text:
Talk:Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America

Killing Time
What is the Killing Time referenced under "related topics"? I have just made a disambiguation page for it..! -- Sam

The Killing Time is (obviously, according to the point of view of the victims) either
 * roughly, that period of the Irish Rebellion, when some of the Irish Protestants were put to death by the British under the reign of Charles I, during and following the Bishops Wars, immediately prior to the English Civil War.
 * especially, that period at the close of the reign of Charles II, when toleration of Presbyterianism was revoked, and during which some 114 opponents of episcopalianism were put to death without trial, and their property confiscated, 1684-1685. Mkmcconn 00:43, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * In an RP context, it's almost certainly the latter, although I would've said 1680-1688. -- TimNelson 05:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Needed changes
-- TimNelson 05:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Needs more headings, especially in history section
 * The "Sources" section needs rewriting

Recent changes by Gingerscot1961
While I'll admit that this article is weak on citations, Gingerscot's additions are badly in error. Let's address several of them: Nyttend (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Refer to the text of the Solemn League and Covenant. It does not make any reference to establishing the Church of Scotland in England or Wales (or even Ireland which is outside Great Britain>. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingerscot1961 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * First, the RPCS was not founded in the late 20th century. Try reading Matthew Hutchison's The Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland, published in 1893; or Hetherington's History of the Church of Scotland, which gives coverage to the society period of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland in the late seventeenth century, both before and after the death of James Renwick.  You can also consult W.M. Glasgow's History of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in America, published in 1888 — the last of the external links — which pays plenty of attention to the RPCS.
 * The point of "Reformed Presbyterian" is not simply that it's both Presbyterian and a Reformed Church — the point is that the denomination heeds the Second Reformation of Scotland in the mid-17th century.
 * As far as the United Societies in 1690 — Glasgow's history will give you information on this. Among these ministers was Alexander Shields, author of The Hinde Let Loose; you can find this with a Google search.
 * As far as the establishment of the Church of Scotland — the Solemn League and Covenant established Presbyterianism as the religion of the Three Kingdoms, not just in Scotland.
 * As far as the RPCI — there were RPs in Ireland, as well, in the 1600s. At one point in the 1690s, David Houston, who lived in Ireland, was the only Reformed Presbyterian minister in all of what is now the UK.  There's no reason to say "of sorts" in describing the Reformed Presbytery of Ireland: it was no less a denomination than was the church in Scotland or would be the church in North America before long.
 * (1) The Solemn League and Covenant did not establish the Church of Scotland in the three kingdoms. Instead it preserved the Church of Scotland and called for reformation of religion in England and Ireland and did not cover Wales  ""the preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, against our common enemies; the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, according to the Word of GOD, and the example of the best reformed Churches; and shall endeavour to bring the Churches of GOD in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion.""  (2) The Three Kingdoms exclude Wales and so are not throughout Great Britain (3) It's not certain that The Solemn League and Covenant could legally establish any church as when it was signed by Parliament in 1943 Charles formally had to give Royal Assent to legislation.  However, Parliament withdraw support in 1648 before the Royalist defeat removed Charles' power.  So his 1650 signature had no legal force.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingerscot1961 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Among other things, Wales was included in England for these purposes. Moreover, Charles II was required to swear the Covenants upon his accession to the throne of Scotland, which he did.  Are you arguing that any act of the English Parliament during the Civil War was invalid because of a lack of royal assent?  Parliament were the effective government by 1643, and because the Covenanters taught the "descending obligation of the covenants" (i.e. you can't go back on what you've sworn), any withdrawal of support (of which I've never heard) was irrelevant to their position.  Nyttend (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * However, all three kingdoms swore the Covenants; the US Constitution doesn't say anything about Alaska, but it's still in force there, just as the SL&C was in force in England for a time. Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Schism?
The main body of the article mentions the four major schism of the RPCNA. Should I add these to these to the infobox? Exodvs (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Abstention
Given RPCNA's historic practice of political abstention, should this be added to the category "Religious Abstention?" I understand that it's not a universal RPCNA viewpoint anymore, but Mennonites are listed in that category and that view's hardly universal within Mennonite communities, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I'm Sight (talk • contribs) 23:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Pray Request
Pray request. Morning, please pray for Christian to live according to the gospel handed down by Jesus to his 11 deciples and Paul.Matthew 28:19,20. Please pray also for nonbelievers to get to know Jesus. The only King. Unbelievers should be educated of the cost of living according to the true gospel.Separating oneself from this satanic system but at the same time being the salt and light for the people of America. Please also allow the Holy Spirit to fulfill the role of sanctification.Thanks a humble servant. Gospel:forgiveness of sin,repentance and obedience to the commands of God in 2603:8080:7C07:99BA:B9BB:2215:F0F:184 (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


text:
Dietrich von Choltitz

Dietrich Hugo Hermann von Choltitz (9 November 1894 – 5 November 1966) was a German general. Sometimes referred to as the Saviour of Paris, he served in the Wehrmacht (armed forces) of Nazi Germany during World War II, as well as serving in the Reichswehr of the Weimar Republic, and the Royal Saxon Army during World War I.

Born into an aristocratic Prussian family with a long history of military service, Choltitz joined the army at a young age and saw service on the Western Front during the First World War (1914–1918). He rose to the rank of Leutnant by the end of the war and was active in the interwar period helping Germany rebuild its armed forces. In September 1939, during the invasion of Poland at the beginning of World War II, he was serving in Gerd von Rundstedt's Army Group South. In May 1940, Choltitz participated in the Battle of Rotterdam, making an air landing and seizing some of the city's key bridges.

Choltitz is chiefly remembered for his role as the last commander of Nazi-occupied Paris in 1944, when he allegedly disobeyed Adolf Hitler's orders to destroy the city, and instead surrendered it to Free French forces when they entered the city on 25 August. Choltitz later asserted that his defiance of Hitler's direct order stemmed from its obvious military futility, his affection for the French capital's history and culture, and his belief that Hitler had by then become insane. Other sources suggest that he had little control of the city thanks to the operations of the French Resistance, and could not have carried out such orders anyway.

Early life and career
Dietrich Hugo Hermann von Choltitz was born on 9 November 1894, in his family's castle in Gräflich Wiese (now Łąka Prudnicka, Poland) in the province of Silesia, 2 km from Neustadt (now Prudnik), in the Kingdom of Prussia, then part of the German Empire. He was a son of Hans von Choltitz (1865–1935), who was a major of the Prussian Army, and his German wife Gertrud von Rosenberg. He had two brothers named Hans and Job. He came from a Moravian-Silesian noble family of Sedlnitzky von Choltitz (Odrowąż coat of arms). His uncle Hermann von Choltitz was a governor of Landkreis Neustadt O.S. from 1907 to 1920. His family owned a forest between Prudnik and Niemysłowice.

In 1907 Dietrich von Choltitz enrolled in the Dresden Cadet School.

World War I
He joined the 8. Infanterie-Regiment Prinz Johann Georg Nr. 107 of the Royal Saxon Army as a Fähnrich (officer candidate) just months before the First World War broke out. His unit served on the Western Front, where he fought in the First Battle of the Marne, the First Battle of Ypres, the Battle of the Somme, and the Battle of St. Quentin (1914). He was promoted to Leutnant and became adjutant of the regiment's third Battalion within a year of joining.

Between the wars
After World War I he returned to Prudnik, where on 20 August 1929 he married Huberta (1902–2001), the daughter of General of the Cavalry Otto von Garnier. The couple had two daughters, Maria Angelika (1930–2016) and Anna Barbara (born 1936), and a son, Timo (born 1944). He was transferred to the riding school in Soltau, as a rider he successfully participated in domestic and international riding competitions.

He remained in the Reichswehr during the Weimar Republic, becoming a cavalry captain in 1929. Promoted to major in 1937, he was made commander of third battalion, Infanterie-Regiment 16 "Oldenburg", a part of 22. Luftlande-Division. In 1938 he was promoted again, this time to Oberstleutnant (lieutenant-colonel).

He participated in the occupation of Sudetenland in 1938.

Invasion of Poland
On 18 August 1939, in preparation for Fall Weiss (Case White) – the German invasion of Poland – Choltitz was appointed the commander of the 16th Air Landing Regiment in Sagan (now Żagań, Poland).

After the Battle of Łódź, on 12 September 1939 his regiment was transported to the airport in Łódź by the transport aircraft Junkers Ju 52.

On 15 September, the regiment was temporarily assigned to the 10th Infantry Division. It participated in the Battle of the Bzura, during which Choltitz was wounded. On 19 September, he captured 3,000 Polish soldiers and a large amount of military equipment.

Battle of the Netherlands
In May 1940, Choltitz participated in the Battle of Rotterdam, making an air landing and seizing some of the city's key bridges. As commander of the 3rd Battalion of the 16th Air Landing Regiment, he began to organize his troops after landing them at Waalhaven Air Force Base. He sent them to the bridges in Rotterdam. The Dutch had not stationed many soldiers in the southern part of the city. One unit was made up of butchers and bakers and about 90 infantrymen, the latter being reinforced by riflemen who had withdrawn from the airfield. The Dutch troops hid in houses that were on the route to the bridges. There they ambushed the approaching German troops. Both sides suffered casualties. The Germans managed to bring up a PaK anti-tank gun. The Dutch had to yield under the ever-increasing pressure. The German force then moved on to the bridges, quickly followed by the bulk of 9th Company of the 16th Air Landing Regiment.

Meanwhile, the staff of 3rd Battalion of the 16th Air Landing Regiment had run into the Dutch in the square. Oberstleutnant von Choltitz′s adjutant took charge of an assault on the Dutch position but was mortally wounded in the process. When the Germans looked for another route to the bridges to bypass the Dutch stronghold, they managed to find a wedge that advancing troops had created along the quays. It was at about 09:00 when the bulk of the 3rd Battalion made contact with the defenders of the bridges.

Although the Dutch did not regain control of the city, the Germans were suffering from continuous assaults on their positions. Casualties mounted up on both sides and the German command grew increasingly worried over the status of their 500 men in the heart of Rotterdam. Oberstleutnant von Choltitz was allowed by Generalleutnant Kurt Student to withdraw his men from the northern pocket should he consider the operational situation required it.

When Captain Backer was being escorted back by Oberstleutnant von Choltitz to the Maas bridges, German bombers appeared from the south. General Schmidt, who was joined by the two Generals, Hubicki and Student, saw the planes and cried out "My God, this is going to be a catastrophe!" Panic struck German soldiers on the Noordereiland, most of whom were totally unaware of the events being played out between the commanders on both sides. They feared being attacked by their own bombers. Choltitz ordered red flares to be launched, and when the first three bombers overhead dropped their bombs the red flares were obscured by smoke. The next 24 bombers of the southern formation closed their bomb hatches and turned westwards.

After the bombardment of Rotterdam, during a meeting with the Dutch discussing the terms of surrender of all Dutch forces in Rotterdam, Generalleutnant Kurt Student was injured by a gunshot to the head. Student was very popular with his troops, and when the German forces moved to execute surrendering Dutch officers in reprisal Choltitz intervened and was able to prevent the massacre. His actions during the assault on Rotterdam earned him the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. In September of the same year, he was given command of the regiment, and the following spring was promoted to Oberst (colonel).

Soviet Union 1941–1943
At the start of Operation Barbarossa, Choltitz's regiment was based in Romania, advancing as part of Army Group South into Ukraine. His route led through Bessarabia, he crossed the Dnieper river on 30 August 1941, and at the end of October he fought his way to the Crimea.

As part of Erich von Manstein's 11th Army, the regiment fought in the siege of Sevastopol. The siege was bloody for Choltitz's regiment, which was reduced in numbers from 4,800 men to just 349.

During the harsh winter at the turn of 1941 and 1942, Choltitz struggled with heart problems and also began to show symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Promoted to Generalmajor soon after, he was made acting commander of 260th Infantry division in 1942. He was then promoted to Generalleutnant the following year and given command of 11th Panzer Division, which he led during the Battle of Kursk.

Western front 1944
In March 1944, Choltitz was transferred to the Italian theatre of operations, where he was made deputy commander of LXXVI Panzer Corps and participated in the Battle of Anzio and Monte Cassino. Transferred to the Western Front in June 1944, he took command of LXXXIV Army Corps, which he commanded against the Allied breakout from Normandy.

Military Governor of Paris
On 1 August 1944, Choltitz was promoted to General der Infanterie, and on 7 August was appointed the military governor of Paris, making him "commander of a besieged stronghold". Arriving on 8 August, he set up headquarters in the Hotel Meurice on the Rue De Rivoli, and found few resources at his disposal, and only 20,000 troops, mostly unmotivated conscripts.

On 15 August 1944, the Paris police went on strike, followed on 19 August by a general insurrection led by the French Communist Party. The German garrison under Choltitz fought back but was far too small to quell the uprising, and they lost control of many public buildings, many roads were blocked, and German vehicles and communications were damaged. With the help of the Swedish consul-general in Paris, Raoul Nordling, a ceasefire was brokered with the insurgents on 20 August, but many Resistance groups did not accept it, and a series of skirmishes continued on the next day.

On 23 August, Hitler gave the order to destroy the city by cable: "Paris must not pass into the enemy's hands, except as a field of ruins." ("Paris darf nicht oder nur als Trümmerfeld in die Hand des Feindes fallen"), after which explosives were laid at various bridges and monuments (which later had to be de-mined ).

With the arrival of Allied troops on the edge of the city at dawn the next day on the 24th, Choltitz made the decision not to destroy the city, and on 25 August, surrendered the German garrison, not to the Supreme Allied Command, but rather to representatives of the provisional government, the Free French. Because Hitler's directive was not carried out, Choltitz is often seen as the "Saviour of Paris".

Hitler did not completely give up on the destruction, with the Luftwaffe conducting an incendiary bombing raid on 26 August, and V2 rockets fired from Belgium, causing extensive damage.

The events leading up to the surrender were the subject of a 1951 memoir written by General von Choltitz (published in French in the 1960s as From Sevastopol to Paris: A soldier among the soldiers ) where he took credit for disobeying Hitler's orders and saving Paris because of its obvious military futility, his affection for the French capital's history and culture, and his belief that Hitler had by then become insane, and his version of events were the basis for the 1965 book and 1966 film, Is Paris Burning? (repeated as factual in many sources, and a 2019 publication ). His motivation not to destroy the city may have been in part because it was a futile and destructive gesture, but also in order to ensure his better treatment after capitulation.

The memoirs also state that he was persuaded to spare the city in part by an all-night meeting with Nordling on the night of 24 August. This event was depicted in the 2014 film Diplomacy in which Nordling persuades Choltitz to spare the city in return for a pledge to protect his family, which was reported as factual following the publication of his memoirs in some newspaper stories, but lacks any corroboration. He did hold several meetings with Nordling, along with the president of the municipal council, Pierre Taittinger, hoping to limit the bloodshed and damage to the city, and which led to the release of some political prisoners.

Captivity and later life
Choltitz was held for the remainder of the war at Trent Park, in north London, with other senior German officers. Choltitz later was transferred to Camp Clinton in Mississippi. No specific charges were ever filed against him, and he was released from captivity in 1947. In 1956 he visited his wartime headquarters at the Hôtel Meurice in Paris. Reportedly the long-time head barman of the hotel recognized the short, rotund man with "impossibly correct posture" wandering around the bar as if in a daze. After the manager of the hotel met him in the bar, he asked to see his old room. After seeing his old quarters for no more than fifteen minutes, Choltitz declined the manager's offer of champagne and left the hotel to meet with Pierre Taittinger. Choltitz died on 5 November 1966 from a longstanding war illness (pulmonary emphysema) in the city hospital of Baden-Baden. Four days later, he was buried at the city cemetery of Baden-Baden in the presence of high-ranking French officers, including colonels Wagner (Military Commander of Baden-Baden), Ravinel, and Omézon. Baden-Baden was the French headquarters in Germany after the end of the Second World War.

Choltitz was the last German owner of the castle in Łąka Prudnicka, his birthplace (until 1945 it had been part of Germany as Gräflich Wiese). In 2016 his son, Timo, tried to get it back during his visit in Prudnik, but without success.

Complicity in war crimes
During his internment in Trent Park many of the officers' private conversations were secretly recorded by the British in the hope that they might reveal strategic information. In one such conversation, on 29 August 1944, Choltitz was quoted as saying "The worst job I ever carried out - which however I carried out with great consistency - was the liquidation of the Jews. I carried out this thoroughly and entirely." Randall Hansen says that there is a lack of corroboration but that since many German generals committed atrocities it is possible, even probable, that Choltitz ordered the massacre of Jews. He observed that "it is easier to believe that Choltitz was the sort of unreflective anti-Semite that one would expect, given his age, class and profession." Selected transcripts were dramatized in the History Channel 5-part series The Wehrmacht (2008). In the episode "The Crimes", General von Choltitz is quoted as saying in October 1944,

At the very least, Choltitz was fully aware that the Nazis were committing mass murder against the Jews. For example, Choltitz estimated that the Nazis shot 36,000 Jews from Sevastopol.

Awards

 * Iron Cross
 * 1st Class (2)
 * 2nd Class (2)
 * Knight's Cross (18 May 1940)
 * German Cross (8 February 1942)
 * Honour Cross of the World War (WWI)
 * Order of St. Henry (26 December 1917)
 * Order of the Star of Romania (1943)
 * Wound Badge
 * Silver (1918)
 * Gold (25 March 1943)
 * Infantry Assault Badge, WWII
 * Albert Order, Saxony
 * Civil Order of Saxony
 * Order of Michael the Brave, Romania (6 October 1942)
 * Sudetenland Medal (1938)
 * Crimea Shield (July 1942)

In popular culture

 * Is Paris Burning?, a French-American ensemble cast production of 1966, with Gert Fröbe playing Choltitz. (Choltitz died around the time this film was being generally released in Europe and America).
 * Diplomacy, a French-German film of 2014 directed by Volker Schlöndorff, based on the play Diplomatie by Cyril Gely. Depicting events in his headquarters at the Hotel Meurice the night before the Liberation of Paris, Niels Arestrup portrays Choltitz.
 * Secrets of the Dead: Bugging Hitler's Soldiers, a PBS documentary which examines how MI19 spied on senior German prisoners of war.
 * Pod presją (Under pressure): a Polish documentary directed in 2015 by Dagmara Spolniak.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Dietrich von Choltitz


text:
John Dalrymple, 2nd Earl of Stair

Field Marshal John Dalrymple, 2nd Earl of Stair, (20 July 1673 – 9 May 1747) was a Scottish soldier and diplomat. He served in the Nine Years' War and the War of the Spanish Succession and, after a period as British Ambassador in Paris, became a military commander at the Battle of Dettingen during the War of the Austrian Succession.

Early military career
Born the son of John Dalrymple, 2nd Viscount Stair (and later 1st Earl of Stair) and Elizabeth Dalrymple (née Dundas), Dalrymple accidentally killed his brother in a shooting accident in April 1682 and thereafter spent most of his early life in the Netherlands where he studied at Leiden University. He joined up as a volunteer for the Nine Years' War with the Earl of Angus's Regiment and fought at the Battle of Steenkerque in August 1692. At Steenkerque he rallied his regiment several times when the ranks had been broken by cannon fire. In 1695 he became Master of Stair when his father succeeded to the Viscountcy of Stair.

He was commissioned as a lieutenant colonel in the 3rd Foot Guards on 12 May 1702 and fought with John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough during the War of the Spanish Succession at the Battle of Peer in August 1702 and the Battle of Venlo in September 1702. At Venlo he also saved the life of the Prince of Hesse-Kassel.

He became Viscount Dalrymple in 1703 when his father was created 1st Earl of Stair. In January 1706 he was appointed colonel of the Earl of Angus's Regiment. He commanded a brigade at the Battle of Ramillies in May 1706 and, having been promoted to brigadier general on 1 June 1706, became colonel of the Grey Dragoons on 24 August 1706. He became 2nd Earl of Stair in January 1707 when his father died and later that year he was elected as one of sixteen Scottish representative peers in the newly formed Parliament of Great Britain.

He commanded a brigade at the Battle of Oudenarde in July 1708, the Siege of Lille in Autumn 1708 and then, having been promoted to major general on 1 January 1709, at the Battle of Malplaquet in September 1709. In Winter 1709 the Duke of Marlborough sent him on a diplomatic mission to Augustus II of Poland. He returned in time to take part in the Siege of Douai in April 1710. Promoted to lieutenant general on 1 June 1710, he fought at the Siege of Bouchain in August 1711. He was also appointed a Knight of the Order of the Thistle that year.

He was sent to Flanders to join the military campaign there in April 1712 and became colonel of the Black Dragoons on 9 April 1714.

Diplomatic service
When King George I ascended to the throne in August 1714, Dalrymple was sent as an envoy to the Court of France at Versailles. He was temporarily recalled on 20 November 1714 to take up the appointment of Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in Scotland.

According to the Duc de Saint-Simon, Stair quickly established friendly relations with Philippe II, Duke of Orléans, Regent to the young King Louis XV, paving the way for the Triple Alliance. During his time in Paris, Stair's spies effectively thwarted various "intrigues" by the Jacobites. However, his intemperate hostility to the Scottish financier John Law, whom the Regent had appointed controller of Louis XV's finances, cost him the confidence of British government ministers.

From 1715 to 1720 Stair was based as ambassador at Versailles, where he was greatly inspired by the landscaping.

Stair retired from his position as ambassador in France in June 1720. On his return to Scotland, Stair planted extensively on the Versailles model at his estates at both Newliston House and Castle Kennedy.

In 1729, he became Vice Admiral of Scotland, but lost the position on 5 May 1733, mainly because of his opposition to the Excise Bill of 1733 promoted by Prime Minister Robert Walpole. He was promoted to full general, on the basis of seniority, on 27 October 1735 and also found time to lay out the gardens at Castle Kennedy in the 1730s.

War of the Austrian Succession

On 20 March 1742, after Walpole had fallen from office, Dalrymple was promoted to field marshal. On 17 April 1742 he was made Governor of Minorca and on 20 April 1742 took command of the "Pragmatic Army" sent to act with Hanoverian and Austrian forces in support of the Pragmatic Sanction to defend the succession of Maria Theresa to the Austrian monarchy. He was appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in South Britain on 28 February 1743 and colonel of the Black Dragoons again on 30 April 1743 and led the allies to victory at the Battle of Dettingen in June 1743. He retired from command of the army in Flanders at his own request on account of his advancing years in September 1743 and retired as Commander-in-Chief of the Forces to make way for General George Wade in 1745.

On 4 June 1745 he became colonel of the Grey Dragoons and on 14 June 1746 he became General of the Marine Forces. His favourite residence was Newliston near Kirkliston in Linlithgowshire, where he laid out gardens in the French style.

He died on 9 May 1747 at Queensberry House in Edinburgh and was buried in the family vault at Kirkliston.

Family
In March 1708 he married Lady Eleanor Primrose Campbell, daughter of James Campbell, 2nd Earl of Loudoun. She already had four children and they had no children.

Sir Walter Scott's story My Aunt Margaret's Mirror is believed to have been based on efforts made by the Earl of Stair to get Lady Eleanor Primrose Campbell to marry him. Stair wanted his earldom to pass to his nephew John Dalrymple; but on 4 May 1748 the House of Lords ruled that the right to nominate an heir had lapsed, and the earldom passed to the legal heir James Dalrymple, 3rd Earl of Stair.

title: John Dalrymple, 2nd Earl of Stair


text:
Apostolic see

An apostolic see is an episcopal see whose foundation is attributed to one or more of the apostles of Jesus or to one of their close associates. In Catholicism, the phrase "The Apostolic See" when capitalized refers specifically to the See of Rome.

Tertullian (c. 155 − c. 240) gives examples of apostolic sees: he describes as churches "in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally" the following churches: Corinth, Philippi, Ephesus, and Rome.

Tertullian says that from these "all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches".

Cited by early apologists for doctrinal authority
Tertullian himself and the slightly earlier Irenaeus (c. 130 – c. 200) speak of the succession of bishops of sees founded directly by the apostles as sources for sure Christian doctrine.

Irenaeus argues that, to know what is true Christian doctrine, it is enough to learn the teaching of some of the oldest churches or at least one, in particular that of Rome: "If the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to 'the perfect' apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. [...] Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?"

Tertullian's arguing is similar: From the apostles the churches they founded received the doctrine that the apostles received directly from Christ, and from those churches the more recent churches received the same doctrine. Every heresy is more recent and, being different, is erroneous.

Distinct from jurisdictional authority
Jurisdictional authority of particular episcopal sees over others is not necessarily associated with the apostolic origin of the see. Thus, the fourth canon of the First Council of Nicaea of 325 attributed to the bishop of the capital (metropolis) of each Roman province (the "metropolitan bishop") a position of authority among the bishops of the province, without reference to the founding figure of that bishop's see.

Its sixth canon the same council recognized the wider authority, extending beyond a single imperial province, traditionally held by Rome and Alexandria, and the prerogatives of the churches in Antioch and the other provinces.

Of Aelia, the Roman city built on the site of the destroyed city of Jerusalem, the council's seventh canon reads: "Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the Bishop of Aelia should be honoured, let him, saving its due dignity to the Metropolis, have the next place of honour." The metropolis in question is generally taken to be Caesarea Maritima,   though in the late 19th century Philip Schaff also mentioned other views.

The see of Constantinople was elevated to a position of jurisdictional prominence not on the grounds of apostolic origin but because of its political importance as the capital of the Roman Empire. The First Council of Constantinople (381), held in what by then had been the political capital for half a century, decreed in a canon of disputed validity: "The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome." It was later ranked second among the sees in the theory of Pentarchy: "[F]ormulated in the legislation of the emperor Justinian I (527–565), especially in his Novella 131, the theory received formal ecclesiastical sanction at the Council in Trullo (692), which ranked the five sees as Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem."

For another pentarchic see, that of Alexandria, the reputed founder and close associate of the apostle Peter, Saint Mark, is not called an apostle in the New Testament.

Sees or Churches viewed as founded by apostles or their close associates

 * Alexandria (Coptic, Coptic Catholic, Greek Orthodox): Saint Mark the Evangelist
 * Antioch (Greek Orthodox, Maronite, Melkite, Syriac Catholic, Syriac Orthodox): Saint Peter
 * Aquileia: Mark the Evangelist as one of the Seventy Apostles
 * Armenia (Armenian Apostolic Church, Armenian Catholic Church ): Thaddaeus (Jude the Apostle) and Bartholomew the Apostle
 * Athens: Saint Paul
 * Bulgarian Orthodox Church: Saint Andrew
 * Constantinople: Saint Andrew
 * Corinth: Saint Paul
 * Cyprus, based at New Justiniana (Erdek): Saint Paul and Saint Barnabas
 * Ephesus: John the Apostle
 * Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church maintains that Christianity was originally introduced to Ethiopia through Saint Philip the Evangelist
 * Georgian Orthodox Church: Saint Andrew and Simon the Canaanite
 * Goa and Maharashtra: Bartholomew the Apostle – Roman Martyrology of the Catholic Church mentions a tradition that Bartholomew the Apostle preached in India.  The studies of Fr A.C. Perumalil SJ and Moraes hold that the Bombay region on the Konkan coast, a region which may have been known as the ancient city Kalyan, was the field of Saint Bartholomew's missionary activities. Another unofficial book entitled ‘Martyrdom of Bartholomew’ says that, though he is generally said to have been martyred in Armenia, he was martyred in India. In these texts, two kings named Polyamus and Astriyagis have been described. Circa AD 55 the king named Pulaimi ruled near Kalyan, who in Latin language is called as Polyamus and King Aristakarman, who succeeded Pulaimi, might have a Latin name of Astriyais   and it is in Goan tradition that the Apostle preached in Goa and Maharashtra.
 * Jerusalem (Greek Orthodox, Latin): Saint Peter and Saint James
 * Malta: Saint Paul
 * Milan: Saint Barnabas
 * Patras: Saint Andrew
 * Philippi: Saint Paul
 * Romania: Saint Andrew, who is said to have preached in Scythia (identified with Scythia Minor, Dobruja, and the Metropolitan of Tomis).
 * Rome: Saint Peter and Saint Paul
 * The Russian Orthodox Church and the Orthodox Church of Ukraine claim a connection with Saint Andrew, who is said to have visited the area where the city of Kyiv later arose.
 * Saint Thomas Christians of Kerala claim a connection with Thomas the Apostle; they are now divided between (in alphabetic order): Chaldean Syrian Church, Jacobite Syrian Christian Church, Malabar Independent Syrian Church, Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, Mar Thoma Syrian Church, St. Thomas Evangelical Church of India, Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, Syro-Malankara Catholic Church)
 * Santiago de Compostela: James the Great
 * Seleucia-Ctesiphon or Babylon (claimed by, in alphabetical order, Ancient Church of the East, Assyrian Church of the East, Chaldean Catholic Church): Thomas the Apostle, Bartholomew the Apostle, and Thaddeus of Edessa
 * Syracuse: Saint Peter
 * Thessalonica: Saint Paul

Apostles or their close associates claimed as founders of sees

 * Andrew: Bulgarian Orthodox Church, Constantinople, Corinth, Georgian Orthodox Church, Patras, Romanian Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox Church, Orthodox Church of Ukraine
 * Barnabas: Cyprus, Milan
 * Bartholomew: Armenian Apostolic Church, Armenian Catholic Church, Babylon
 * James, brother of Jesus: Jerusalem (Greek Orthodox, Latin)
 * James the Great: Santiago de Compostela
 * John: Ephesus
 * Mark: Alexandria (Coptic, Coptic Catholic, Greek Orthodox), Aquileia
 * Paul: Athens, Cyprus, Malta, Philippi, Rome, Thessalonica, Illyria (Albanian Orthodox Church)
 * Peter: Antioch (Greek Orthodox, Maronite, Melkite, Syriac Catholic, Syriac Orthodox), Jerusalem (Greek Orthodox, Latin), Rome, Syracuse
 * Philip the Evangelist: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
 * Simon the Canaanite: Georgian Orthodox Church
 * Thaddaeus/Jude the Apostle: Armenian Apostolic Church, Armenian Catholic Church, Ancient Church of the East, Assyrian Church of the East, Chaldean Catholic Church (Babylon)
 * Thaddeus of Edessa: Ancient Church of the East, Assyrian Church of the East, Chaldean Catholic Church (Babylon)
 * Thomas: Ancient Church of the East, Assyrian Church of the East, Chaldean Catholic Church (Babylon); Saint Thomas Christians. The latter are now divided between (in alphabetical order): Chaldean Syrian Church, Jacobite Syrian Christian Church, Malabar Independent Syrian Church, Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, Mar Thoma Syrian Church, St. Thomas Evangelical Church of India, Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, Syro-Malankara Catholic Church)

Rome as the Apostolic See
By a long-standing usage, evidenced already in 431, when the Council of Ephesus, the third ecumenical council, employed the phrase "our most holy and blessed pope Cœlestine, bishop of the Apostolic See", the expression, "the Apostolic See", is used in the singular and capitalized to mean specifically the Holy See and represent the Pope as head of the worldwide Roman Catholic Church and successor of Saint Peter.

In Catholic canon law, the term is applied also to the various departments of the Roman Curia. The Code of Canon Law states: "In this Code the terms Apostolic See or Holy See mean not only the Roman Pontiff, but also, unless the contrary is clear from the nature of things or from the context, the Secretariat of State, the Council for the public affairs of the Church, and the other Institutes of the Roman Curia." The bodies in question are seen as speaking on behalf of the See of Rome.

title: Apostolic see


text:
Olympe de Gouges

Olympe de Gouges (born Marie Gouze; 7 May 1748 –3 November 1793) was a French playwright and political activist. She is best known for her Declaration of the Rights of Woman and of the Female Citizen and other writings on women's rights and abolitionism.

Born in southwestern France, de Gouges began her prolific career as a playwright in Paris in the 1780s. A passionate advocate of human rights, she was one of France's earliest public opponents of slavery. Her plays and pamphlets spanned a wide variety of issues including divorce and marriage, children's rights, unemployment and social security. In addition to her being a playwright and political activist, she was also a small time actress prior to the Revolution. De Gouges welcomed the outbreak of the French Revolution but soon became disenchanted when equal rights were not extended to women. In 1791, in response to the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, de Gouges published her Declaration of the Rights of Woman and of the Female Citizen, in which she challenged the practice of male authority and advocated for equal rights for women.

De Gouges was associated with the moderate Girondins and opposed the execution of Louis XVI. Her increasingly vehement writings, which attacked Maximilien Robespierre's radical Montagnards and the Revolutionary government during the Reign of Terror, led to her eventual arrest and execution by guillotine in 1793.

Birth and parentage
Marie Gouze was born on 7 May 1748 in Montauban, Quercy (in the present-day department of Tarn-et-Garonne) in southwestern France. Her mother, Anne Olympe Mouisset Gouze, was the daughter of a bourgeois family. The identity of her father is ambiguous. Her father may have been her mother's husband, Pierre Gouze, or she may have been the illegitimate daughter of Jean-Jacques Lefranc, Marquis de Pompignan. Marie Gouze encouraged rumours that Pompignan was her father, and their relationship is considered plausible but "historically unverifiable." Other rumours in the eighteenth century also suggested that her father might be Louis XV, but this identification is not considered credible.

The Pompignan family had long-standing close ties to the Mouisset family of Marie Gouze's mother, Anne. When Anne was born in 1727, the eldest Pompignan son, Jean-Jacques Lefranc de Pompignan (age five), was her godfather. Anne's father tutored him as he grew. During their childhoods, Pompignan became close to Anne, but was separated from her in 1734 when he was sent to Paris. Anne married Pierre Gouze, a butcher, in 1737 and had three children before Marie, a son and two girls. Pompignan returned to Montauban in 1747, the year before Marie's birth. Pierre was legally recognized as Marie's father. Pierre did not attend Marie's baptism on 8 May. Her godfather was a workman named Jean Portié, and her godmother a woman named Marie Grimal. Pierre died in 1750.

The primary support for the identification of Pompignan as Marie Gouze's father is found in her semi-autobiographical novel, Mémoires de Madame de Valmont, published after Pompignan's death. According to the contemporary politician Jean-Babtiste Poncet-Delpech and others, "all of Montauban" knew that Pompignan was Gouze's father. However, some historians consider it likely that Gouze fabricated the story for her memoirs in order to raise her prestige and social standing when she moved to Paris.

Early life

Marie-Olympe de Gouges (formally Marie Gouze) was born into a wealthy family, and although her mother was privately tutored, she had no actual formal education herself. Reportedly illiterate, she was said to dictate to a secretary.

Gouze was married on 24 October 1765 to Louis Yves Aubry, a caterer, against her will. The heroine of her semi-autobiographical novel Mémoires is fourteen at her wedding; the new Marie Aubry herself was seventeen. Her novel strongly decried the marriage: "I was married to a man I did not love and who was neither rich nor well-born. I was sacrificed for no reason that could make up for the repugnance I felt for this man." Marie's substantially larger fortune allowed her new husband Louis to leave his employer and start his own business. On 29 August 1766, she gave birth to their son, Pierre Aubry. That November, a destructive flood of the river Tarn caused Louis' death. She never married again, calling the institution of marriage "the tomb of trust and love".

Known under the name Marie Aubry, after her husband's death she changed her name to Olympe de Gouges, from her surname (Gouze) and adding her mother's middle name, Olympe. Soon after, she began a relationship with the wealthy Jacques Biétrix de Rozières, a businessman from Lyon.

Move to Paris
In 1768, Biétrix funded de Gouges's move to Paris, where he provided her with an income. She lived with her son and her sister. She socialized in fashionable society, at one point being called "one of Paris' prettiest women," and formed friendships with Madame de Montesson and Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans. De Gouges attended the artistic and philosophical salons of Paris, where she met many writers, including La Harpe, Mercier, and Chamfort, as well as future politicians such as Brissot and Condorcet. She usually was invited to the salons of Madame de Montesson and the Comtesse de Beauharnais, who also were playwrights.

De Gouges began her career as a writer in Paris, publishing a novel in 1784 and then beginning a prolific career as a playwright. As a woman from the province and of lowly birth she fashioned herself to fit in with the Paris establishment. De Gouges signed her public letters with citoyenne, the feminised version of citizen. In pre-revolutionary France there were no citizens, and authors were the subjects of the king, but in revolutionary France there were only citoyens. It was in October 1792 that the Convention decreed the use of citoyenne to replace Madame and Mademoiselle.

In 1788 she published Réflexions sur les hommes nègres, which demanded compassion for the plight of slaves in the French colonies. For de Gouges there was a direct link between the autocratic monarchy in France and the institution of slavery. She argued that "Men everywhere are equal... Kings who are just do not want slaves; they know that they have submissive subjects." She came to the public's attention with the play L'Esclavage des Noirs, which was staged at the famous Comédie-Française in 1785. Her stance against slavery in the French colonies made her the target of threats. De Gouges was also attacked by those who thought that a woman's proper place was not in the theatre. The influential Abraham-Joseph Bénard remarked "Mme de Gouges is one of those women to whom one feels like giving razor blades as a present, who through their pretensions lose the charming qualities of their sex... Every woman author is in a false position, regardless of her talent." De Gouges was defiant: she wrote "I'm determined to be a success, and I'll do it in spite of my enemies." The slave trade lobby mounted a press campaign against her play and she eventually took legal action, forcing Comédie-Française to stage L'Esclavage des Noirs. But the play closed after three performances; the lobby had paid hecklers to sabotage the performances.

Revolutionary politics
A passionate advocate of human rights, de Gouges greeted the outbreak of the Revolution with hope and joy, but soon became disenchanted when égalité (equal rights) was not extended to women. In 1791, influenced and inspired by John Locke's treatises on natural rights, de Gouges became part of the Society of the Friends of Truth, also known as the "Social Club," which was an association with the goal of establishing equal political and legal rights for women. Members sometimes gathered at the home of the well-known women's rights advocate, Sophie de Condorcet. In 1791, in response to the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, she wrote the Déclaration des droits de la Femme et de la Citoyenne ("Declaration of the Rights of Woman and of the Female Citizen"). In that pamphlet she expressed, for the first time, her famous statement:

"A woman has the right to mount the scaffold. She must possess equally the right to mount the speaker's platform."

This was followed by her Contrat Social ("Social Contract", named after a famous work of Jean-Jacques Rousseau), proposing marriage based upon gender equality.

In 1790 and 1791, in the French colony of Saint-Domingue (present-day Haiti), free people of colour and African slaves revolted in response to the ideals expressed in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. De Gouges did not approve of violent revolution, and published L'Esclavage des Noirs with a preface in 1792, arguing that the slaves and the free people who responded to the horrors of slavery with "barbaric and atrocious torture" in turn justified the behavior of the tyrants. In Paris, de Gouges was accused by the mayor of Paris of having incited the insurrection in Saint-Domingue with the play. When it was staged again in December 1792 a riot erupted in Paris.

De Gouges opposed the execution of Louis XVI (which took place on 21 January 1793), partly out of opposition to capital punishment and partly because she favored constitutional monarchy. This earned her the ire of many hard-line republicans, even into the next generation—such as the 19th-century historian Jules Michelet, a fierce apologist for the Revolution, who wrote, "She allowed herself to act and write about more than one affair that her weak head did not understand." Michelet opposed any political participation by women and thus disliked de Gouges. In December 1792, when Louis XVI was about to be put on trial, she wrote to the National Assembly offering to defend him, causing outrage among many deputies. In her letter she argued that he had been duped–that he was guilty as a king, but innocent as a man, and that he should be exiled rather than executed.

Olympe de Gouges was associated with the Gironde faction, which ultimately led to her being executed. She did not go to the guillotine for her feminism, as many might think. Instead her crime was spreading Federalism as a replacement for Montagnard revolutionary central rule. Revolutionary rule during the Terror was accompanied by emphasis on masculine public political authority that resulted, for example, in the expulsion of women from Jacobin clubs.

Due to her being part of the Gironde faction which were targeted by the more radical Montagnard faction. After the execution of Louis XVI she became wary of Robespierre's Montagnard faction and in open letters criticized their violence and summary killings.[13]

Arrest and execution

As the Revolution progressed, she became more and more vehement in her writings. On 2 June 1793, the Jacobins of the Montagnard faction imprisoned prominent Girondins; they were sent to the guillotine in October. Finally, her poster Les Trois urnes, ou le Salut de la Patrie, par un voyageur aérien ("The Three Urns, or the Salvation of the Fatherland, by an Aerial Traveller") of 1793, led to her arrest. Olympe decreed in this publication that "Now is the time to establish a decent government whose energy comes from the strength of its laws; now is the time to put a stop to assassinations and the suffering they cause, for merely holding opposing views. Let everyone examine their consciences; let them see the incalculable harm caused by such a long-lasting division...and then everyone can pronounce freely on the government of their choice. The majority must carry the day. It is time for death to rest and for anarchy to return to the underworld." She also called for an end to the bloodshed of the Revolution saying "It is time to put a stop to this cruel war that has only swallowed up your treasure and harvested the most brilliant of your young. Blood, alas, has flowed far too freely!" and warned that "The divided French... are fighting for three opposing governments; like warring brothers they rush to their downfall and, if I do not halt them, they will soon imitate the Thebans, ending up by slitting each others throats to the last man standing". That piece demanded a plebiscite for a choice among three potential forms of government: the first, a unitary republic, the second, a federalist government, or the third, a constitutional monarchy. The problem was that the law of the revolution made it a capital offense for anyone to publish a book or pamphlet that encouraged reestablishing the monarchy.

Marie-Olympe de Gouges was arrested on July 20, 1793. Although she was arrested in July, she would not meet the end of her life until November of that year. After her arrest, the commissioners searched her house for evidence. When they could not find any in her home, she voluntarily led them to the storehouse where she kept her papers. It was there that the commissioners found an unfinished play titled La France Sauvée ou le Tyran Détroné ("France Preserved, or The Tyrant Dethroned"). In the first act (only the first act and a half remain), Marie-Antoinette is planning defense strategies to retain the crumbling monarchy and is confronted by revolutionary forces, including de Gouges herself. The first act ends with de Gouges reproving the queen for having seditious intentions and lecturing her about how she should lead her people. Both de Gouges and her prosecutor used this play as evidence in her trial. The prosecutor claimed that de Gouges's depictions of the queen threatened to stir up sympathy and support for the Royalists, whereas de Gouges stated that the play showed that she had always been a supporter of the Revolution.

She spent three months in jail without an attorney as the presiding judge had denied de Gouges her legal right to a lawyer on the grounds that she was more than capable of representing herself. It is likely that the judge based this argument on de Gouges's tendency to represent herself in her writings. Through her friends, she managed to publish two texts: Olympe de Gouges au tribunal révolutionnaire ("Olympe de Gouges at the Revolutionary tribunal"), in which she related her interrogations; and her last work, Une patriote persécutée ("A [female] patriot persecuted"), in which she condemned the Terror.

De Gouges had acquired for her son, Pierre Aubry, a position as a vice-general and head of battalion in exchange for a payment of 1,500 livres, and he was suspended from this office after her arrest. On 2 November 1793 she wrote to him: "I die, my dear son, a victim of my idolatry for the fatherland and for the people. Under the specious mask of republicanism, her enemies have brought me remorselessly to the scaffold."

On 3 November 1793, the Revolutionary Tribunal sentenced her to death, and she was executed for seditious behavior and attempting to reinstate the monarchy. Olympe was executed only a month after Condorcet had been proscribed, and just three days after the Girondin leaders had been guillotined. Her body was disposed of in the Madeleine Cemetery. Olympe's last moments were depicted by an anonymous Parisian who kept a chronicle of events:

Yesterday, at seven o'clock in the evening, a most extraordinary person called Olympe de Gouges who held the imposing title of woman of letters, was taken to the scaffold, while all of Paris, while admiring her beauty, knew that she didn't even know her alphabet... She approached the scaffold with a calm and serene expression on her face, and forced the guillotine's furies, which had driven her to this place of torture, to admit that such courage and beauty had never been seen before... That woman... had thrown herself in the Revolution, body and soul. But having quickly perceived how atrocious the system adopted by the Jacobins was, she chose to retrace her steps. She attempted to unmask the villains through the literary productions which she had printed and put up. They never forgave her, and she paid for her carelessness with her head.

Posthumous political impact

Her execution was used as a warning to other politically active women. At the 15 November 1793 meeting of the Commune, Pierre Gaspard Chaumette cautioned a group of women wearing Phrygian bonnets, reminding them of "the impudent Olympe de Gouges, who was the first woman to start up women's political clubs, who abandoned the cares of her home, to meddle in the affairs of the Republic, and whose head fell under avenging blade of the law". This posthumous characterisation of de Gouges by the political establishment was misleading, as de Gouges had no role in founding the Society of Revolutionary Republican Women. In her political writings de Gouges had not called for women to abandon their homes, but she was cast by the politicians as an enemy of the natural order, and thus enemy of the ruling Jacobin party. Paradoxically, the two women who had started the Society of Revolutionary Republican Women, Claire Lacombe and Pauline Léon, were not executed. Lacombe, Léon and Theroigne de Mericourt had spoken at women's and mixed clubs, and the Assemblée, while de Gouges had shown a reluctance to engage in public speaking, but prolifically published pamphlets. However, Chaumette was a staunch opponent of the Girondins, and had characterised de Gouges as unnatural and unrepublican prior to her execution.

The year 1793 has been described as a watershed for the construction of women's place in revolutionary France, and the deconstruction of the Girondins' Marianne. That year a number of women with a public role in politics were executed, including Madame Roland and Marie-Antoinette. The new Républicaine was the republican mother that nurtured the new citizen. During this time the Convention banned all women's political associations and executed many politically active women. 1793 marked the start of the Reign of Terror in post-revolutionary France, where thousands of people were executed. Across the Atlantic world observers of the French Revolution were shocked, but the ideals of liberté, égalité, fraternité had taken a life of their own.

De Gouges's Declaration of the Rights of Woman and of the Female Citizen had been widely reproduced and influenced the writings of women's advocates in the Atlantic world. One year after its publication, in 1792, the keen observer of the French Revolution Mary Wollstonecraft published Vindication of the Rights of Woman. Writings on women and their lack of rights became widely available. The experience of French women during the revolution entered the collective consciousness.

American women began to refer to themselves as citess or citizeness and took to the streets to achieve equality and freedom. The same year de Gouges was executed the pamphlet On the Marriage of Two Celebrated Widows was published anonymously, proclaiming that "two celebrated widows, ladies of America and France, after having repudiated their husbands on account of their ill treatment, conceived of the design of living together in the strictest union and friendship." Revolutionary novels were published that put women at the centre of violent struggle, such as the narratives written by Helen Maria Williams and Leonora Sansay. At the 1848 Women's Rights Convention at Seneca Falls, the rhetorical style of the Declaration of the Rights of Woman and of the Female Citizen was employed to paraphrase the United States Declaration of Independence into the Declaration of Sentiments, which demanded women's right to vote.

After her execution her son Pierre Aubry signed a letter in which he denied his endorsement for her political legacy. He tried to change her name in the records, to Marie Aubry, but the name she had given herself has endured.

Writing
All of Olympe de Gouges' plays and novels convey the overarching theme of her life's work: indignation at social injustices. In addition to women's rights, de Gouges engaged contested topics including the slave trade, divorce, marriage, debtors' prisons, children's rights, and government work schemes for the unemployed. Much of her work foregrounded the troubling intersections of two or more issues. While many plays by women playwrights staged at the Comédie Française were published anonymously or under male pseudonyms, de Gouges broke with tradition; not only did she publish using her own name, but she also pushed the boundaries of what was deemed appropriate subject matter for women playwrights—and withstood the consequences. A record of her papers which were seized at the time of execution in 1793 lists about 40 plays.

In 1784 she published an epistolary novel inspired by Les Liaisons dangereuses (1782) by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos. Her novel claimed to consist of authentic letters exchanged with her father the Marquis de Pompignan, with the names changed. "Madame Valmont" thus represented de Gouges herself, and "Monsieur de Flaucourt" was Pompignan. The full title of the novel, published shortly after Pompignan's death, indicated its claim: Mémoires de Madame de Valmont sur l'ingratitude et la cruauté de la famille des Flaucourt avec la sienne dont les sieurs de Flaucourt on reçu tant de services (Madame de Valmont's Memoirs on the Ingratitude and Cruelty of the Flaucourt Family Towards her Own, which Rendered such Services to the Sirs Flaucourt).

As a playwright, she charged into the contemporary political controversies and was often in the vanguard. Alongside Marquis de Condorcet, de Gouges is considered one of France's earliest public opponents of slavery.

De Gouges' first staged production was originally titled Zamore et Mirza; ou L'Heureux Naufrage [Zamore and Mirza; or The Happy Shipwreck] (1788). Drawing both praise from abolitionists and attacks from pro-slavery traders, it is the first French play to focus not only on the inhumanity of slavery but also the first to feature the first-person perspective of an enslaved individual.

In her 1788 "Réflexions sur les Hommes Nègres" she brought to attention the horrible plight of slaves in the French colonies and condemned the injustice of the institution declaring “I clearly realized that it was force and prejudice that had condemned them to that horrible slavery, in which Nature plays no role, and for which the unjust and powerful interests of Whites are alone responsible” likewise declaring that "Men everywhere are equal... Kings who are just do not want slaves; they know that they have submissive subjects."

In the final act of L'Esclavage des Noirs de Gouges lets the French colonial master, not the slave, utter a prayer for freedom: "Let our common rejoicings be a happy portent of liberty". She drew a parallel between colonial slavery and political oppression in France. One of the slave protagonists explains that the French must gain their own freedom, before they can deal with slavery. De Gouges also openly attacked the notion that human rights were a reality in revolutionary France. The slave protagonist comments on the situation in France "The power of one Master alone is in the hands of a thousand Tyrants who trample the People under foot. The People will one day burst their chains and will claim all its rights under Natural law. It will teach the Tyrants just what a people united by long oppression and enlightened by sound philosophy can do". While it was common in France to equate political oppression to slavery, this was an analogy and not an abolitionist sentiment.

Political pamphlets and letters

Over the course of her career, de Gouges published 68 pamphlets. Her first political brochure was published in November 1788, a manifesto entitled Letter to the people, or project for a patriotic fund. In early 1789 she published Remarques Patriotiques setting out her proposals for social security, care for the elderly, institutions for homeless children, hostels for the unemployed, and the introduction of a jury system. In this work, she highlighted and promulgated the issues facing France on the brink of revolution writing “France is sunk in grief, the people are suffering and the Monarch cries out. Parliament is demanding the Estates-General and the Nation cannot come to an agreement. There is no consensus on electing these assemblies...The Third Estate, with reason, claims a voice equal to that of the Clergy and Nobility...for the problems that get worse every day” and declared to the king that “Your People are unhappy. Unhappy!”. She also called upon women to "shake off the yoke of shameful slavery". The same year she wrote a series of pamphlets on a range of social concerns, such as illegitimate children. In these pamphlets she advanced the public debate on issues that would later be picked up by feminists, such as Flora Tristan. She continued to publish political essays between 1788 and 1791. Such as Cry of the wise man, by a woman in response to Louis XVI calling together the Estates-General.

De Gouges wrote her famous Declaration of the Rights of Woman and of the Female Citizen shortly after the French Constitution of 1791 was ratified by King Louis XVI, and dedicated it to his wife, Queen Marie Antoinette. The French Constitution marked the birth of the short-lived constitutional monarchy and implemented a status based citizenship. Citizens were defined as men over 25 who were "independent" and who had paid the poll tax. These citizens had the right to vote. Furthermore, active citizenship was two-tiered, with those who could vote and those who were fit for public office. Women were by definition not afforded any rights of active citizenship. Like men who could not pay the poll tax, children, domestic servants, rural day-laborers and slaves, Jews, actors and hangmen, women had no political rights. In transferring sovereignty to the nation the constitution dismantled the old regime, but de Gouges argued that it did not go far enough.

De Gouges was not the only feminist who attempted to influence the political structures of late Enlightenment France. But like the writings of Etta Palm d'Aelders, Theroigne de Mericourt, Claire Lacombe and Marquis de Condorcet, her arguments fell on deaf ears. At the end of the 18th century influential political actors such as Honoré Gabriel Riqueti, Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord and Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès were not convinced of the case for equality.

In her early political letters de Gouges made a point of being a woman, and that she spoke "as a woman". She addressed her public letters, published often as pamphlets, to statesmen such as Jacques Necker, the Duke of Orléans, or the queen Marie-Antoinette. Like other pamphlet writers in revolutionary France, she spoke from the margins and spoke of her experience as a citizen with a desire to influence the ongoing public debate. In her letters she articulated the values of the Enlightenment, and commented on how they may be put into practice, such as civic virtue, universal rights, natural rights and political rights. In language and practice this was a debate among men and about men. Republicans discussed civic virtue in terms of patriotic manliness (la vertu mâle et répub-licaine). Women were not granted political rights in revolutionary France, thus de Gouges used her pamphlets to enter the public debate and she argued that the debate needed to include the female civic voice.

De Gouges signed her pamphlets with citoyenne. It has been suggested that she adopted this notion from Rousseau's letter To the Republic of Geneva, where he speaks directly to two types of Genevans: the "dear fellow citizens" or his "brothers", and the aimables et virtueses Citoyenne, that is the women citizens. In the public letter Remarques Patriotique from December 1788 de Gouges justified why she is publishing her political thoughts, arguing that "This dream, strange though it may seem, will show the nation a truly civic heart, a spirit that is always concerned with the public good".

As the politics of revolutionary France changed and progressed de Gouges failed to become an actor on the political stage, but in her letters offered advice to the political establishment. Her proposition for a political order remained largely unchanged. She expresses faith in the Estates General and in reference to the estates of the realm, that the people of France (Third Estate) would be able to ensure harmony between the three estates, that is clergy, nobility and the people. Despite this she expresses loyalty for the ministers Jacques Necker and Charles Alexandre de Calonne. De Gouges opposes absolutism, but believed France should retain a constitutional monarchy.

In her open letter to Marie-Antoinette, de Gouges declared:

"I could never convince myself that a princess, raised in the midst of grandeur, had all the vices of baseness... Madame, may a nobler function characterize you, excite your ambition, and fix your attention. Only one whom chance had elevated to an eminent position can assume the task of lending weight to the progress of the Rights of Woman and of hastening its success. If you were less well informed, Madame, I might fear that your individual interests would outweigh those of your sex. You love glory; think, Madame, the greatest crimes immortalize one as much as the greatest virtues, but what a different fame in the annals of history! The one is ceaselessly taken as an example, and the other is eternally the execration of the human race."

Public letters, or pamphlets, were the primary means for the working class and women writers to engage in the public debate of revolutionary France. The intention was not to court the favour of the addressee, often a public figure. Frequently these pamphlets were intended to stir up public anger. They were widely circulated within and outside France. De Gouges's contemporary Madame Roland of the Gironde party became notorious for her Letter to Louis XVI in 1792. In the same year de Gouges penned Letter to Citizen Robespierre, which Robespierre refused to answer. De Gouges took to the street, and on behalf of the French people proclaimed "Let us plunge into the Seine! Thou hast need of a bath... thy death will claim things, and as for myself, the sacrifice of a pure life will disarm the heavens."

Legacy
Although she was a celebrity in her lifetime and a prolific author, de Gouges became largely forgotten, but then rediscovered through a political biography by Olivier Blanc in the mid-1980s.

On 6 March 2004, the junction of the Rues Béranger, Charlot, de Turenne, and de Franche-Comté in Paris was proclaimed the Place Olympe de Gouges. The square was inaugurated by the mayor of the 3rd arrondissement, Pierre Aidenbaum, along with then first deputy mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo. The actress Véronique Genest read an excerpt from the Declaration of the Rights of Woman. 2007 French presidential contender Ségolène Royal expressed the wish that de Gouges's remains be moved to the Panthéon. However, her remains—like those of the other victims of the Reign of Terror—have been lost through burial in communal graves, so any reburial (like that of Marquis de Condorcet) would be only ceremonial.

She is honoured in many street names across France, in the Salle Olympe de Gouges exhibition hall in rue Merlin, Paris, and the Parc Olympe de Gouges in Annemasse.

The 2018 play The Revolutionists by Lauren Gunderson centers on de Gouges and a dramatized version of her life as a playwright and activist during the Reign of Terror.

Selected works

 * Zamore et Mirza, ou l’heureux naufrage (Zamore and Mirza, or the Happy Shipwreck) 1784
 * Le Mariage inattendu de Chérubin (The Unexpected Marriage of Cherubin) 1786
 * L’Homme généreux (The Generous Man) 1786
 * Molière chez Ninon, ou le siècle des grands hommes (Molière at Ninon, or the Century of Great Men) 1788
 * Les Démocrates et les aristocrates (The Democrats and the Aristocrats) 1790
 * La Nécessité du divorce (The Necessity of Divorce) 1790
 * Le Couvent (The Convent) 1790
 * Mirabeau aux Champs Élysées (Mirabeau at the Champs Élysées) 1791
 * La France sauvée, ou le tyran détrôné (France saved, or the Dethroned Tyrant) 1792
 * L'Entrée de Dumouriez à Bruxelles (The Entrance of Dumouriez in Brussels) 1793

Portrayals

 * Flashback, a film released in November 2021

title: Olympe de Gouges


text:
Northern Counties East Football League

The Northern Counties East Football League is a semi-professional English football league. It has two divisions – Premier Division and Division One – which stand at the ninth and tenth levels of the English football pyramid respectively.

History
The league was formed in 1982 following the merger of the Yorkshire League and Midland League. For its inaugural season, the league consisted of five divisions. Since then, the league has undergone several changes to the point where since 2018 it has two divisions of 20 teams.

The league has maintained promotion and relegation between its divisions since its beginning. In 2015 a series of play-offs were introduced for the first time to determine a third promotee from Division One.

The competition has several feeder leagues at level 11 of the pyramid, which may provide new member clubs each year: Clubs are also liable to be transferred to other leagues if the FA deems it geographically suitable to do so.
 * Central Midlands League North Division
 * Humber Premier League Premier Division
 * Lincolnshire League
 * Sheffield and Hallamshire County Senior League Premier Division
 * West Yorkshire League Premier Division
 * York League Premier Division
 * Yorkshire Amateur League Supreme Division

Premier Division

 * Albion Sports
 * Barton Town
 * Beverley Town
 * Bottesford Town
 * Campion
 * Eccleshill United
 * Frickley Athletic
 * Golcar United
 * Goole
 * Hallam
 * Handsworth
 * Knaresborough Town
 * Parkgate
 * Penistone Church
 * Pickering Town
 * Rossington Main
 * Silsden
 * Tadcaster Albion
 * Thackley
 * Winterton Rangers

Division One

 * Appleby Frodingham
 * Armthorpe Welfare
 * Athersley Recreation
 * Brigg Town
 * Club Thorne Colliery
 * Dearne & District
 * Dronfield Town
 * Glasshoughton Welfare
 * Harrogate Railway Athletic
 * Horbury Town
 * Ilkley Town
 * Louth Town
 * Maltby Main
 * Nostell Miners Welfare
 * Selby Town
 * Shelley
 * South Leeds
 * Swallownest
 * Wakefield
 * Wombwell Town
 * Worsbrough Bridge Athletic
 * Yorkshire Amateur

Promoted
Since the league's formation in 1982, the following clubs have won promotion to higher levels of the English football league system – normally to the Northern Premier League –

League Cup
The league currently has just one cup competition, the League Cup, which is contested by every club in the league.

President's Cup and Trophy
In the past the league has had additional cup competitions. The Trophy was contested by the Division One clubs and the President's Cup which featured the top eight teams in each division from the previous season, provided they remain in the league.

FA Cup first round
The following NCEL clubs have reached the First Round proper of the FA Cup –

FA Vase finalists
The following NCEL clubs have reached the Final of the FA Vase –

title: Northern Counties East Football League


text:
San Antonio, New Mexico

San Antonio is a census-designated place in Socorro County, New Mexico, United States, roughly in the center of the state, on the Rio Grande.

Description
San Antonio is partly agricultural, and partly a bedroom community for Socorro.

San Antonio is the gateway to the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge. Interstate 25 runs along the west, and U.S. Route 380 begins there and heads east to Carrizozo. The Rio Grande is just to the east of San Antonio, and the BNSF Railway runs through the community and has a small yard, little more than a siding.

While still part of the New Mexico Territory, the town was the birthplace of Conrad Hilton. His father was a merchant and hotelier in San Antonio, and Hilton learned the hotel trade there. Hilton was one of the original legislators in the newly formed state of New Mexico, and founded the Hilton Hotels Corporation.

San Antonio is about 28 miles from Trinity Site, where the first nuclear bomb was detonated on July 16, 1945. Residents reported tremors like an earthquake and the town received some of the remnants of the mushroom cloud, resulting in some radioactive contamination of the area, which faded quickly and does not persist today. The town was the meeting place for the scientists who detonated the bomb.

The city supports a few small businesses, which include the original Owl Bar and Cafe (featured on an episode of the Travel Channel's Burger Land in 2013), The Buckhorn Tavern (featured in 2009 on the Food Network's Throwdown! with Bobby Flay, ), San Antonio Crane, a restaurant featuring Mexican food, a seasonal roadside market, and a general store.

On July 15, 2018, San Antonio was hit by a thunderstorm that caused the small town to be covered with up to 2 ft of mud. This event received an emergency declaration from Governor Martinez. Highway 380 after this event was impossible to traverse, and the force of the flood water swept off the train tracks at the Burlington-Northern Santa Fe Railroad at the 380 crossing. This event helped justify funding for building a retention pond, and coming up with other plans to prevent similar future floods.

Education
It is within Socorro Consolidated Schools. Socorro High School is the comprehensive high school of the district.

title: San Antonio, New Mexico


text:
Talk:Apostolic see

Would it not be helpful to include all of the sees legendarily founded by apostles? I'm particularly thinking of the community of Saint Thomas Christians said to have been founded by Thomas the Twin in 64 CE. Presumably, similar legends are attributed to most of the other apostles in various places as well? QuartierLatin1968 21:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Twelve apostles dab
Regarding the latest edit * Jerusalem, in present-day Israel, or Palestine, from the twelve apostles themselves as the original Church and also a successor of the Apostle Saint James - I have changed the apostles to apostles to point to Twelve_Apostles article. --Biblbroks 's talk 18:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegiance to Rome or Constantinople
What does this phrase: "The sees of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem are traditionally divided in their allegiance to either Rome or Constantinople, but the modern movement of ecumenism seeks to heal these church-dividing wounds." mean? I wasn't aware of those three sees owing allegiance to Rome. Is that a reference to the Eastern Catholic Churches? If this is the case, shouldn't we also make reference to the Oriental Orthodox, who claim these three sees as well (the Copts with Alexandria, the Syrians with Antioch, and the Armenians with Jerusalem)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deusveritasest (talk • contribs) 04:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. If ADM wants it back in, he should clarify and source it.  Lima (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Other sees
Also, it seems that there is a certain shortage of references to sees which claim Apostolic origin. This article is seemingly limited to the Pentarchy, yet there are many more sees to be listed beyond these five. Should not this article be broadened as such? Deusveritasest (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Some are mentioned. You may add more.  I have endeavoured to draw more attention to non-patriarchal ones by putting those classified as the Pentarchy in a separate paragraph and slightly simplifying their description.  Lima (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Saint Thomas created a church in Kerala, India. Would this qualify as an apostolic see? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.57.199 (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

"Terrae Sanctae"
What is the point of referring to the Holy Land in Latin in this article? Deusveritasest (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Unjustified and, moreover, ungrammatical. Lima (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we move this to Apostolic see?
I believe that, as with episcopal sees, one doesn't use initial caps when writing about apostolic sees, unless one is referring to the Apostolic See, that is, the Holy See. So can we move this to Apostolic see, which currently redirects here? —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Lima (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds sensible. Q·L·1968 ☿ 00:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"POV pusher"
Notpietru, please explain why you classify as POV pushing an indication that calling Rome the Apostolic See (an expression that suggests no other see can be given that name) is an RCC usage. Do you mean that everyone, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants included, follow the same usage?

Your reversal to "According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, 'The Apostolic See' is used ..." (emphasis added) has made me wonder whether it is logical to quote a 1907 publication for what is used, rather than for what was used over a century ago. Esoglou (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Well, an updated ref would be nice, but that's still the stance of the RCC today, that they are the only valid "THE APOSTOLIC SEE". Naturally the other "Apostolic Sees" disagree with that claim. And the "Non-Apostolic Sees" couldn't care less. 75.15.199.160 (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This unsigned editor thus agrees that the usage under discussion is (today too) a specifically RCC usage. Mentioning it was not POV pushing.  Suppressing the mention perhaps was.  Esoglou (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're aware that using socks runs counter to Wiki policy? Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * PS. It may help to read the English a little more carefully: the claim is qualified in light of an Encyclopedic entry which you are trying to delete. The point of these articles is the faithful collation of standard scholarly material, or irregular work carefully qualified. Problems with this method are problems with Wikipedia, and should an editor wish to dispute them, the Apostolic see talk page is hardly a suitable place to do so. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Notpietru, please be civil. After calling me a "POV pusher", are you now accusing me of using a sock puppet?  I will be delighted if you get someone to check whether the still anonymous new editor is even from the same country I am from!  But for the rule about assuming good faith, I might wonder about your motives in reversing all the changes that editor made in this article.
 * I don't get what you mean by recommending to read the English more carefully. What encyclopedic entry did I try to delete?  I kept the reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia article: just look at footnote 14 of the article as revised by me, the form that you reverted on the grounds not merely of calling it "POV pushing", but more offensively, by calling me a "POV pusher"! What you deleted was the statement that it is RCC usage to call the see of Rome simply "the Apostolic See".  Undeniably it is RCC usage, as the Catholic Encyclopedia citation shows.  Do you want some further citations of that RCC usage in papal documents and the like?  There are dozens, indeed hundreds of them, more likely thousands of them.  I refrained from inserting a statement that this usage is not EOC usage, because I wanted to be less controversial.  (You are now forcing me to become controversial.)  It is not difficult to produce citations that show that in Eastern usage the see of Rome (which is, of course, called the Apostolic See of Rome, as the see of Antioch is called the Apostolic See of Antioch) is not called simply the Apostolic See.  Take Bishop Kallistos Ware's book on the Orthodox Church.  Esoglou (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent current edit. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Map
Can someone please upload this map? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TheApostolicSees.png

It fits this page perfectly. Thanks. --Daniel the duck (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for additional citations
A request for additional citations has been placed in the article. It would be helpful to have an indication of the items in it that are felt to require additional citations. Esoglou (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added a few additional citations and have removed the tag until the editor who placed indicates what she or he wants. Esoglou (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

"apostolic see" vs "apostolic origins"
"The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church claims founding by Saint Philip the Evangelist." Yes, but the Church does not claim that St Philip founded a see. According to the article on this Church, Ethiopia didn't have a bishop until a few centuries later. Likewise the article on the St Thomas Christian Churches says " "Saint Thomas Christians remained as an independent group, and they got their bishops from Church of the East until the 16th century." --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Apostolic see. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100307174502/http://www.worldtimelines.org.uk:80/world/europe/south_east/AD400-800 to http://www.worldtimelines.org.uk/world/europe/south_east/AD400-800
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110705194048/http://66.208.37.78/index.jsp?sid=1&id=2342&pid=5 to http://66.208.37.78/index.jsp?sid=1&id=2342&pid=5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

On the apostolic see of Malankara
The Churches do not just claim it is tradition and strong belief. The Malankara Marthoma Syrian Church is to be addressed with Malankara preceeding Marthoma as the other Churches. Sebin Prasad Cheriyan Marvallill (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The section is headed: "Sees <viewed as founded by apostles or their close associates" and the entry immediately before is "Russian Orthodox Church claims a connection with Saint Andrew, who is said to have visited the area where the city of Kiev later arose.[28]
 * The title of the Wikipedia article is Mar Thoma Syrian Church. Bealtainemí (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Goa as apostolic see
An editor has insisted that the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Goa and Daman, which was founded on 31 January 1533 is an apostolic see or church because of an alleged visit by the Apostle Barnabas (of which there is "no local tradition") to what has been interpreted as "the Bombay region on the Konkan coast". This seems highly dubious. Bealtainemí (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Many researches have been done to prove that Bartholomew preached in india. In no way my claims are false even the Archbishop of bombay is considered to be tge apostolic successor of St. Bartholomew Even the roman catholic church of pakistan claims Bartholomew to be their patron saint. Where eraly church fathers like Jerome,clement and origen beleived Bartholomew preached in india. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/goa/tracing-st-bartholomews-footsteps-to-betalbatim/articleshow/60447144.cms

https://www.nasrani.net/2007/02/13/saint-bartholomew-mission-in-india/

https://medium.com/@juliannoel/proofs-that-two-of-jesus-christs-apostles-st-thomas-and-st-bartholomew-visited-india-749255c0be8 Spmunshi (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Even Roman Matyrology of catholic church says that Bartholomew preached in india I don't understant who are you to say that this post is dubious. https://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=390 Spmunshi (talk) 07:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

By the way russian orthodox church started in 988 with st. Vladimir of kiev being converted yet its considered apostolic see of st. Andrew so your claim on foundation of a church attributed by a particular date doesn't fit in. Its the tradition of church which beleives st. Andrew preached in russia and it is tge tradition of church which beleives the archbishop of goa and cardinal archbishop of bombay to be the apostolic successor of st. Bartholomew. Spmunshi (talk) 07:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Original research arguments are irrelevant (see WP:OR). Just cite a reliable source for the claim you have inserted, i.e., that the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Goa and Daman / Goa, Maharashtra is an apostolic see or church. Until you do, your claim is still dubious. Bealtainemí (talk) 10:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The Roman Martyrology says that Bartholomew "is reported to have preached the Gospel in India after the Ascension of the Lord and there was crowned with martyrdom" (post Ascensionem Domini Evangelium in India ipse praedicasse traditur ibique martyrio coronatus esse). It does not say that he preached and was martyred in God, not in Bombay, nor indeed in what is now called India rather than, say, Pakistan. So where is the reliable source that says that "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Goa and Daman /Goa, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Bombay/Maharashtra" is/are an apostolic see or church?  Bealtainemí (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I have given citation and let the user judge don't poke your nose in this matter or i will remove each and everything in this page. As a member of archdiocese of bombay i want the truth to be known Or else i won't let this site preach half truth. Spmunshi (talk) 12:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

You dont have the right to remove my citation or if you do so i will show you how to use my own right Spmunshi (talk) 12:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

You dont care about the authentecity of conference of catholic bishops in india website You don't care about the autenticity of anglican communion website so if you want this page to be erased to zero then surely continue as you will and poke your filthy nise into it. Spmunshi (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read this. Bealtainemí (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes the website of catholic church is a reliable source the website of ccbi is a reliable source but a nestorian heretic like you won't beleive Spmunshi (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Does what you inaccurately call "the website of catholic church" say that Saint Bartholomew founded the Church of Goa or the Church of Maharashtra, as you claim? Bealtainemí (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The website of archdiicese of bombay says that their were christians in Maharashtra prior to the Portuguese invasion and in archdiocese of bombay we celebrate 2nd September as the feast of our founder St. Bartholomew the apostle.

If you would say that those christians were st. Thomas christians. You should ask them they reject the proposition that the christianity arrived in Maharashtra was because of St. Thomas the apostle or preached by them. Spmunshi (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

You can only insert text without citations and i have write tedt with citation Spmunshi (talk) 05:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Where is Matthew in all of this?
I see all the main Apostles in the list, but I don't see Matthew. He was a very important Apostle, and considering that he was one of the actual eye-witnesses of all the inner workings of the 12 Apostles, it is highly likely that his Gospel was written first, in Hebrew, translated to Greek, and then became a source for both Luke and Mark. Instead of seeing Mark as the original source, it makes far more sense that Mark wrote a concise account, based on information he extracted from both Matthew and Luke, and also on things he knew firsthand, based on his more limited interactions as one of the 70 apostles. 2603:8000:44F0:8BA0:6FB7:584A:8E14:3F79 (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Apostolic see


text:
USS Robert E. Lee

USS Robert E. Lee (SSBN-601), a George Washington-class submarine fleet ballistic missile submarine, was the only ship of the United States Navy to be named for Robert E. Lee (1807–1870), the commanding general of the Confederate forces during the American Civil War.

Her keel was laid down on 25 August 1958 by the Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Company of Newport News, Virginia. She was launched on 18 December 1959 sponsored by Anne Carter (Lee) Ely, a granddaughter of Confederate General Robert E. Lee and widow of Hanson Edward Ely, Jr., and commissioned on 16 September 1960 with Commander Reuben F. Woodal commanding the Blue Crew and Commander Joseph Williams, Jr. commanding the Gold Crew.

Shakedown and training
The third nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine to join the fleet, and the first nuclear-powered submarine built in the southern United States, Robert E. Lee operated in and out of Newport News, Virginia, until 2 December 1960, when she got underway for the Narragansett Bay Operating Area for torpedo firing tests. Following the successful firing of five torpedoes on 6 December 1960, Robert E. Lee departed for Cape Canaveral, Florida, arriving on 12 December 1960. She then loaded Polaris test missiles and on 22 December 1960 conducted her first missile launch. The Polaris flew "hot and true."

In January 1961, Robert E. Lee conducted additional simulated missile launches and on 15 January 1961 departed for the Bermuda Operating Area. There, joined by the submarine USS Torsk (SS-423) on 25 January 1961, she engaged in antisubmarine warfare training with Torsk. Returning to Norfolk on 30 January, Robert E. Lee entered the Newport News drydock on 3 February for a month of shipyard work. She departed Newport News on 17 March 1961, loaded torpedoes at Yorktown, Virginia, on 25 March, and got underway for Cape Canaveral, arriving on 9 April 1961.

Robert E. Lee conducted "special operations" out of Cape Canaveral during May and June 1961, and in late June departed for Holy Loch, Scotland, where she joined Submarine Squadron 14 on 10 July 1961.

Holy Loch deployment, 1961-1965
She conducted practice torpedo firing during the first week of August and departed Holy Loch on 9 August 1961 on her first deterrent patrol. During the next two years she completed nine more deterrent patrols.

On 10 September 1963, Robert E. Lee entered the floating drydock Los Alamos, then on 4 October 1963 resumed her normal patrol schedule. Continuing to operate out of Holy Loch into 1964, she got underway on 27 November 1964 for her 16th patrol, which terminated on 28 January 1965 at Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, California.

First refit, 1965
On 22 February 1965, Robert E. Lee entered the Mare Island Division of the San Francisco Bay Naval Shipyard for her first overhaul. Major items of work included refueling the reactor, reengineering of many ship systems to provide greater safety and reliability, modernization of the navigation system, and modification to the weapons system to give her the capability of launching the improved Polaris A3 missile.

Emerging from overhaul after nearly a year and a half of work, Robert E. Lee got underway for sea trials on 12 July 1966. Sound trials and weapons system accuracy trials were conducted during the latter half of July, and on 5 August she entered San Diego, California, harbor for a five-day visit. Underway for the United States East Coast on 10 August 1966, Robert E. Lee transited the Panama Canal on 20 August and arrived at Charleston, South Carolina, on 4 September 1966.

During the remainder of September and the first week of October, Robert E. Lee conducted shakedown operations off Cape Canaveral, Florida. On 10 October, with the Undersecretary of the Navy on board as an observer, Robert E. Lee successfully fired a Polaris A-3 test missile. She returned to Charleston to commence a predeployment upkeep period at the Cooper River site in South Carolina where a failed rudder ram bolt was replaced. On 4 December 1966, she departed Charleston on her 17th deterrent patrol, which terminated at Holy Loch on 30 January 1967.

Holy Loch, 1967-1971
By 4 October 1967, Robert E. Lee had completed three more patrols. After drydocking in Los Alamos for minor repairs and hull surveillance, she resumed her patrol schedule on 1 November 1967 and completed her 21st patrol before entering drydock on 22 November 1967 for two weeks of repairs. She departed Holy Loch on 26 December 1967 for another patrol.

Robert E. Lee remained attached to Submarine Squadron 14 throughout 1969 and 1970. Continuing to operate out of Holy Loch, she completed her 33rd deterrent patrol on 1 January 1971.

Second refit (1971)
Robert E. Lee was drydocked for her second overhaul on 27 January 1971 at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Washington. She did not leave the drydock until 11 December 1971 and, afterward remained berthed at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard for the remainder of 1971. For the first seven months of 1972, Robert E. Lee was engaged in post-overhaul trials and exercises on the United States West Coast.

United States East Coast operations, 1972-1973
In mid-August 1972, Robert E. Lee transited the Panama Canal and arrived in Charleston, South Carolina, on 14 September 1972. She continued normal operations, this time on the U.S. East Coast, throughout 1972 and for the first seven months of 1973.

Pacific operations, 1973-1977
Transiting the Panama Canal early in August 1973, she arrived in San Diego, California, on 17 August 1973 and then moved on to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, arriving on 5 September 1973. After a month in Hawaii, she sailed for Apra, Guam, and continued operations in that area into 1977, accomplishing several deterrent patrols in the Pacific.

Third refit, 1977-1978
In early 1977, Robert E. Lee drydocked for her third and final overhaul at Mare Island Naval Shipyard for nuclear reactor core refueling, equipment, and weapons upgrades. Sea Trials commenced in August 1978 and she went into operational status December, 1978.

Operations 1978-1983
The Gold Crew transited the Panama Canal January 1979. Transited to San Diego California, Bremerton, WA to Honolulu, HI. Turned over to the Blue Crew. In 1982-1983, Robert E. Lee's missiles were removed and she was redesignated SSN 601.

Decommissioning and disposal
Robert E. Lee was decommissioned on 1 December 1983, and stricken from the Naval Vessel Register on 30 April 1986. Her hulk was stored at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard until it entered the Nuclear Powered Ship and Submarine Recycling Program. On 30 September 1991, it ceased to exist.

title: USS Robert E. Lee