check out this anti catholic blog

[Reformed]

You misunderstand self scarifice. As I stated the Lord does not require self sacrifice to be saved. If one truly loves Christ though one will act as Christ did. Christ died on the Cross for us. We in turn feel that we should sacrifice just as Christ did. How do you read the gospel and not understand that we should model our life after his. Are you stating that you refuse to model your life after Christ and self sacrifice. Quote all the verses you want, do you or do not you not live as Christ lived? Do you sacrifice for your fellow man as Christ did?

Galatians 2:20

I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

1 Corinthians 10:31

So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.

Straining Toward the Goal - Phi 3

Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. Only let us hold true to what we have attained.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Jesus is the head, and regenerate Christians are His body. I am not ant-church because His church consists of all regenerate Christians that are in vital union with Him.

I cannot find this “vital union” and "regenerate Christians in my Bible. Could you quote me chapter and verse, please?

The true church of Jesus Christ has been chosen before the foundation of the world and has nothing to do with denominations such as Roman Catholicism or Protestantism.

This is actually a relatively modern tradition, a movement begun in the US within approximately the past 200 years. It is quite unBiblical and is radically different than the Early Apostolic Church of Jesus viewed “Church.”

St Ignatius of Antioch, a student of St John the Apostle, was martyred in 98 for upholding Christ’s visible Church on Earth. In his letter to the the Epeshians:
Chptr 5-6:

For if I in this brief space of time, have enjoyed such fellowship with your bishop — I mean not of a mere human, but of a spiritual nature— how much more do I reckon you happy who are so joined to him as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father, that so all things may agree in unity! Let no man deceive himself: if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two possesses Matthew 18:19 such power, how much more that of the bishop and the whole Church! He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself. For it is written, God resists the proud. Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God.

Letter to Philadelphians:

Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth ] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to [the will of] God.

letter to Smyrneans:

Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. **Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever **Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

This would certainly point to an institutional Church. St. Ignatius died for this. The Catholic Church today is that very Church described by St. Ignatius in the first centuray AD.

Justin is not anti-catholic, but rather pro Jesus Christ.

In denying the Catholic Church, and spreading lies about it, he is anti-Catholic.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Reformed, please tell me what your interpretation of the verses you quote answer Prodigal Son’s question?

Galatians 2:20

I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

1 Corinthians 10:31

So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.

Straining Toward the Goal - Phi 3

Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. Only let us hold true to what we have attained
Prodigal Son1;4100652:

Please provide evidence that anyone here has said the Church is the savior and not Christ Himself.

You keep affirming this like someone is stating it. You have even falsely stated that I said the Church was above Christ in another thread. A false statement is serious in the eyes of God.

How do you reconcile thousands of denominations with different doctrines as the ONE body of Christ?.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Do we interpret this literalistically and assume that everytime a sinner repents the souls in heaven are watching down through a heavenly window and rejoicing? It may make for a great Rennaisance painting but drawing dogmatic definition on the status of the saints in heaven is a stretch. It could be very easily interpreted to mean the joy of God Himself given it’s in the context of a parable and the prodigal son follows.

The one thing you cannot accuse the Catholic Church of is literalist interpretation! The NAB, which this the translation used by most American Catholics is the work of Protestant and Catholic scholars.

From the earliest Church, intercession by the saints was believed:

St Jerome wrote:

“***If the Apostles and Martyrs, while still in the body, can pray for others, at a time when they must still be anxious for themselves, how much more after their crowns, victories, and triumphs are won! **One man, Moses, obtains from God pardon for six hundred thousand men in arms; and Stephen, the imitator of the Lord, and the first martyr in Christ, begs forgiveness for his persecutors; and shall their power be less after having begun to be with Christ? The Apostle Paul declares that two hundred three score and sixteen souls, sailing with him, were freely given him; and, after he is dissolved and has begun to be with Christ, shall he close his lips, and not be able to utter a word in behalf of those who throughout the whole world believed at his preaching of the Gospel? And shall the living dog Vigilantius be better than that dead lion? (“Contra Vigilant.”, n. 6, in P. L., XXIII, 344). *”

---

And the angel Raphael says: “When thou didst pray with tears . . . I offered thy prayer to the Lord” (Tob., xii, 12) ***

It was an historically recent “doctrine” of Martin Luther that one should not ask he saints to intercede for us. It is a false doctrine in reaction to a very real abuse of the selling of indulgences by some priests and Bishops.

 

[TriuneUnity]

The one thing you cannot accuse the Catholic Church of is literalist interpretation! The NAB, which this the translation used by most American Catholics is the work of Protestant and Catholic scholars.

I wouldn’t accuse Rome of being literalistic for the most part. However, some of the arguments put forth here by Catholics is very literalistic and I realize that that doesn’t necessarily mean the Church endorses that. The NAB is like the NIV of the Catholic world. It’s nice to read, but don’t use it for study lol.

From the earliest Church, intercession by the saints was believed:

It isn’t my argument that every father of the church held the view of Luther. Nor did Luther deny that the saints in heaven pray for the church on earth. I’ve made that statement here in this thread. It’s the abuse of that concept by Rome down through the ages to its modern incarnation that is what is wrong. Such that devolved into masses for the saints, masses for the dead, etc. Nor do I claim that any particular father was absolutely correct in every instance. Jerome, here, according to the context you have placed him in, states the saints intercede for people on earth. That doesn’t mean he was right about it. Certainly you wouldn’t argue that he was right in his opinion of the deuterocanonicals.

Nor can you maintain that the modern viewpoint of Rome on intercession and saintly veneration would have anything in common with what occurred during the days of Jerome. It’s an anachronism that I find is common among Roman Catholic apologetics.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I wouldn’t accuse Rome of being literalistic for the most part. However, some of the arguments put forth here by Catholics is very literalistic and I realize that that doesn’t necessarily mean the Church endorses that. The NAB is like the NIV of the Catholic world. It’s nice to read, but don’t use it for study lol.

My understanding of literalist translating metaphors and figures of speach as facts. For example, if one said “It’s raining cats and dogs.” must mean that in those days, cats and dogs used to fall out of the sky. A literalist does not take into account what the meaning to the people would have been.

I find my understanding of Scripture is deepened by knowing the customs and traditions of the times. How people understood what Jesus was saying.

It isn’t my argument that every father of the church held the view of Luther. Nor did Luther deny that the saints in heaven pray for the church on earth. I’ve made that statement here in this thread. It’s the abuse of that concept by Rome down through the ages to its modern incarnation that is what is wrong.

It was not Rome which abused it, it was men. And I still don’t see what’s wrong with it.Such that devolved into masses for the saints, masses for the dead, etc. It was not Rome that abused it, it was men. How is a mass for the dead an abuse?

Nor do I claim that any particular father was absolutely correct in every instance. Jerome, here, according to the context you have placed him in, states the saints intercede for people on earth. That doesn’t mean he was right about it.

True, but my point was to show what was believed and practised at the time. I don’t view the ECF’s as infallible, but their history and reporting of Christian practices tell us a lot about the development of the Catholic Church.

Certainly you wouldn’t argue that he was right in his opinion of the deuterocanonicals.

No, but St. Jerome yielded to the aurthority of Pope St. Damasius II on the Deutoro’s.
.

Nor can you maintain that the modern viewpoint of Rome on intercession and saintly veneration would have anything in common with what occurred during the days of Jerome. It’s an anachronism that I find is common among Roman Catholic apologetics.

Why not? The Church and our understanding of the Divine is organic.

 

[TriuneUnity]

My understanding of literalist translating metaphors and figures of speach as facts. For example, if one said “It’s raining cats and dogs.” must mean that in those days, cats and dogs used to fall out of the sky. A literalist does not take into account what the meaning to the people would have been.

Well, that’s one way of doing it. Another way is to take imagery that Scripture uses and make it literal. This is done all the time with the book of Revelation in particular.

It was not Rome that abused it, it was men. How is a mass for the dead an abuse?

Because Mass for the dead is not prescribed in Scripture nor is there any evidence of it in apostolic times.

True, but my point was to show what was believed and practised at the time. I don’t view the ECF’s as infallible, but their history and reporting of Christian practices tell us a lot about the development of the Catholic Church.

It does and it also lets us see and track false doctrines as it begins to be introduced into the body of the faithful.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Well, that’s one way of doing it. Another way is to take imagery that Scripture uses and make it literal. This is done all the time with the book of Revelation in particular.

Come on, the world is going to end at 12:00 tomorrow!

Because Mass for the dead is not prescribed in Scripture nor is there any evidence of it in apostolic times.

So a mass in itself is ok, but not a mass for the dead?

It does and it also lets us see and track false doctrines as it begins to be introduced into the body of the faithful.

No false doctrines crept into the body of the faithful. False doctrine was dismissed as heretical over and over again by the Magesterium. Jesus promised His Church His Advocate so the gates of Hell would not prevail against her.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Come on, the world is going to end at 12:00 tomorrow!

As long as it centers primarily in areas where the Southern Baptist Convention is dominant, I’ll bring popcorn!

The new thing is 2012 by the way LoL

So a mass in itself is ok, but not a mass for the dead?

The Mass itself is fine. Some of the doctrines that came into the Mass later on (specifically those at the time prior to the Reformation) are blasphemous and need to be abolished. But no…the Lord’s Supper is the height of Christian worship. If the Mass centers on that and the preaching of God’s word, then it is proper apostolic worship.

No false doctrines crept into the body of the faithful. False doctrine was dismissed as heretical over and over again by the Magesterium. Jesus promised His Church His Advocate so the gates of Hell would not prevail against her.

Whether you’re Protestant or Catholic, it’s only a matter of historical record that false teaching came into the Church. Some of it was adopted as dogma, most of it wasn’t. The abuses of apostolic teaching have ebbed and flowed all throughout Christian history. Most of it in today’s world occurs, sadly, in neo-evangelicalism.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Triune:

I’ve always held a similar position to you (having a distaste for the prosperity Gospel, OSAS, and so forth). However, the more I consider these things (as a result of posting on this board) the less of a problem I see with it.

Christ’s words at the last supper cannot legitimately be used to support RCC (or Lutheran for that matter) doctrine concerning the Eucharist. IMO the better view is to simply look at the last supper as it was practiced by the early Christians – described by Paul. This gives us clear irrefutable evidence of the Apostolic view concerning the last supper. The early Christians would remember Christ and the last supper through sharing a meal with each other.

Paul chastised them because the wealthy members of the congregation would arrive early and eat all the good food before the poor members arrived – however, Paul never chastised the meal itself or its concept. Hence we have direct evidence of his view (the only post-resurrection view expressed in scripture concerning the last supper).

Moreover, I’ve been reading up on OSAS & it does not preach that one may continue to live a life of sin once saved. Indeed it takes the reformed view in that regard & preaches if one remains in a life of sin they are not saved (or at least it is unlikely they are saved). Moreover, they would say if one ever loses faith then they were probably never saved to begin with (assuming they die in a state of apostasy).

With regard to the prosperity Gospel, I took the time to hear Joel Osteen last night & he talked about Esther. Although raised a poor orphan she had strong faith her entire life. She ended up in the royal court. So there are prosperity messages in scripture. These folks do not deny that there will be suffering in life, they will not deny that we may even face persecution for our faith, however, they will always say keep your chin up, and eyes focused on God, and good things will happen to spite all the bad around us. I see nothing wrong or unscriptural about that message – in fact it has many good aspects. The common objection to these guys are their lack of focus on theology (which was my own primary objection). However, I believe the fellowship and Bible study in these churches far exceeds what we find in more traditional congregations. Hence their pastors will not give a theology lesson during his sermon – but rather an uplifting message.

These folks are attracting new people to Christ in multitudes – so IMO as Christians we should applaud and encourage them. Their movement transcends the ethnic infighting and rivalry we see in the more traditional denominations & I for one would enjoy fellowship with them any day. I might not agree with all of their practices, but neither do I find them heretical in the least.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Triune:

I’ve always held a similar position to you (having a distaste for the prosperity Gospel, OSAS, and so forth). However, the more I consider these things (as a result of posting on this board) the less of a problem I see with it.

Christ’s words at the last supper cannot legitimately be used to support RCC (or Lutheran for that matter) doctrine concerning the Eucharist. IMO the better view is to simply look at the last supper as it was practiced by the early Christians – described by Paul. This gives us clear irrefutable evidence of the Apostolic view concerning the last supper. The early Christians would remember Christ and the last supper through sharing a meal with each other.

Paul chastised them because the wealthy members of the congregation would arrive early and eat all the good food before the poor members arrived – however, Paul never chastised the meal itself or its concept. Hence we have direct evidence of his view (the only post-resurrection view expressed in scripture concerning the last supper).

And Paul says in that view that we participate in the true flesh and blood of our Savior and not in a memorial feast only. That those who do not discern His body and blood truthfully will be subject to judgment. One is not judged for profaning a memorial.

Moreover, I’ve been reading up on OSAS & it does not preach that one may continue to live a life of sin once saved. Indeed it takes the reformed view in that regard & preaches if one remains in a life of sin they are not saved (or at least it is unlikely they are saved). Moreover, they would say if one ever loses faith then they were probably never saved to begin with (assuming they die in a state of apostasy).

Both doctrines, however, fall short of scriptural witness. While the traditional Reformed view is more accurate I still do not see it fully harmonized with apostolic witness.

 

[Reformed]

I believe it was your boasting of more Catholics becoming Protestant than Protestants becoming Catholic.

I understand very well, though I think you might be having some misinterpretation difficulties of what posters are saying to you. This might reflect on our belief of private interpretations of scriptures is fallible.

Please provide evidence that anyone here has said the Church is the savior and not Christ Himself. You keep affirming this like someone is stating it. You have even falsely stated that I said the Church was above Christ in another thread. A false statement is serious in the eyes of God.

How do you reconcile thousands of denominations with different doctrines as the ONE body of Christ?

Just read most of the postings on this site and you will see the evidence that you are requesting.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

In my opinion, St. Paul believed in the body and blood, that is the Real Presence of the Eucharistic meal.

When the Apostles came out of Pentacost and converted around 3000 on that day. The story goes directly from them becoming Christians to them persevering in the doctrines and in the communication of the breaking of the bread and in prayers.

**Act 2:41 They therefore that received his word were baptized: and there were added in that day about three thousand souls.
Act 2:42 And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles and in the communication of the breaking of bread and in prayers.
**

Paul chastised them because the wealthy members of the congregation would arrive early and eat all the good food before the poor members arrived – however, Paul never chastised the meal itself or its concept. Hence we have direct evidence of his view (the only post-resurrection view expressed in scripture concerning the last supper).

Respectfully, I disagree with your interpretation and would like to explain my thoughts on this. I do not believe it was a situation of the wealthy eating all the food before the poor arrived. I believe they had turned the Lord’s supper into a social meal without giving it the consideration of what it really was. While he did not chastise the meal itself, he did correct the way they were doing it. Please see my thoughts below each passage.

**1Co 11:20 When you come therefore together into one place, it is not now to eat the Lord’s supper.
1Co 11:21 For every one taketh before his own supper to eat. And one indeed is hungry and another is drunk.
1Co 11:22 What, have you no houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? Do I praise you? In this I praise you not. **

Verse 20, St. Paul tells them that they have come together to now eat the Lord’s supper.

Verse 21, He tells them, instead of the Lord’s supper, they are taking it as their own supper to eat because one is hungry and another is drunk, like a social meal. See verse 34 for more support of this thought.

Verse 22, Seems to support my idea as he asks them don’t they have their own houses to eat and drink in and then reminds them they are in the Church of God.

**1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread,
1Co 11:24 And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me.
1Co 11:25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
1Co 11:26 For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
**
Verse 23 - 26 He let’s them know exactly what the Lord’s supper is. Notice he is repeating Christ’s instructions. as it was taught to him by the other Apostles, by telling them what the Lord said specifically, “This is my body…This chalice is the new teastament in my blood”. Another word for testament is convenant. He tells them for as often, this means it is done often, that they proclaim the death of the Lord, until he comes again.

**1Co 11:27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
**
Now St. Paul really explains the importance of the Lord’s supper and the ramifications of receiving unworthily, or not treating the Lord’s supper without the reverence due. Notice in both explanations in verses 27 and 29 that he says eating and drinking the bread and chalice unworthily makes one guilty of the body and blood of the Lord or not discerning the body of the Lord.

In between his explanations of receiving unworthily, he tells them to let a man prove himself and then let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. This clearly shows these instructions are to the Church by stating, “let a man prove himself”, then let him eat the bread and drink of the chalice.

**1Co 11:30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you: and many sleep.
1Co 11:31 But if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
1Co 11:32 But whilst we are judged, we are chastised by the Lord, that we be not condemned with this world.
**
The infirmed, weak and those asleep are not seeing the Lord’s supper for what it is, or more simply put, they don’t believe it is what he is teaching them.

Judging one’s self prevents receiving while in a state of sin. Why else would he explain that judging theirselves prevents the judgement and chastisement of the Lord?

**1Co 11:33 Wherefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.
1Co 11:34 If any man be hungry, let him eat at home; that you come not together unto judgment. And the rest I will set in order, when I come. **

Verse 33 tells them when they come together for the Lord’s supper that they need to wait for one another. Now it appears they are waiting for a one at a time reception of the Eucharistic meal, like being in line to receive communion.

Verse 34 again tells them if they are hungry, let them eat at home so they do not come unto judgement. This removes the idea, that the wealthy are eating and not letting others eat, but supports the idea that instead of a social gathering for a meal, they have come together for the Lord’s supper which requires reverence.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Just read most of the postings on this site and you will see the evidence that you are requesting.

See, it’s easy to provide proof but you tell everyone to search the forums. Is that easier than providing proof of what you say? Or are you afraid you might have misinterpreted what someone said and how they would explain it? You really lose any credibility when you use these tactics.

You’re still in my prayers man.

 

[Reformed]

I cannot find this “vital union” and "regenerate Christians in my Bible. Could you quote me chapter and verse, please?
.

Please study and read the entire chapter of Romans 5 to understand our vital union with Christ. The Apostle Paul writes that he is “in Christ” throughout his epistles which is shorthand for being in union with Christ. Regenerate just means born again, or born from above (John 3). Also note, Scripture reveals the concept of Federal headship too. Thanks for the question.

1 Corinthians 11:3:
But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

1 Cor 15
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

All humanity is born into this world in union with Adam. By the grace of God, some sinners are removed from union with Adam, and are united to Christ by faith.

Our union with Christ is different than your union with the Catholic Church. Do you seems to see the difference?

 

[Reformed]

See, it’s easy to provide proof but you tell everyone to search the forums. Is that easier than providing proof of what you say? Or are you afraid you might have misinterpreted what someone said and how they would explain it? You really lose any credibility when you use these tactics.

You’re still in my prayers man.

What are you praying for me for, that I receive the Roman Catholic Church as being the one true Church? I’m already united to Christ by faith. And your church calls me your separated brethren. I believe the unsearchable riches in Christ is found in Christ alone, and not the Roman Catholic institution. Why do you want me to take my eyes off of Jesus Christ for a religious organization?

Hebrews 12

Jesus, Founder and Perfecter of Our Faith

Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What are you praying for me, that I receive the Roman Catholic Church?

That you can find a way to charitably discuss Christianity without the ad hominem wording and outright bashing of Christ’s created Church. Also, that you are as open minded in these discussions as you expect us to be.

Also, adding to prayer list that you think before posting so we respond to your whole message as opposed to having to respond several times to the same post because of all your edits.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What are you praying for me for, that I receive the Roman Catholic Church as being the one true Church? I’m already united to Christ by faith. And your church calls me your separated brethren. I believe the unsearchable riches in Christ is found in Christ alone, and not the Roman Catholic institution. Why do you want me to take my eyes off of Jesus Christ for a religious organization?

That religious organization you’re referring to was created by Christ Himself.

 

[Reformed]

That you can find a way to charitably discuss Christianity without the ad hominem wording and outright bashing of Christ’s created Church. Also, that you are as open minded in these discussions as you expect us to be.

I don’t believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the true church of God. The true church is made up of regenerate Christians, which is the body of Christ regardless of our religious affiliation.

The Mystery of the Gospel Revealed

For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles— assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you, how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God’s grace, which was given me by the working of his power. To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things, so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through our faith in him. So I ask you not to lose heart over what I am suffering for you, which is your glory.

Prayer for Spiritual Strength
For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith—that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.

Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen. - Ephesians 3

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I don’t believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the true church of God. The true church is made up of regenerate Christians, which is the body of Christ regardless of our religious affiliation.

You have never explained that to me, even though I have repeatedly ask you that question. How is the one body of Christ divided up into thousands of denominations based on different doctrines?

Also, not believing in our Church does not give you the right to ad hominem wording and outright attacks on our Church. You are supposed to maintain respect for our faith and Church on this forum.