God does not dwell in buildings.. so why do Catholics talk about Christ's Presence in the Church?

[Cougarbear]

There was no falling away. Your declaration does not make it so. Further, one parish--even the Vatican--going through a rough period does not make it a "falling away" for all--indeed, there was never even a "falling away" for everyone in that parish.

"Falling Away" is simply another part of the con that was the beginning of the LDS Church.

Oh, by the way...Paul was speaking of events in his own time. He was warning people in the places he proclaimed Christ, there were others out there as well who were not preaching the Gospel correctly. (What I say today about the LDS church with their teachings of their non-Trinity division of God, of people dying and becoming God, of Joseph Smith and his "lost" or invisible plates, people remaining married after death with the husband in charge.)

And no, I don't care to have any discussion with you, there is nothing to discuss as we have no common ground. I reject all LDS premises and you are blind to the fact there was no "falling away" of all Catholics. Let.it.be.

The LDS Church does believe in Christ, so I hold that the Holy Spirit is upon your places of worship as the Spirit is on all places of worship. I believe

• saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many, Matt. 24:5.
• shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, Matt. 24:24.
• his disciples went back, and walked no more with him, John 6:66.
• shall grievous wolves enter in among you, Acts 20:29.
• there be divisions among you, 1 Cor. 11:18.
• I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him, Gal. 1:6.
• who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey, Gal. 3:1.
• shall not come, except there come a falling away first, 2 Thes. 2:3.
• some having swerved have turned aside, 1 Tim. 1:6.
• giving heed to seducing spirits, 1 Tim. 4:1.
• all they which are in Asia be turned away from me, 2 Tim. 1:15.
• Who concerning the truth have erred, 2 Tim. 2:18.
• Having a form of godliness, but denying the power, 2 Tim. 3:5.
• turn away their ears from the truth … unto fables, 2 Tim. 4:4.

God will work with you as you are and continue to draw you closer--just as God does with all who love Him. God bless.

There was no falling away. Your declaration does not make it so. Further, one parish--even the Vatican--going through a rough period does not make it a "falling away" for all--indeed, there was never even a "falling away" for everyone in that parish.

"Falling Away" is simply another part of the con that was the beginning of the LDS Church.

Oh, by the way...Paul was speaking of events in his own time. He was warning people in the places he proclaimed Christ, there were others out there as well who were not preaching the Gospel correctly. (What I say today about the LDS church with their teachings of their non-Trinity division of God, of people dying and becoming God, of Joseph Smith and his "lost" or invisible plates, people remaining married after death with the husband in charge.)

And no, I don't care to have any discussion with you, there is nothing to discuss as we have no common ground. I reject all LDS premises and you are blind to the fact there was no "falling away" of all Catholics. Let.it.be.

The LDS Church does believe in Christ, so I hold that the Holy Spirit is upon your places of worship as the Spirit is on all places of worship. I believe God will work with you as you are and continue to draw you closer--just as God does with all who love Him. God bless.

• saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many, Matt. 24:5.

Catholics believe the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, replaces Christ and His power and authority. Meaning, that he becomes Christ while in his position as Pope. What a deception. See, a Prophet does not and never has replaced Christ. Instead, Christ has conferred His authority upon the Prophet to do the Lord's ordinance work. Not to decide for Christ. Some in our Church try to elevate the current Prophet and Joseph Smith to a position to worship, which is wrong. In the Catholic Church, you worship the Pope because he replaces Christ and doesn't have to go to Christ to make changes in doctrine or ordinance work. That's why both have significantly changed over the 1,700 years of the RCC. In other words, apostasy.

• turn away their ears from the truth … unto fables, 2 Tim. 4:4.

It's my understanding that if a new doctrine, change in doctrine, new ordinance or change or lost ordinance goes on for 50 years, it becomes cannonized doctrine and ordinance work. So, anything can creep into the RCC and as long as that "fable" continues to last for 50 years, it becomes truth to the RCC. So, we look at things like baptism going from the remission of sins to baptizing infants who cannot sin. Melchizedek Priesthood to Franciscan Priesthood. Doing baptisms for the dead from not doing baptisms for the dead. Instead, let's have Halloween. The sacraments are to remember Christ to becoming the literal flesh and blood (cannabalism) of Christ... and the list goes on and on.

 

[Cougarbear]

As I said, I don't care to have this discussion with you.

Further, I personally don't care for the game of tossing Bible verses at people. Each verse in the Bible deserves thoughtful research and contemplation, and not to be served back and forth like ping-pong balls.

I know. Learning true doctrine is just so wrong...

 

[rightnow909]

I know. Learning true doctrine is just so wrong...

how utterly ironic!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Meriweather]

just wondering if you are wasting time?

Possibly. It started with the poster incorrectly stating that the Catholic Church does not acknowledge the Melchizedek priesthood. I was sure then he will always continue to believe what LDS say about Catholics and Melchizedek.

On the other hand, if there were any other non-Catholics passing by, they would also have input on what Catholics say and have always said about their own priesthood being in the order of Melchizedek because our founder, Jesus Christ, is referenced as a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110, if I recall that correctly).

As I said in the follow-up post, I have no interest in discussing this with a member of the LDS church who has no interest at all in the actual Catholic position. We wants to promote what members of the LDS Church incorrectly say about Catholics. Shrug.

 

[Meriweather]

I know.

I am not reading, nor continuing with the discussion. Wishing you a blessed day.

 

[rightnow909]

As I said in the follow-up post, I have no interest in discussing this with a member of the LDS church who has no interest at all in the actual Catholic position. We wants to promote what members of the LDS Church incorrectly say about Catholics. Shrug.

frankly, I've lost patience w/ Protestants. They have, as I have said b4, a wall around them... this very hard resistance to anything Catholic.. I won't say all.. I've met some open minded ones... but most of them don't listen

again, the guy acts like your words (words of any Catholic) are just whizzing over his head as he thinks about what HE has to say and only that....

there comes a time when there are just so many better things to do.... as it looks like you have concluded..

 

[rightnow909]

I am not reading, nor continuing with the discussion. Wishing you a blessed day.

you are a better man than I.... lol

hard for me to add that last thing... but I know I should....

 

[Cougarbear]

i really had an open mind while reading your post... until i came to the part

"Why trash polygamy"

omg... just omg...

may you marry someone who has another spouse ... or 2 or 3...

sick... Jesus spoke against divorce and remarriage... so it's a pretty good guess he didn't like polygamy...

Show me where he says anything about polygamy. Like I said, the scriptures from the apostles say that certain persons in leadership should not participate in having more than one wife. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and others were never Bishops... Also, I suppose we should then forget about most of the Bible since Abraham had most certainly more than one wife. I believe maybe 6? And, possibly an apostle or two had more than one wife too?
Not sure why you threw in divorce because that has nothing to do with polygamy unless one of the wives or more divorces the man. And, it's not remarriage. And, Jesus did speak again divorce or remarriage either. The question only came up if a husband dies, who gets to be the next husband. And, because most questions by the Sadducees and Pharisees were questions to catch him in a hypocrisy, this one he went from earthly marriage to eternal marriage. And, he did so where only the truly spiritual person would understand. Much like what Isaiah did. He said that there will be no marriage CEREMONY in heaven performed. All marriage ceremonies must be performed on earth, not in heaven. And, he said that whatsoever is bound on earth can be bound in heaven if the correct authority does the binding. We call it "Sealings." That's why he said if something bound on earth is lost, then it will be lost in heaven. That's why you people marry for time or unto death do you part. Families "can" be for ever if performed with correct authority. But, you guys don't even claim it can be done at all. Sad.

 

[rightnow909]

Show me where he says anything about polygamy. Like I said, the scriptures from the apostles say that certain persons in leadership should not participate in having more than one wife. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and others were never Bishops... Also, I suppose we should then forget about most of the Bible since Abraham had most certainly more than one wife. I believe maybe 6? And, possibly an apostle or two had more than one wife too?
Not sure why you threw in divorce because that has nothing to do with polygamy unless one of the wives or more divorces the man. And, it's not remarriage. And, Jesus did speak again divorce or remarriage either. The question only came up if a husband dies, who gets to be the next husband. And, because most questions by the Sadducees and Pharisees were questions to catch him in a hypocrisy, this one he went from earthly marriage to eternal marriage. And, he did so where only the truly spiritual person would understand. Much like what Isaiah did. He said that there will be no marriage CEREMONY in heaven performed. All marriage ceremonies must be performed on earth, not in heaven. And, he said that whatsoever is bound on earth can be bound in heaven if the correct authority does the binding. We call it "Sealings." That's why he said if something bound on earth is lost, then it will be lost in heaven. That's why you people marry for time or unto death do you part. Families "can" be for ever if performed with correct authority. But, you guys don't even claim it can be done at all. Sad.

Sorry, but I feel it is best to not respond to you. Like most Protestants (although the LDS is a cult IMO), you don't listen to Catholics. If you want to know what the Church teaches, find a good SSPX Catholic priest... and go to RCIA.. Those Churches are not ubiquitous (yet) but they are available here and there...

or you can study the saints' lives.. or whatever

But you are not listening to me or Meriweather

 

[Cougarbear]

Possibly. It started with the poster incorrectly stating that the Catholic Church does not acknowledge the Melchizedek priesthood. I was sure then he will always continue to believe what LDS say about Catholics and Melchizedek.

On the other hand, if there were any other non-Catholics passing by, they would also have input on what Catholics say and have always said about their own priesthood being in the order of Melchizedek because our founder, Jesus Christ, is referenced as a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110, if I recall that correctly).

As I said in the follow-up post, I have no interest in discussing this with a member of the LDS church who has no interest at all in the actual Catholic position. We wants to promote what members of the LDS Church incorrectly say about Catholics. Shrug.

Each time you and other say this, I ask the question what the heck is a Franciscan Order of the Priesthood. And, I get, "why don't you take a class." Well, why can't you just answer the question. I ask the same thing of Protestants as well. Most don't have "priest." So, how could they be in the order of the Melchizedek Priesthood. That would be illogical reasoning. I'm asking a sincere question that you haven't answered as of yet.

 

[ninja007]

nothing in the bible about todays church buildings- they are blasphemy. House churches only.

 

[rightnow909]

nothing in the bible about todays church buildings- they are blasphemy. House churches only.

I'm not going into some stranger's house...