and generally anyone who attempted to be vocal in favor of Christianity lost their lives to the lions or the flames. Due to this unfortunate time, it was impossible to gather the Bishops (successors of the Apostles) together from around the Roman Empire to convene a council to renounce heresy. That's why it took so long. Yeah right. You know the LDS church hasn't even been around for 150 years and fraught with persecutions of every kind and we still have done better than that.

But the more I read (and I posted some of that history) the more it doesn't sound like you do have genuine authority.

So it took three hundred years after Christ, for His leaders to teach a clear doctrine?

LATIN PATRIARCHATE Together with the Latin Empire a Latin patriarchate had been established in 1204 at Constantinople, on which occasion the Greek patriarch took refuge at Nicæa. Notwithstanding the missions of Cardinal Benedict a Sancta Susanna (1205-1207) and Pelagius of Albano (1213), negotiations, and even persecutions, the Latins failed to induce all their Greek subjects to acknowledge the authority of the pope. In its best days the Latin patriarchate never numbered more than twenty-two archbishoprics and fifty-nine suffragan bishoprics, situated in Europe, in the islands, and even in Asia Minor. However, the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople outlived the Latin Empire, after the fall of which the Latin patriarchs resided in Greece or in Italy. From 1302 the Holy See reserved to itself the appointment to this office and united with the patriarchate first the Archbishopric of Candia, later the Bishopric of Negropont; this was still the situation as late as 1463. A consistorial decree of 1497 reserved this high title to cardinals; the rule, however, was subject to many exceptions. In modern times a contrary practice has prevailed; the Latin titular Patriarch of Constantinople ceases to bear this title only on entrance to the Sacred College. Of course, after the fall of the Latin or Frankish Empire in 1261, the Latin patriarch could not deal directly with the Catholics of Constantinople; they were committed to the care of patriarchal vicars, simple priests chosen usually among the superiors of religious orders resident in the city, Observantine or Conventual Franciscans, and Dominicans. This lasted until 1651, when the Latin patriarch was allowed by the sultan to have in Constantinople a patriarchal suffragan bishop, who was free to administer the diocese in the name of the patriarch. Finally, in 1772, the Holy See suppressed the office of patriarchal suffragan an appointed patriarchal vicars Apostolic, which system is yet in existence. RESTORATION OF GREEK EMPIRE; EFFORTS AT REUNION OF THE CHURCHES Having anticipated a little we may here take up the thread of our narrative. By the recovery of Constantinople in 1261, Michael Palæologus had drawn on himself the enmity of some Western princes, especially of Charles of Anjou, brother of St. Louis and heir to the rights of the aforesaid Latin emperors of Constantinople. To forestall the crusade with which he was threatened, the Greek emperor opened negotiations with the pope and accepted the union of the Churches. It was proclaimed at the Ecumenical Council of Lyons in 1274, and was confirmed at Constantinople by several particular councils held under the Greek patriarch, John Beccus, a sincere Catholic. It was not, however, accepted by the Greek people who remained always inimical to the West, and, on the emperor's death in 1282, it was rejected at a council held in the Blachernæ church. Thenceforth the rulers of Constantinople had to reckon with the ambitious claims of Charles of Valois, brother of Philip the Fair, and of other Latin pretenders to the imperial crown. The city itself was remit by the theological disputes of Barlaamites and Palamists arising from Hesychasm (q. v.), also by the domestic dissensions of the imperial family during the reigns of the two Andronici, John Palæologus, and John Cantacuzene. With the aid of Turkish mercenaries John Cantacuzene (the hope of the Palamists) withstood the legitimate emperor and conquered the city. The Byzantine Empire was now in face of its last and greatest peril. The smaller Greek Empire of Trebizond controlled since 1204 a part of its Asiatic provinces. The Fourth Crusade had caused almost all the islands and a great part of its possessions in Europe to fall into the hands of the Venetians, Genoese, Pisans, and local dynasts. It feared most, however, the new empire of the Osmanlis that was rapidly overflowing all Asia Minor. The Osmanlis were originally a small Turkish tribe of Khorassan; in the thirteenth century they had settled near Dorylæum (Eski-Shehir), whence they gradually annexed all the sultanates and principalities of the Seljuk Turks and others. As early as 1326 Brusa in Bithynia had become the centre of their power. A Genoese fleet soon conveyed their army into Europe, where they took Gallipoli in 1397. Thenceforth, while the popes were especially anxious to save the Greek East and Constantinople, the Byzantines, excited by their priests and monks, appeared daily more hostile to the West and exhausted their opportunities in useless theological disputes. The memorable defeat of the Serbs and Bulgarians at Kossovo in 1389, and that of the crusaders at Nicopolis in 1396, seemed to indicate the hopelessness of the Byzantine cause, when the Mongol invasion of Timur-Leng (Tamerlane) and the defeat of Sultan Bayazid at Angora in 1402 combined to assure another half-century of existence to the doomed empire. Scarcely had Manuel II heard of the Turkish disaster when he pulled down the mosque in his capital and abandoned his negotiations at Rome, where he had initiated proposals of peace, but only for political reasons. However, the Turkish power had not been destroyed on the plain of Angora. From June to September, 1422, Sultan Murad II laid siege to Constantinople, which he nearly captured. Though finally repulsed, the Turks tightened daily their control over all approaches to the city, which only a new crusade could have relieved. At the Council of Florence, therefore (1439), the Greeks again declared themselves Catholics. This formal reunion, however, imposed by the emperor and again rejected by the Greek nation, could not in the beginning be proclaimed even at Constantinople, in spite of the election of a patriarch favourable to Rome, and of Western promises to help the Greeks with men and money. Mark of Ephesus and after him Gennadius Scholarius were omnipotent with clergy and people, and infused into them fresh hatred of the Latins. Nevertheless, the promised crusade took place under the direction of Cardinal Giuliano Cesarini. János Hunyady and Iskender-Beg (Scanderbeg) performed miracles of valour, but in vain. The crusaders were completely defeated at Varna in 1444, and nothing was left to Constantinople but to perish honourably. The reunion with Rome, as accepted at Florence, was at last proclaimed officially in St. Sophia by Cardinal Isidore, Metropolitan of Kiev (12 Dec., 1452). It was thus fated that Emperor Constantine Dragases, the last heir of the great Constantine, was to die in the Catholic Faith. FALL OF CONSTANTINOPLE; CAPITAL OF OTTOMAN EMPIRE When the tragic hour struck, the emperor had only about 7000 men, including all foreign succour. Since March, 1453, the Turks, to the number of 200,000, had invested the city; the preceding year they had built on the Bosporus the redoubtable fortress of Rumeli-Hissar. Their fleet also held the entrance to the Dardanelles, but was prevented from entering the Golden Horn by a strong iron chain that barred its mouth. But Mohammed II caused seventy of his ships to slide on greased planks behind Galata; in this way they entered the Golden Horn (22 April). He then cast across it a bridge of boats broad enough to allow the passage of five soldiers abreast, while his troops, constantly renewed, kept up without ceasing their attacks by land. Eventually the defenders were exhausted by the toils of a continuous and hopeless conflict, while their ranks grew steadily thinner through death or wounds. The population gave no help and was content to taunt the Latins, while waiting for the miracle of Heaven that was to save them. Finally, 29 May, 1453, about 4 o'clock in the morning, a furious assault of the Turks broke down the walls and gates of the city, and the besiegers burst in from every side. Emperor Constantine fell like a hero at the gate of St. Romanus. St. Sophia was immediately transformed into a mosque, and during three days the unhappy city was abandoned to unspeakable excesses of cruelty and debauchery. The next year, at the demand of the sultan himself, Gennadius Scholarius, Rome's haughty adversary, was appointed Patriarch of Constantinople, and soon the Greek Church was reestablished, almost in its former position. Thus was granted the sacrilegious prayer of so many Greeks, blinded by unreasoning hate, that henceforth, not the tiara, but the turban should rule in the city of Constantine. Even the name of the city was changed. The Turks call it officially (in Arabic) Der-es-Saadet, Door of Happiness, or (chiefly on coins) Konstantinieh. Their usual name for it is Stamboul, or rather Istamboul, a corruption of the Greek expression eis ten polin (pronounced stimboli), perhaps under the influence of a form, Islamboul, which could pass for "the city of Islam". Most of the churches, like St. Sophia, were gradually converted into mosques. This was the fate of SS. Sergius and Bacchus -- a beautiful monument built by Justinian, commonly called "the little St. Sophia"; of the church of the monastery of Khora, whose splendid mosaics and pictures, mostly of the fourteenth century, are among the principal curiosities of the city; of the churches of the celebrated Pantocrator and Studium monasteries, etc. Other churches were demolished and replaced by various buildings; thus the church of the Holy Apostles gave way to the great mosque built by the conquering Sultan Mohammed II. The imperial tombs in this church were violated; some of their gigantic red porphyry sarcophagi were taken to the church of St. Irene. The latter is the only church taken from the Greeks that has not been changed into a mosque or demolished; it became, and is yet an arsenal, or rather a museum of ancient weapons. The sultans in turn endowed their new capital with many beautiful monuments. Mohammed II built the castle of Yedi-Kouleh, the Tchinili-Kiosk (now a museum), the mosques of Cheik Bokhari, of the Janizaries, of Kassim-Pasha, of Eyoub, where every sultan at his accession is obliged to be girt with the sword of Othman, etc. Bayazid II built the Bayazidieh (1458). Soliman the Magnificent built the Suleimanieh, the most beautiful Turkish monument in Constantinople. His architect Sinan constructed fifty other mosques in the empire. Ahmed I built (1610) the Ahmedieh on the foundations of the imperial Great Palace, a pretty fountain near St. Sophia, etc. The buildings of the old seraglio at Seraglio Point are also of Turkish origin; nothing is left of the Byzantine imperial palaces that once stood there. The Blachernæ palace has also disappeared; its church was accidentally burned in the seventeenth century. Not far distant are the important ruins of the palace of the Porphyrogenitus. When the Turks took Constantinople, the hippodrome was already in ruinous decay. There remain yet three precious monuments of ancient imperial splendour: the Egyptian obelisk brought thither by Theodosius the Great, the Serpentine Column brought from Delphi by Constantine, and the Byzantine monument known as the Walled-up Column. Near them has been constructed, on the plans and at the expense of the German Emperor, William II, a fountain in Byzantine style. The Turks have also respected some other relics of antiquity, especially the columns of Constantine, Marcian, Theodosius, and Arcadius, the aqueduct of Valens, and many of the great subterraneous cisterns.

HERESY AND SCHISM When Photius (d. 891) began the schism consummated by Michael Cærularius in 1054, the Byzantine Church had, since the death of Emperor Constantine in 337, been formally out of communion with the Roman Church during 248 years (55 years on account of Arianism, 11 on account of the condemnation of St. John Chrysostom, 35 on account of Zeno's Henoticon, 41 on account of Monothelism, 90 on account of Iconoclasm, 16 on account of the adulterous marriage of Constantine VI). On the whole, therefore, Constantinople had been out of communion with the Apostolic See one out of every two years. During this period nineteen patriarchs of Constantinople were open heretics, some of them quite famous, e.g. Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eudoxius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Acacius, Sergius, Pyrrhus. On the other hand must be mentioned several orthodox bishops, e.g. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. John Chrysostom, St. Flavian, St. Germanus, St. Tarasius, St. Methodius, and St. Ignatius, the opponent of Photius, whose virtues and literary fame compensate for the scandalous heterodoxy of their confrères. Nor can we omit illustrious monks and hymnographers like St. Romanus (Melodus), the greatest liturgical poet of the Byzantine Church, St. Maximus Confessor, St. Theodore, the noble abbot of the famous monastery of Studium (Stoudion), and many others who suffered martyrdom during the reigns of Iconoclast emperors. Many councils were held in Constantinople, sometimes against heresies, sometimes in favour of them. Chief among these councils are: the ecumenical councils of 381, 553, 681, and 869; the Trullan Council (692), very important for the history of canonical legislation; the councils of 712 and 878 which ratified, respectively, Monothelism and the revolt of Photius against Rome. The schism of Photius was not at once followed by its worst consequences. The learned but ambitious patriarch was yet living when union with the Roman Church was re-established by Emperor Leo the Wise in 886; he obliged Photius to quit the patriarchal throne. From that time to the patriarchate of Michael Cærularius (1043-1049), in spite of the Filioque question, relations with the papacy were generally cordial. There were indeed, at the beginning of the tenth century, some difficulties caused by the emperor's fourth marriage, but in this conflict both the opposing patriarchs attempted to obtain from the Roman Church justification of their conduct. It was only under Michael Cærularius that the schismatic condition was finally confirmed, almost without any apparent motive and only through the bad will of this patriarch. After long and sharp disputes between the two Churches, the pope's legates, with the approbation of the imperial court, deposited, 15 July, 1054, on the altar of St. Sophia the Bull of excommunication against the patriarch. This act resulted in a popular revolution. Five days later Michael Cærularius replied by excommunicating the pope and the "azymite" Latins. The weak-minded and lewd emperor, Constantine Monomachus, dared not resist the all-powerful patriarch. It must be noted, however, that, unhappily, the idea of schism had long been familiar to the minds and hearts of the Greeks. The first period of the schism was coeval, especially at Constantinople, with a remarkable literary revival, inaugurated as early as the tenth century by the Macedonian dynasty and carried to its perfection under the Comneni and the Palæologi. This revival, unfortunately, did not affect favourably the morality of the population, being chiefly an unconscious return to models of antiquity, indeed a kind of neo-paganism. We owe to it, however, beautiful works in literature, architecture, and painting.

What are you asking? I meant Constantine.

Of course. Nope. The Creed came about in 381 AD. Under Constantinopol?

That stingy remark was made by one of the Orthadox Catholics when talking about their beliefs. If you don't know what they are talking about, heck if I do. LOL

But there are so many Orthadox in your circle of Catholic churches.

Wow look at those GRAND titles! Letter of President of the USA His Excellency Mr George Bush to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew [Greek] Letter of His Beatitude, the Patriarch of Romania Theoctist, to His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholoemew(14.01.2005). Letter to His Excellency Victor Yuschenko, President of Ukraine(22/01/2005). [Greek] Letter of His Excellency Viktor Yuschenko, President of Ukraine, to His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew(21/01/2005). [Greek] Letter from the World Council of Churches and the Conference of European Churches to His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. Letter of His Royal Highness Prince El Hassan bin Talal of Jordan to His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew.

Gift of donation? Do you pay tithing? You church is the 2nd largest? Which one is the Largest? And how many brake offs or different churches are there holding the title Orthadox Catholic church?

So you believe in THE NICENE - CONSTANTINOPOLITAN CREEDWasn't this created some 1000 or so years after Christ?

How does you church believe on these subjects?

Try the new posted link

The sacraments were given to the church as a means of giving God’s grace to sinners. Then why deny the sacraments to sinners who ask for them? Why deny baptism to children of single mothers? Why deny the graces of Matrimony to those whose first marriage failed? Why be stingy with the sacrament of Reconciliation through General Absolution? Why deny the Eucharist to any baptized Christian who seeks the Lord? … These are just for beginner questions ~

The Mariavite Order: "By far, one of the most important early 19th century events in the development of the Old Catholic Movement has been the Mariavite Order in Poland. The nucleus of this movement was a community of nuns, founded in 1893 and organized under the Rule of Saint Francis for the promotion of asceticism and the moral purification of the Polish Church. These nuns were teachers in the parochial schools of Poland and greatly influenced the lives of the clergy and laity in whatever part of the nation they ministered. An order of priests, observing the Franciscan rule, was added to them and in 1909 there were 68 priests and a large number of students ready for ordination. "These two communities were solemnly bound by an understanding that their work was to begin with a moral regeneration amongst their own kind within the Church -- the clergy and religious orders. From the first, they were actively opposed by the Polish Jesuits and at last an order came from Rome that they were to be dissolved. When they refused to break up their community life, they were formally condemned in April 1906, and in December 1906, all their members and adherents cut off from the rites of the Roman Church. "A period of bitter persecution set in, but somehow they managed to keep together and increase their numbers. The Polish peasants were stirred up against the ‘Mariaviten’ and their woman leader, ‘The Little Mother,’ to such a degree that armed attacks were made against the followers when they gathered together in religious meetings. The Roman authorities at one time circulated a report that the Sacrament consecrated by the Mariavite priests became not the Body of Christ, but an Incarnation of the Devil, and in consequence terrible sacrileges were committed against Mariavites and several of their churches were burned to the ground. "With the growth of its numbers and in increasing necessity of Episcopal supervision for its parishes, the Order at last decided to ask the Old Catholics to consecrate a bishop for them. Accordingly, the bishop-elect Brother Jan Michael Kowalski and two of his brethren were sent to the international Old Catholic Congress in Vienna in 1909. Through the great Russian theologian, General Alexander Kireef, they were introduced to the delegates of the Congress. There, on the last morning of the meeting, Brother Kowalski stated the ground of his appeal and asked the prayers and sympathy of the assemblage. The Mariavite priests with their bare sandal feet and gray habits formed a striking and arresting impression in the midst of the other delegates and their genuine and simple character won them many new friends. After careful consultation, the Old Catholic Bishops accepted their application and the first bishop of the Church in Poland, Brother-Bishop Jan Michael Kowalski, was consecrated at Utrecht, Holland, early in October of that year. "For the next several years, the Old Catholic Church in Poland steadily increased. In February and March of 1909 the Minister of the Interior of the Polish government gave the Mariavite order official state recognition. Within the parishes, Churches, parsonages, schools, and other institutions were rapidly built. In the parish of Lodz in 1910, where there were already 40,000 Mariavites, four handsome Churches were built entirely through the efforts, personal and manual, of the clergy and laity. "Driven by the boycott of their Roman Catholic neighbors to depend more and more upon their own efforts, the members of the Mariavite movement soon developed a civil as well as a religious form of community amongst themselves. They worked and traded with each other, supporting one another, creating their own industries and soon, by cooperation, they rendered themselves entirely independent. Cooperation stores in villages and lodging houses in towns were organized. Hospitals staffed by their own doctors and nurses, orphanages, schools, homes for the aged, soup kitchens, milk dispensaries, fire departments, cultural activities, farms of magnificent acreage, factories -- in fact all the necessary prerequisites of modern living -- were developed and organized within their own groups and used to serve their neighbors. "Though this social and industrial reorganization greatly improved the position of the Old Catholics in Poland, it had to be accompanied by great personal sacrifices. In one town, Leszno, where cooperative factories on a large scale -- for bookbinding, shoemaking, cabinet making, and similar activities -- had been organized, several families handed over all their property to the community and put their own services unreservedly at its disposal. "Underlying the power and vitality of this movement which led to wholly new social groupings and industrial experiments was the ever present guidance of a strong and inspired leader -- a woman, Mary Francis Felicia, devotedly acknowledged by all as ‘Mateszka.’ Simple and unassuming in manner, she nonetheless provoked a religio-social movement worth the consideration of the world's serious minds. She proved to be, in the fullest sense, the ‘little mother’ of her people. "The Mariavite Movement was, up to that time, significantly different from any similar religious manifestation. It is in effect the working out of a practical application to life of the social significance of the Gospel. The foundress of the movement, the Little Mother, Mary Francis Felicia, believed and taught that the Kingdom of God on Earth is to be understood as a divinely human society -- a society in which justice, brotherhood, equality, and the general welfare of all its members prevailed. Basically, the Little Mother established her theory on the formula that for God's Kingdom to come on earth, His will must also be done. "The Mariavites believe that the curing of all social ills rests in properly relating the human element to the spiritual regeneration of family, nation, and society. But since ethical theories and social realignments in themselves are not enough, they maintain that the ‘direct action of God’ working on the human spirit is essential. ‘The direct action of God,’ they say, ‘is fulfilled in the partaking of Holy Communion, which, in the opinion of the Mariavites, must be the 'daily bread' of men and women.’ In this sense the entire religious and social life of the Mariavites centers upon the Holy Eucharist, at which the faithful communicate as a means of daily regenerating the human spirit and as the first step toward the regeneration of society and the realization of the Kingdom of God on earth. "Christianity, according to the Mariavites, is to be lived. Worship enters into every field of human activity. Its end and sole purpose cannot be found in religious gatherings held at stated periods alone. The act of worship, the liturgy, is an active and motivating experience in the lives of all who take part in it. During World War II more than 350,000 followers in Poland demonstrated the possibility of this life of faith and work even under the trying exigencies of world conflict. "Oddly enough, women play the important part in this religious movement. It was first founded by a woman, who also directed its social possibilities. The administration of major communities of the movement in many parts of the country was in the hands of women. The work of the sisters had been of such beneficial influence that they have been asked by the populace of many sections to administer parochial activities. Of the total number of about 1571 religious workers, including clergy, brothers of the Order and the sisterhood, more than one thousand of them are women actually engaged in the administration of the movement. The General Chapter, which meets to elect new officers and to decide the general administrative policy of the movement, has an equal representation of women with votes. The Mother General of the Sisters must take part in the election of a new Archbishop, as well as in all proceedings of the General Chapter. "The religious workers of the Movement were grouped into three categories. First there were the priests and members of the brotherhood who lived under the Rule of Saint Francis. The community of nuns, about 600 in number, compose another group, to which were added about 400 deaconnesses under the supervision of the Mother General. Under the third grouping, some 500 persons following a modified religious rule gave their time and energies to the movement. Of this last number, a great many consist of married couples voluntarily devoting their lives to buttress the work of the clergy and the sisterhood. Joy is a paramount requisite of a Christian life and the Mariavites everywhere radiate a warm and becoming mirth. "The zeal of the Movement touched the peasant populations of central Europe and awakened a living religious movement amongst them. A Pole writing of the effect this movement has on the people says, ‘From the surrounding neighborhood of their habitations there would be a flood of thirsty souls eager for God and His mercy.’ People when they met the Mariavites turned to God with such a subsequent change in their mode of life that even the Jews were wont to say, ‘What kind of new Christians are these.’ "The Old Catholic Church under the administration of the Mariavite Order in Poland was in every way a distinct and important demonstration of the possibility of a 20th century Christian social order. From Poland their influence spread to other parts of the world, where in some places it became well established. Mariavite missions were founded in Lithuania, France, England, South America, and North America. "Mariavites supported themselves with the labor of their own hands and offered their ministrations freely to all without salaries. Mission funds are not a necessary consideration of the movement. The Church, they would say, is here to give every assistance to people both for their spiritual and material well-being; it does not have to take from them. Perhaps it might yet be said of the Mariavites everywhere in the world, as it was then said of them in Poland, ‘Wherever there is a Mariavite there is neither hunger nor sorrow.’

We now return to the text taken from the 1941 articles written by the Old Catholic brother from New York State. The English Movement: "In England a movement began in 1908 which resulted in the formation of the Old Catholic Church in England. In that year the distinguished English priest, Dr. Arnold Harris Mathew, de jure Earl of Llandoff, who had left the Roman Church, was consecrated by the Archbishop of Utrecht assisted by all the continental Old Catholic Bishops, at the Cathedral Church of Saint Gertrude, Utrecht, on April 28th, and placed in charge of the English mission. On Saint Paul's Day, 1911, he was elected Archbishop and Metropolitan of Great Britain. "The Archbishop and his little flock in England soon found themselves in double danger. Added to the natural differences with their former brethren in the Roman Church was a campaign of persecution directed by certain elements among the Anglicans of the state Church of England, described by Dr. Willibroad Beyschleg, Professor of the University of Holland, and a noted Old Catholic historian, as ‘those who emphatically desire to be 'catholic' but are at the same time wholly out of sympathy with Old Catholics.’ They were a small group of ritualistic churchmen of the established English Church ‘on the way to Rome,’ while the Old Catholics were ‘on the way from Rome.’ "Certain unprincipled elements of this ‘Anglo-Catholic’ group exerted pressure on the Dutch Church to disavow the English Old Catholics, but without result. At one time they intended to besmirch the English Archbishop's character by elaborating on a statement made by a Roman Catholic editor that Bishop Mathew's credentials to the Dutch Church contained false statements, but the Bishops of Holland, after a thorough investigation themselves vindicated Bishop Mathew. The Roman priest himself recalled the original statement, saying that since he made it he had satisfied himself by a personal investigation that it was groundless. "The clique of English churchmen continued to use this disreputable stratagem against the Old Catholics in the English speaking world even after Bishop Mathew's death. Bishop Mathew, however, maintained a high standard of Christian tolerance and continued his work, unmoved by the persistent noisiness of his detractors who nonetheless caused him much pain. "As evidence of their confidence in Archbishop Mathew, the Dutch Bishops had him participate in every consecration of Utrecht establishing a new Episcopate on the Continent of Europe until his death in 1919. Bishop Mathew assisted at the Consecration of Bishop Jan Michael Kowalski and two assistant Bishops for the Old Catholic Church in Poland, which from that period on was to have close historical and ecclesiastical relations with English-speaking Old Catholics. "A noted author and historian, Bishop Mathew had an excellent knowledge of the Orthodox Church, and established the most cordial relations between the English Old Catholics and the Patriarchal See of Antioch through his Eminence the Most Reverend Archbishop Gearrasimos Messara of Beruit, Syria, who on August 5th, 1911, received the Old Catholics under Bishop Mathew into union and full communion with the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch. Thus a genuine and practical rapprochement between the Catholics of the East and of the West was for the first time established after a breach which had lasted almost 10 centuries. "What distinguished the scholarly Archbishop Mathew and the Episcopate he established in Scotland and America from that of the continental Old Catholics was his insistence on the inviolable Episcopal authority of each national body of Old Catholics. This had been in the minds of the original Old Catholic congresses, but the German Episcopate, because of its preponderance of numbers and wealth, attempted to create a small hierarchical system patterned on the Roman administration with the Archbishop of Utrecht in the position of ranking prelate or ‘little pope.’ The English Old Catholics, seeing in this the possibilities of the former mistake of the Western Church with a Germanic, instead of an Italian, spiritual protectorate over the whole Christian world, restated the original Old Catholic principles of autonomy and have received the support of their Orthodox friends in this respect. "Bishop Mathew's personal contribution to the Old Catholic Movement can be summed up as a broadening of the Catholic mind to an acceptance of the necessity of the unifying of Christ's Church on the basis of the original tenets of the Christian Faith as it was once believed by all Christians everywhere, and the recognition that this can only be accomplished by complete cooperation with Christians of the Eastern Churches, whose proximity in language, in tradition, and in mind with the early Christians, makes them the ideal vehicle. "After Bishop Mathew's death, the small body of Old Catholics in England remained without legitimate Episcopal supervision of their own, and until a short while ago the Church remained in the protection of the Episcopate of the Old Catholic Church in Poland. Now, cut off from their Mother-house by the European War, the English Old Catholics have placed themselves under the jurisdiction of an American Old Catholic Archbishop.

It appears that your church had it's own problems of men and faults ~

8. By maintaining and professing faithfully the doctrine of Jesus Christ, by refusing to admit those errors which by the fault of men have crept into the Catholic Church, by laying aside the abuses in ecclesiastical matters, together with the worldly tendencies of hierarchy, we believe that we shall be able to combat efficaciously the great evils of our day, which are unbelief and indifference in matters of religion.

The Declaration of Utrecht: At this point we depart from the text of the 1941 articles by our Benedictine brother to point out an extremely important development in the Old Catholic Church and the Independent Catholic Movement which sprang from it. The Old Catholic bishops met in Council in the see of Utrecht and came up with a revolutionary statement of faith. Unlike Luther’s theses, it did not reject doctrines of the first millennium, but sought to return to them, rejecting only Rome’s innovations since the Great Schism. The language of the Declaration of Utrecht is rather strident, reflecting the tendency of the day (everyone throwing anathemas at each other). The United Catholic Church does not look on these statements as dogma. But they are instructive in the context of the formation of the Old Catholic Church. They reflect a consensus of very many devout Catholic bishops who wished to preserve the Catholic faith from the innovations of an influential minority in the Church. The text follows: The Declaration of Utrecht Declaration of the Bishops of the Old Catholic Church, Utrecht, Sep 24, 1889 1. We adhere faithfully to the Rule of Faith laid down by St. Vincent of Lerins in these terms: "Id teneamus, ubique quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est; hoc est etenim vere proprieque catholicum." For this reason we persevere in professing the faith of the primitive Church, as formulated in the ecumenical symbols and specified precisely by the unanimously accepted decisions of the Ecumenical Councils held in the undivided Church of the first thousand years. 2. We therefore reject the decrees of the so-called Council of the Vatican, which were promulgated on July 18th, 1870 concerning the infallibility and the universal Episcopate of the Bishop of Rome, decrees which contradict the faith of the ancient canonical constitution by attributing to the Pope the plenitude of ecclesiastical powers over all Dioceses and over all the faithful. By denial of his primatial jurisdiction, we do not wish to deny the historic primacy which several Ecumenical Councils and the Fathers of the ancient Church have attributed to the Bishop of Rome by recognizing him as the Primus inter pares. 3. We also reject the dogma of the Immaculate Conception promulgated by Pius IX in 1854 in defiance of the Holy Scriptures and in contradiction to the tradition of the first centuries. 4. As for other Encyclicals published by the Bishops of Rome in recent times; for example, the Bulls Unigenitus and Auctorem fidei, and the Syllabus of 1864, we reject them on all such points as are in contradiction of the doctrine of the primitive Church, and we do not recognize them as binding on the conscience of the faithful. We also renew the ancient protest of the Catholic Church of Holland against the errors of the Roman Curia, and against its attacks upon the rights of national Churches. 5. We refuse to accept the decrees of the Council of Trent in matters of discipline, and as for the dogmatic decisions of that Council, accept them only so far as they are in harmony with the teaching of the primitive Church. 6. Considering that the Holy Eucharist has always been the true central point of Catholic worship, we consider it our duty to declare that we maintain with perfect fidelity the ancient Catholic doctrine concerning the Sacrament of the Altar, by believing that we receive the Body and Blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ under the species of bread and wine. The Eucharistic celebration in the church is neither a continual repetition nor a renewal of the expiatory sacrifice which Jesus offered once for all upon the Cross, and it is the act by which we represent upon earth and appropriate to ourselves the one offering which Jesus Christ makes in Heaven, according to the Epistle to the Hebrews ix:11,12 for the salvation of redeemed humanity, by appearing for us in the presence of God (Heb ix:24). The character of the Holy Eucharist being thus understood, it is, at the same time, a sacrificial feast, by means of which the faithful, in receiving the Body and Blood of our Saviour, enter into communion with one another (1 Cor x:17). 7. We hope that Catholic theologians, in maintaining the faith of the undivided Church, will succeed in establishing an agreement upon all such questions as caused controversy ever since the Churches became divided. We exhort the priests under our jurisdiction to teach, both by preaching and by instruction of the young, especially the essential Christian truths professed by all Christian confessions, to avoid, in discussing controversial doctrines, any violation of truth or charity, and in word and deed to set an example to the members of our churches in accordance with the spirit of Jesus Christ our Savior. 8. By maintaining and professing faithfully the doctrine of Jesus Christ, by refusing to admit those errors which by the fault of men have crept into the Catholic Church, by laying aside the abuses in ecclesiastical matters, together with the worldly tendencies of hierarchy, we believe that we shall be able to combat efficaciously the great evils of our day, which are unbelief and indifference in matters of religion.