Is purgatory an indulgence?

[mclees8]

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
The Holy Bible 

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
The Holy Bible 

In all the papacy claims of its position have they not robbed Christ?

mclees,

Two point to clarify. I did not call all Protestant bozos, only those who are delusional enough that they think they can create their own personal interpretation of the Bible. If a Catholic or an Orthodox pretends to do that, as far as I'm concerned, he's a bozo too.

Second, Catholics (my-self included) and their Church do not deny or diminish the primary importance of Scripture. Scripture, for the Catholic Church, is paramount. Having said that, Church Tradition, through the help of the Holy Spirit, helps us interpret the Bible correctly. That's all I said.

Thank you for your clarification

God bless

[GabrieltheAngel]

Getting to the basics here, how many versions of the bible do we have?  And where did these new ones derrive from?  From the protestants, that's who, and it's subtle in some areas, yet still, not on the same page, same gospel, same books, and for us to have one, and you guys to have another, yet we are supposed to agree on the printed word, don't you think we should have ONE printed word to begin with?

John 1:1, your interpretation in context in plain english:

In the beginning there was a bible, and it became flesh, then it went back into print after it's fleshly being left the earth....

[mclees8]

Getting to the basics here, how many versions of the bible do we have?  And where did these new ones derrive from?  From the protestants, that's who, and it's subtle in some areas, yet still, not on the same page, same gospel, same books, and for us to have one, and you guys to have another, yet we are supposed to agree on the printed word, don't you think we should have ONE printed word to begin with?

John 1:1, your interpretation in context in plain english:

In the beginning there was a bible, and it became flesh, then it went back into print after it's fleshly being left the earth....

Is this some mocking comment?

[GabrieltheAngel]

Getting to the basics here, how many versions of the bible do we have?  And where did these new ones derrive from?  From the protestants, that's who, and it's subtle in some areas, yet still, not on the same page, same gospel, same books, and for us to have one, and you guys to have another, yet we are supposed to agree on the printed word, don't you think we should have ONE printed word to begin with?

John 1:1, your interpretation in context in plain english:

In the beginning there was a bible, and it became flesh, then it went back into print after it's fleshly being left the earth....

Is this some mocking comment?

It was not at all, it was mocking the argument I suppose, John 1:1 is my favorite line of scripture above all... you see how so very much close to home it is to me here, and how I take offense when it's totally taken out of context...

This does NOT refer to the bible, it just does NOT, want some of the word it's referencing here in context?

God said, "let there be light", that's the word it's referencing, "God said" is the key element here, more then the rest, this is the word it's talking about.  I'll try not to leave it into a context of let them have ears, hear,....  The people that say, it all evolved, I go, no it did not, it's because God made it be, they ask how, and I tell them "God said let it be so", they ponder, and think I'm just parroting what was told to me, and I'm going, if God sais be so, it will be so, it's the very act of him speaking out to say so, that manifests it into place.  His word is the key to it all, and when he sais something is to be, or not to be, "he" makes it happen, to thus, in the beginning, was the word and the word was God, more so in the beginning was the intention of the word, and it's brought into existance through putting it to the form of a word.

We must absolutely move away from a fundamantalist perspective on the bible, if you guys learn one thing here from me it's just that, I was very much one of you in total and complete fullness, I am not any more, and I understand so, so much moving past all of that, just trust that I very much am your brethren and that I want far more for you then what you currently experience, there is genuine Christian Love I have for all of you, but I cannot nor will not go back to my old ways of misunderstanding the truth, and none of you will ever be asked to regress yourselves... for me to go back would be regressing and I just cannot nor will not ever do that.

[mclees8]

Getting to the basics here, how many versions of the bible do we have?  And where did these new ones derrive from?  From the protestants, that's who, and it's subtle in some areas, yet still, not on the same page, same gospel, same books, and for us to have one, and you guys to have another, yet we are supposed to agree on the printed word, don't you think we should have ONE printed word to begin with?

John 1:1, your interpretation in context in plain english:

In the beginning there was a bible, and it became flesh, then it went back into print after it's fleshly being left the earth....
[/quote


Is this some mocking comment?

It was not at all, it was mocking the argument I suppose, John 1:1 is my favorite line of scripture above all... you see how so very much close to home it is to me here, and how I take offense when it's totally taken out of context...

This does NOT refer to the bible, it just does NOT, want some of the word it's referencing here in context?

God said, "let there be light", that's the word it's referencing, "God said" is the key element here, more then the rest, this is the word it's talking about.  I'll try not to leave it into a context of let them have ears, hear,....  The people that say, it all evolved, I go, no it did not, it's because God made it be, they ask how, and I tell them "God said let it be so", they ponder, and think I'm just parroting what was told to me, and I'm going, if God sais be so, it will be so, it's the very act of him speaking out to say so, that manifests it into place.  His word is the key to it all, and when he sais something is to be, or not to be, "he" makes it happen, to thus, in the beginning, was the word and the word was God, more so in the beginning was the intention of the word, and it's brought into existance through putting it to the form of a word.

We must absolutely move away from a fundamantalist perspective on the bible, if you guys learn one thing here from me it's just that, I was very much one of you in total and complete fullness, I am not any more, and I understand so, so much moving past all of that, just trust that I very much am your brethren and that I want far more for you then what you currently experience, there is genuine Christian Love I have for all of you, but I cannot nor will not go back to my old ways of misunderstanding the truth, and none of you will ever be asked to regress yourselves... for me to go back would be regressing and I just cannot nor will not ever do that.

Im still having a hard time following you. You say we must move away from fundamentalist  perspectives. Fundamentalist as in literal interpretation? By the way are you catholic? Just trying to get to know you and where your thinking is.  Do you believe the bible as  is,  in its written form is without error and is the complete infallible word of God. A complete and reliable guide into all truth?

God bless

[GabrieltheAngel]

It's not flawed, if you are getting at that element, it's divinely inspired, it's us with human interpretation that's flawed, also, consider it's translated to English, so there are words that get lost in the translation, part of it is the language, part of it is the times we are in, and our modern approach to literature is not the same as it was before.  This is why it's important to have outside resources to help in this matter, my own church authorities as well as yours included.

It's not also fully inclusive, as in you only need the bible alone, ie. Sola Scripture has it's limits. 

Yes, I'm Catholic, but I was not always in line with the Catholic church.  It required extensive education on my part to truly understand what it is, and this is where I hold no blame to anybody that is not part of it at all, in fact, many Catholics don't even understand what it is and simply claim to be of the faith, only because that is all that they know.

I've studied with the best of them, I've studied different religions all together, what I brought out of it all are some certain similarities to all of them.  I can dialog with someone not at all of our faith and find common ground just as well as within, and find uncommon ground, even among members of my own denomination.

I focus in fellowship and study with what we all believe and know to be true, Jesus died on the cross as the ultimate and last sacrifice for our sins, belief in him is the path to salvation, preaching the Gospel to the ends of the earth is each and every one of our missions, and things like this, we have in common, as Christians.

Places like this board, I use for education, both learning and teaching.  Why on earth would someone with such a zealous thirst for our Lord and his truth, some how decide this is it and it in full, when I spent countless years, more in the protestant sector then the Catholic, and come back going, brethren, there is more you are not being taught and I found it through the Catholic teachings.  Why would I just write off my beloved brethren and leave them behind?  They helped me extensively, I can now help them, and right here, right now, it's through education.  There is more, far more at our disposal these days to learn about our Lord, it's a gift that one should not take for granted, in times past, we didn't have access to this knowledge, now it's there ready for the taking.

Most of what I see in argument are about unfounded bias, and it's been a matter of being told too many things by false teachers, "I include Catholic and protestant, AND New age/ie. the world", and dispelling these myths are a big part for re-unification.  Can you imagine what we could do as one united Christian front?  The possibilities are staggering!!!!  What a goal, what a concept, what a bright future we would have if we can put away our differences, learn from each other and toss away all of those deep rooted biases that are holding us back.  We have real enemies to contend with, and they are not each other.

[mclees8]

It's not flawed, if you are getting at that element, it's divinely inspired, it's us with human interpretation that's flawed, also, consider it's translated to English, so there are words that get lost in the translation, part of it is the language, part of it is the times we are in, and our modern approach to literature is not the same as it was before.  This is why it's important to have outside resources to help in this matter, my own church authorities as well as yours included.

It's not also fully inclusive, as in you only need the bible alone, ie. Sola Scripture has it's limits. 

Yes, I'm Catholic, but I was not always in line with the Catholic church.  It required extensive education on my part to truly understand what it is, and this is where I hold no blame to anybody that is not part of it at all, in fact, many Catholics don't even understand what it is and simply claim to be of the faith, only because that is all that they know.

I've studied with the best of them, I've studied different religions all together, what I brought out of it all are some certain similarities to all of them.  I can dialog with someone not at all of our faith and find common ground just as well as within, and find uncommon ground, even among members of my own denomination.

I focus in fellowship and study with what we all believe and know to be true, Jesus died on the cross as the ultimate and last sacrifice for our sins, belief in him is the path to salvation, preaching the Gospel to the ends of the earth is each and every one of our missions, and things like this, we have in common, as Christians.

Places like this board, I use for education, both learning and teaching.  Why on earth would someone with such a zealous thirst for our Lord and his truth, some how decide this is it and it in full, when I spent countless years, more in the protestant sector then the Catholic, and come back going, brethren, there is more you are not being taught and I found it through the Catholic teachings.  Why would I just write off my beloved brethren and leave them behind?  They helped me extensively, I can now help them, and right here, right now, it's through education.  There is more, far more at our disposal these days to learn about our Lord, it's a gift that one should not take for granted, in times past, we didn't have access to this knowledge, now it's there ready for the taking.

Most of what I see in argument are about unfounded bias, and it's been a matter of being told too many things by false teachers, "I include Catholic and protestant, AND New age/ie. the world", and dispelling these myths are a big part for re-unification.  Can you imagine what we could do as one united Christian front?  The possibilities are staggering!!!!  What a goal, what a concept, what a bright future we would have if we can put away our differences, learn from each other and toss away all of those deep rooted biases that are holding us back.  We have real enemies to contend with, and they are not each other.

Mike

I appreciate you zeal and you hunger for more than status quo. You speak of reunification. Do you mean ecumenically? You stated what we all share in common, and that is true. What have Catholics taught you that is more than Protestants.
Don't get me wrong I have learned much also through just being in this board. I to have hungered for knowledge, yet what would be the fullness for you ?  What do you mean that we could do as a united Christian front. What are these staggering possibilities. Do you think the church will change the world and stamp out ignorance apathy, pride  prejudice and sin if we were all united. That sounds like humanistic wisdom. 

I believe Jesus is the fullness and we are made complete in Him. I have heard Catholics say that Protestants can be saved,  they just don't have the fullness. Meaning you need to be Catholic to have the fullness.

There are no denominations in Gods kingdom, only those who walk in the spirit. though I have a pentecostal background I do not attend any established church any more but I now am the church as i walk everyday.   I am neither catholic or Protestant so i have no bias.  Do you consider yourself a Catholic now? If so what does that mean to you? That you are now in the right church or are all believers in the right church by their confession of faith in Christ?  I pray I'm not confusing you 
God bless

[GabrieltheAngel]

ecumenically as the eventuality of it all, but initially, even without internal changes within the churches, a blending of functions, such as when we form groups for various tasks, it's interdenominational as the norm, not the exception.  These will produce larger numbers, so when we take action, it's significant, when we join together in the stadiums for worship, we take up entire counties.  It's a way of making our presence known in a huge way, and as one united front, forces the world to contend with us, that we have one voice and one purpose.

The core within the churches themselves, when it comes to change, has to include the elements we address within the mass, but not limited to it.  This is that fullness you hear about, and it takes a lot for most people to understand exactly what happens at mass itself.  But there are problems I see with how we, in our hearts worship, there as well as the protestant services.  Some of the elements that would change, we would be far more welcoming, better fellowship even during off church hours, more community, more along helping our brethren out, better music "sorry I still just am not at all thrilled with either format", and these are important things that protestants have, yet we tend to have  more reverence, what goes on in mass is serious business, and our focus is less upon entertainment, more for the sober elements of the faith and our leadership is extensive, helping to administer how things are, and interpreting the gospel for the public as a rock solid resource.

The sacraments, being embraced and utilized in full by all of the churches would do wonders themselves as well, and the Holy Spirit would make his presence known in a much larger way, those gifts of old that seemed to have faded away would return to us.   There would be regular public healing, the gospel would be proclaimed in the streets as a norm, not an exception.  We would be instruments used by our Lord to save the many people that are still of and in the world, destined for destruction.

You mentioned that you no longer attend church, I too took a breather from it, and I will suggest to you to find one to call your home, we need fellowship, not even Christ himself was alone with it, he had the apostles, and even they, when were sent out to preach the gospel, were never sent out alone.  When one falls, it's good to have a friend to help him back onto his feet, woe to one that falls and has nobody there to be of aid.  This is an important part of our faith that must not be overlooked, if anything, you show up to be held accountable, more so, it's written where two or more are gathered in my name, there I am.  Also understand, when you are alone, you are much more prone to attack by the evil one, you are also more prone to slip into the way of the world, we never stagnate, it's either moving towards, or against God, and don't let the evil one fill your head with excuses not to go, he does that with everybody.

[mclees8]

ecumenically as the eventuality of it all, but initially, even without internal changes within the churches, a blending of functions, such as when we form groups for various tasks, it's interdenominational as the norm, not the exception.  These will produce larger numbers, so when we take action, it's significant, when we join together in the stadiums for worship, we take up entire counties.  It's a way of making our presence known in a huge way, and as one united front, forces the world to contend with us, that we have one voice and one purpose.

The core within the churches themselves, when it comes to change, has to include the elements we address within the mass, but not limited to it.  This is that fullness you hear about, and it takes a lot for most people to understand exactly what happens at mass itself.  But there are problems I see with how we, in our hearts worship, there as well as the protestant services.  Some of the elements that would change, we would be far more welcoming, better fellowship even during off church hours, more community, more along helping our brethren out, better music "sorry I still just am not at all thrilled with either format", and these are important things that protestants have, yet we tend to have  more reverence, what goes on in mass is serious business, and our focus is less upon entertainment, more for the sober elements of the faith and our leadership is extensive, helping to administer how things are, and interpreting the gospel for the public as a rock solid resource.

The sacraments, being embraced and utilized in full by all of the churches would do wonders themselves as well, and the Holy Spirit would make his presence known in a much larger way, those gifts of old that seemed to have faded away would return to us.   There would be regular public healing, the gospel would be proclaimed in the streets as a norm, not an exception.  We would be instruments used by our Lord to save the many people that are still of and in the world, destined for destruction.

You mentioned that you no longer attend church, I too took a breather from it, and I will suggest to you to find one to call your home, we need fellowship, not even Christ himself was alone with it, he had the apostles, and even they, when were sent out to preach the gospel, were never sent out alone.  When one falls, it's good to have a friend to help him back onto his feet, woe to one that falls and has nobody there to be of aid.  This is an important part of our faith that must not be overlooked, if anything, you show up to be held accountable, more so, it's written where two or more are gathered in my name, there I am.  Also understand, when you are alone, you are much more prone to attack by the evil one, you are also more prone to slip into the way of the world, we never stagnate, it's either moving towards, or against God, and don't let the evil one fill your head with excuses not to go, he does that with everybody.

This is a little late in coming I know and if you are still keeping tabs I do not know.

I did not mean to say I did not have a time of fellowship and coming together as believers. I just don't belong to the traditional organized church system any more. There is a reason for this. It is my witness.   You stated that where two or more are gathered in his name there he is in the mist. That is the point. We can be two or three under a tree or at a park bench, in a house. Steven said of the Lord "The earth is my foot stool. what house will you build for me?"  Paul said know ye not ye are the temple and the spirit of God dwells within you. You see we are the church and we are the church walking. I don't go to a church for God house is not made of hands but his temple is in my heart. No I am not an island of one one but I meet every Sunday in a park where I bring food for the lesser fortunate in our community that for the most part feel cast out or out classed from our local churches.  We share a meal and share Christ. I do not do this as to promote or represent any certain church for we are the church where ever we come together in his name.   

God bless

[GabrieltheAngel]

Well, it can and should be a place and a people, but sadly, too often, it's neither.  If you were local, how would you find me, except at that gathering place at church?  Even if the building was filled with the Godless, you would take note of this guy in the corner, praying earnestly, showing through example, this is the Lords house, inside and in the building.  On the street, how would you know me?  You wouldn't have a point of reference outside of the cross I wear outside of my church, or on occassion, the gospel I proclaim on the streets, but other then that, how it's so hard to find two or more to fellowship with out of the blue.

Those people that felt outclassed, it's letting the others bully perhaps, or just misrepresent, or simply, the people themselves thinking something, but not testing it with the church gatherings.  There are still church gatherings where a homeless person is not only allowed to attend, they are most welcomed to attend.  Just because the place has no obviously destitute souls attending, doesn't mean it would reject them, especially if one walked into any church I attend, or even visit and I saw them, I wouldn't allow them to be put out, and anybody that tried would get quite the earful and not in a pleasant manner by yours truly, even if it disrupted the service and created a spectacle.  Then again, I know there has to be many that came to these places at first, destitute, discovered God, and he delivered them from their poverty, so there would not be any outwards sign of their being in past need.

I'm sharing you with the urgency of needing a body of people to be fellowship with on a regular basis, and not just winging it.  You are vulnerable by the world and the evil one without having that, your spiritual life also tends to move forward in a larger way, something you get to bring with you while you care for the less fortunate, a gift of sorts, that's meant to be shared.  It's also nice to have friendly faces that know you while you worship and sing his praises, we are supposed to be one body and one family in Christ, you don't want to estrange them, but build upon them and hopefully add the others you are exposed to, into your ranks.

If you still find yourself not attending any kind of service and you have this group of less fortunate, then nothing wrong with assembling them together for reading scripture and prayer, even a make shift church is better then nothing.

[mclees8]

gabriel
Well, it can and should be a place and a people, but sadly, too often, it's neither.  If you were local, how would you find me, except at that gathering place at church?  Even if the building was filled with the Godless, you would take note of this guy in the corner, praying earnestly, showing through example, this is the Lords house, inside and in the building.  On the street, how would you know me?  You wouldn't have a point of reference outside of the cross I wear outside of my church, or on occassion, the gospel I proclaim on the streets, but other then that, how it's so hard to find two or more to fellowship with out of the blue.



Mike
Sir I understand what you are saying but there is much you do not know about why and how I am serving the Lord where I am.  I am not a young believers. I have been Born again for over thirty five years: most of which I have attended and belonged to organized churches. I have been in schools of ministry and ordination classes. I know my Bible well I have always known that denominationalism was not of God. I have also seen much corruption false teaching and doctrines. I don't see the church at the local level but the church as a whole. Christianity is just an umbrella word that over shadows many beliefs and religious ideals . This is a problem of men and not of God. God does not see denominations. He only sees the church and from his vantage .There is much confusion in the valley called confusion . If one is in the valley he cannot see very far but most are not looking. We don't question things we just go to our traditional church and are comfortable there. We choose the one that suits us and settle in.  There is a lot more to all this but to lengthy to go into now.
True we need fellowship and there are many very sincere and godly believers in these churches, but it isn't the affiliation or particular denomination one belongs that God sees but he looks upon the inward person that is working out his or her salvation in spirit and truth. This is what is important. It is also true the  body is often mislead by the doctrines of certain churches.. It is important that we just don't except any old doctrine and practice. All things must be tested for truth. Its easy to listen to a preacher that sounds good. But it is up to us to prove out what he teaches by knowing the word.     
So my position is non biased and outside of all this. I have hiked further up on the mountain so to speak leaving the valley of confusion below. I can see now more clearly what God sees. I am of no personal ambition and never seek financial support or a board who directs what I do. If one is able to come where I am and be used of Christ then by all means he should come. It is a place where it is just you and Christ and he alone is your strength. His burden is your  burden.



Gabriel
Those people that felt outclassed, it's letting the others bully perhaps, or just misrepresent, or simply, the people themselves thinking something, but not testing it with the church gatherings.  There are still church gatherings where a homeless person is not only allowed to attend, they are most welcomed to attend.  Just because the place has no obviously destitute souls attending, doesn't mean it would reject them, especially if one walked into any church I attend, or even visit and I saw them, I wouldn't allow them to be put out, and anybody that tried would get quite the earful and not in a pleasant manner by yours truly, even if it disrupted the service and created a spectacle.  Then again, I know there has to be many that came to these places at first, destitute, discovered God, and he delivered them from their poverty, so there would not be any outwards sign of their being in past need.



Mike>
I don' think you really get the picture. And you will not see it until you are there with them.  It is not something they tell me, it is something I know,  I sense , feel , and see. They will not go to your traditional church and for the most part they are not really wanted there Tithing is one thing. If they go into a church they feel uncomfortable because others have better clothes and drive nice cars, and always give tithes when they pass the plate. Then there is the always the tithing sermon that intimidates them because they have nothing to give. Put your self in their place and feel what they feel. I minister to them and ask nothing of them. How can one give me anything when they have no work and stand in a soup kitchen line every day. I love them. I will not start some fellowship with traditional dreams of building a church and building the traditional congregation. I must not an cannot. This is also another subject to lengthy to go into now. But I know the Lord loves them and he knows them.


Gabriel
I'm sharing you with the urgency of needing a body of people to be fellowship with on a regular basis, and not just winging it.  You are vulnerable by the world and the evil one without having that, your spiritual life also tends to move forward in a larger way, something you get to bring with you while you care for the less fortunate, a gift of sorts, that's meant to be shared.  It's also nice to have friendly faces that know you while you worship and sing his praises, we are supposed to be one body and one family in Christ, you don't want to estrange them, but build upon them and hopefully add the others you are exposed to, into your ranks.

If you still find yourself not attending any kind of service and you have this group of less fortunate, then nothing wrong with assembling them together for reading scripture and prayer, even a make shift church is better then nothing

Mike
I appreciate you concern But as I said I am not a young novice. I am not just winging it. I have sat at the Lords feet for a long time and now it is time for me to be as a mature disciple. Who is sent out for a purpose. I have a message and I must be a living example of it. Modern day tradition  has become a stumbling block. It says we are going to church. For most church is the building on the corner that looks like a church. The steeple and the stained glass windows with a choir, a pulpit preacher and a congregation. The church also seen as the leadership, the  hierarchy, the clergy. This is the modern day idea of church.   Success is measured by  the membership.  The larger the building and the more laity becomes a matter of pride. Churches often compete They also often want to attacked the rich in order to maintain the expenses of an  ever growing congregation. They use the media and entertainment, and big name speakers to entice people to join there church.  In short it becomes a business. With all its stress and demands. and expectations. Just like the world. 


Mike
I don't attend church,  I am the church just as all believers are the church. Paul said know ye not ye are the Temple and the spirit of God dwells within you. In discipleship there is a time when you sit and learn from the master. Then you graduate to become teachers. Do you understand what I am saying. All to often we are institutionalized by the organized church system. So the church is not what it was when it was founded at Pentecost. We have a complete distorted idea of who the church is .

[GabrieltheAngel]

Temple and the spirit of God dwells within you

Take note, "Temple", is not the same as Church.  Have you read Paul's letters, does he not address the "churches", in revelations, does it not also talk about the "churches".  In Corinthians, does he not address their divisions from the very beginning, and how we are to be of one body, that division is not what our Lord wanted.  Are we not divided among denominations in this day?  We have split within division, and clique within the splits, and then individual within the clique.  Where is the unity here?   Even in the OT, we have Jews divided in sects, and God in is foreknowledge, knowing the nature of man, by default created 12 tribes, and in a way, just said, get it over with, no more then 12 and I'll start it out this way to prevent it from being more.  Yet, even within those, man still wasn't happy, so he had to have sects built into each one regardless.

The thing is, the word Catholic means unity, and if I go to mass up the street today, then fly over to the opposite side of the globe, I go to the same mass, same readings, same everything.  We do not get that with the other churches, and there is a great deal to be said about this, where I may be separated by distance and language, I am not by spirit, it's not split, it's One Holy Catholic church, not One of many Holy Catholic churches.  If Paul was alive today, writing us letters, can you imagine how many he would have to write to address all of the churches, the splits, the divisions, the volume would be impossible to keep up with.

The spirit unites, the devil divides, bottom line.

[mclees8]

Temple and the spirit of God dwells within you

Take note, "Temple", is not the same as Church.  Have you read Paul's letters, does he not address the "churches", in revelations, does it not also talk about the "churches".  In Corinthians, does he not address their divisions from the very beginning, and how we are to be of one body, that division is not what our Lord wanted.  Are we not divided among denominations in this day?  We have split within division, and clique within the splits, and then individual within the clique.  Where is the unity here?   Even in the OT, we have Jews divided in sects, and God in is foreknowledge, knowing the nature of man, by default created 12 tribes, and in a way, just said, get it over with, no more then 12 and I'll start it out this way to prevent it from being more.  Yet, even within those, man still wasn't happy, so he had to have sects built into each one regardless.

The thing is, the word Catholic means unity, and if I go to mass up the street today, then fly over to the opposite side of the globe, I go to the same mass, same readings, same everything.  We do not get that with the other churches, and there is a great deal to be said about this, where I may be separated by distance and language, I am not by spirit, it's not split, it's One Holy Catholic church, not One of many Holy Catholic churches.  If Paul was alive today, writing us letters, can you imagine how many he would have to write to address all of the churches, the splits, the divisions, the volume would be impossible to keep up with.

The spirit unites, the devil divides, bottom line.

Dear Gabriel, You are right. there is only one church. and you are right that all these divisions are not of God but men. the question is, is the RCC the same church the Christ founded. Even though it follows scripture in its idea of leadership, leadership is still quite different. Even though it follows certain principles its outward forms of religion are quite different from what we have learned from scripture. It isn't always what they do that was in scripture it is what they do that they didn't do in scripture that changes the RCC from the church the Christ founded. I am saying many things went off track over time after the apostles were gone. It was inevitable. So it was the RCC who first divided from Christs church by institutionalizing it and making it a religious political system.

It is not true the temple is not the same as church. Thats because we are the church and not the building. There is a place where believers gather for worship and fellowship, but the body ( the saints which is you and I )are  the church. The leadership is a vital part of the church but is not solely the church. Is not the Holy Spirit indwelt and is not the Holy Spirit with the church. Not just the organized system of leaders but in the mind spirit and body of every believer that walks in the spirit. So i say you and I are the church where ever we are individually first and where ever we meet as a corporate body second.

God bless

[winsome]

Temple and the spirit of God dwells within you

Take note, "Temple", is not the same as Church.  Have you read Paul's letters, does he not address the "churches", in revelations, does it not also talk about the "churches".  In Corinthians, does he not address their divisions from the very beginning, and how we are to be of one body, that division is not what our Lord wanted.  Are we not divided among denominations in this day?  We have split within division, and clique within the splits, and then individual within the clique.  Where is the unity here?   Even in the OT, we have Jews divided in sects, and God in is foreknowledge, knowing the nature of man, by default created 12 tribes, and in a way, just said, get it over with, no more then 12 and I'll start it out this way to prevent it from being more.  Yet, even within those, man still wasn't happy, so he had to have sects built into each one regardless.

The thing is, the word Catholic means unity, and if I go to mass up the street today, then fly over to the opposite side of the globe, I go to the same mass, same readings, same everything.  We do not get that with the other churches, and there is a great deal to be said about this, where I may be separated by distance and language, I am not by spirit, it's not split, it's One Holy Catholic church, not One of many Holy Catholic churches.  If Paul was alive today, writing us letters, can you imagine how many he would have to write to address all of the churches, the splits, the divisions, the volume would be impossible to keep up with.

The spirit unites, the devil divides, bottom line.

Dear Gabriel, You are right. there is only one church. and you are right that all these divisions are not of God but men. the question is, is the RCC the same church the Christ founded. Even though it follows scripture in its idea of leadership, leadership is still quite different. Even though it follows certain principles its outward forms of religion are quite different from what we have learned from scripture. It isn't always what they do that was in scripture it is what they do that they didn't do in scripture that changes the RCC from the church the Christ founded. I am saying many things went off track over time after the apostles were gone. It was inevitable. So it was the RCC who first divided from Christs church by institutionalizing it and making it a religious political system.

It is not true the temple is not the same as church. Thats because we are the church and not the building. There is a place where believers gather for worship and fellowship, but the body ( the saints which is you and I )are  the church. The leadership is a vital part of the church but is not solely the church. Is not the Holy Spirit indwelt and is not the Holy Spirit with the church. Not just the organized system of leaders but in the mind spirit and body of every believer that walks in the spirit. So i say you and I are the church where ever we are individually first and where ever we meet as a corporate body second.

God bless

Mclees

No, the Church is not a building. It is a body of believers united in their beliefs, under and in obedience to the leadership that Jesus put in place.

There is no truth in the idea that Jesus just lit the blue touch paper; that the apostles, like a firework, just boosted the Church off the ground and that it then exploded into a mass of stars each going it's own way.

If you read the scriptures and the history of the early Church it is quite clear that Jesus left a structure with authority and that those leaders had to battle hard to guard and maintain the purity of the "treasure " they had been entrusted with (1Tim 6:20 & 2Tim 1:14). Many groups left the Church – Gnostics, Montanists, Docetists, Sabellians, Donatists, Arians etc, treading the same path the reformers trod a 1,000+ years later.

To suggest that Jesus abandoned his Church to fall into error is to call into question his promises to lead it into all truth,; that the gates of hell would not prevail against it; that he would be with it to the end of the age.

[mclees8]

Temple and the spirit of God dwells within you

Take note, "Temple", is not the same as Church.  Have you read Paul's letters, does he not address the "churches", in revelations, does it not also talk about the "churches".  In Corinthians, does he not address their divisions from the very beginning, and how we are to be of one body, that division is not what our Lord wanted.  Are we not divided among denominations in this day?  We have split within division, and clique within the splits, and then individual within the clique.  Where is the unity here?   Even in the OT, we have Jews divided in sects, and God in is foreknowledge, knowing the nature of man, by default created 12 tribes, and in a way, just said, get it over with, no more then 12 and I'll start it out this way to prevent it from being more.  Yet, even within those, man still wasn't happy, so he had to have sects built into each one regardless.

The thing is, the word Catholic means unity, and if I go to mass up the street today, then fly over to the opposite side of the globe, I go to the same mass, same readings, same everything.  We do not get that with the other churches, and there is a great deal to be said about this, where I may be separated by distance and language, I am not by spirit, it's not split, it's One Holy Catholic church, not One of many Holy Catholic churches.  If Paul was alive today, writing us letters, can you imagine how many he would have to write to address all of the churches, the splits, the divisions, the volume would be impossible to keep up with.

The spirit unites, the devil divides, bottom line.

Dear Gabriel, You are right. there is only one church. and you are right that all these divisions are not of God but men. the question is, is the RCC the same church the Christ founded. Even though it follows scripture in its idea of leadership, leadership is still quite different. Even though it follows certain principles its outward forms of religion are quite different from what we have learned from scripture. It isn't always what they do that was in scripture it is what they do that they didn't do in scripture that changes the RCC from the church the Christ founded. I am saying many things went off track over time after the apostles were gone. It was inevitable. So it was the RCC who first divided from Christs church by institutionalizing it and making it a religious political system.

It is not true the temple is not the same as church. Thats because we are the church and not the building. There is a place where believers gather for worship and fellowship, but the body ( the saints which is you and I )are  the church. The leadership is a vital part of the church but is not solely the church. Is not the Holy Spirit indwelt and is not the Holy Spirit with the church. Not just the organized system of leaders but in the mind spirit and body of every believer that walks in the spirit. So i say you and I are the church where ever we are individually first and where ever we meet as a corporate body second.

God bless

Mclees

No, the Church is not a building. It is a body of believers united in their beliefs, under and in obedience to the leadership that Jesus put in place.

There is no truth in the idea that Jesus just lit the blue touch paper; that the apostles, like a firework, just boosted the Church off the ground and that it then exploded into a mass of stars each going it's own way.

If you read the scriptures and the history of the early Church it is quite clear that Jesus left a structure with authority and that those leaders had to battle hard to guard and maintain the purity of the "treasure " they had been entrusted with (1Tim 6:20 & 2Tim 1:14). Many groups left the Church – Gnostics, Montanists, Docetists, Sabellians, Donatists, Arians etc, treading the same path the reformers trod a 1,000+ years later.

To suggest that Jesus abandoned his Church to fall into error is to call into question his promises to lead it into all truth,; that the gates of hell would not prevail against it; that he would be with it to the end of the age.

Hello Winsome. I understand what you are saying. No he didn't abandon the church, but certain leaders abandoned Him. Yes there was to be a certain structure and it is plainly laid out in scripture thanks to the apostles. Like I said it not what was followed in scripture as much as what was not.  I think you need to reread what i said. You may be right that there were different factions but apostasy may go in many directions. That certainly did not leave out the RCC itself. You will note that only one apostate church is described in REV 17.
The claim of the papacy is true only in part. Its righteousness is only a Vail. As Jesus said do as they say but don't do as they do.  If the papacy were true to Christ they would not been of ambition and political power. We don't see that they repented of this position yet. They havent stopped wareing their  fancy robes and the pope still still sits on a throne.  Was it not you who mentioned the corruption of the Vatican mafia. Where is Christ righteousness in all this.

God bless

[winsome]

As Jesus said do as they say but don't do as they do. 

And do you do as the Cathoic Church says?

[mclees8]

As Jesus said do as they say but don't do as they do. 

And do you do as the Catholic Church says?

I pray in maters of truth and righteousness that i do. I think you do to. but these things are in scripture the same place even your papacy gets it. Its all about obeying Christ as in loving God and neighbor and moral living. Even Protestants seek after this. Protestants  also just as much can be evil and hypocritical as well

And You say do I obey the Catholic church. Who then is Catholic ?

God bless