What is The Baptism that saves us now?

[Johann!@#]

Church not spiritual only


Christ and His church are one inseparable unity! Acts 9:4 Jn 15:5 acts 1:8 eph 5:24 eph 5:32

To reject the apostolic church and divine and catholic doctrine is to reject Christ who founded the church and revealed the truth!

Only Christ has authority to establish the church! Matt 16:18-19
One church! Jn 10:16 All others are sects “full of errors” “the tradition of men”! The new covenant Church is the eternal city of God! Household of faith! The pillar and ground of TRUTH! 1 Tim 3:15 Founded by Christ alone! Matt 16:18 on Peter and the apostles! Eph 2:20

The church is of divine origin and cannot be corrupted or reformed by the tradition of men! Truth is immutable!

The church the only ark of salvation, the household of faith and is not spiritual to the exclusion of the physical or invisible to the exclusion of the visible but, visible, invisible, spiritual, physical, and supernatural of divine origin and therefore divine preservation! Matt 16:18-19 Jn 8:32 Jn 16:13 Jn 10:16

Visible and invisible
Spiritual and physical
And supernatural the means of grace and the ark of salvation!


A city set on a hill: Matt 5:14
Light of the world: Matt 5:14
Pillar of truth: 1 Tim 3:15
Teach and sanctify all men: Matt 28:19

Unity of faith!

Four Marks of the True Church founded by Jesus Christ on Peter, the apostles, and their successors!

One, holy, catholic (universal) and apostolic (succeeding from Christ, Peter and the apostles)

Are you Catholic?
I have a right to ask.
J.

 

[Johann!@#]

'The Father has set his seal' on Christ (John 6:27) and also seals us in him (cf. 2 Corinthians 1:22; Ephesians 1:23, 4:30). Because this seal indicates the indelible effect of the anointing with the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of Baptism,

Baptism indeed is the seal of eternal life." 87 The faithful Christian who I has "kept the seal" until the end, remaining faithful to the demands of his Baptism, will be able to depart this life "marked with the sign of faith," 88 with his baptismal faith, in expectation of the blessed vision of God - the consummation of faith - and in the hope of resurrection.

St. Paul tells the faithful at Ephesus that they have been “sealed with the promised Holy Spirit.” This is in terms of an indelible character imprinted on the soul in the sacraments of baptism and confirmation. It is not as if this invisible mark is simply decorative. Rather, through it, we are enabled to participate in Christ’s mission and in his offices of priest, prophet, and king. Eph 1:13

Sealed by God eph 1:13 sealed by God (ez 36:25-27) in the ark of salvation by baptism just as Noah was sealed by God in the ark of the flood gen 7:16

1 Pet 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us!
(Ark of Noah a type of the church, member of Christ and his church and salvation by baptism!)
(Outside the ark of Noah none were saved, outside the church (the ark of salvation) none are saved!)

Sealed in the ark, sealed in the church the ark of salvation by God thru baptism!

What are the symbols of the Holy Spirit? - Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis

www.archspm.org

Yes?

 

[Johann!@#]

John prepared the way by “water baptism”!
Jesus says “water baptism” Mk 16:16 Jn 3:5 apostles say “water baptism” acts 2:38-39 acts 22:16 1 pet 3:20-21 God says “water baptism” ez 36:25-27
Jn 3:22 they immediately went to the river (water) and they baptized!


Christian baptism is an outward sign of the inward action of grace, or merits of Christ’s passion blood and death applied to our souls!

We cannot see the inward action of grace purifying the soul, so God gave us the outward “sign” of water washing the body to indicate the inward action of grace and connected the two.

Jn 3:5
cannot enter the kingdom if n your own.

2 pet 1:11
For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

2 Corinthians 8:19
And not that only, but who was also chosen of the churches to travel with us with this grace, which is administered by us to the glory of the same Lord, and declaration of your ready mind:

It’s snakes and vipers that prefer dry arid lands, Christians are fishes swimming in the waters of baptism!

Why say scripture alone when you don’t believe it?

You steamroll-flooding this thread with Catholicism.
But I guess this is permissible.
J.

 

[donadams]

Are you Catholic?
I have a right to ask.
J.

Yes

 

[Johann!@#]

Yes

Then allow me to believe the Spirit baptism is Imperative and don't flood my simple question with the Catholic Homepage Church Fathers and their answers.


1. Work-based salvation
First and foremost, the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t teach the biblical gospel but a work-based gospel. Whereas the Bible says we are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), Roman Catholicism says we are justified by faith plus the sacraments.

There are seven sacraments in Roman Catholic teaching: Baptism, Holy Communion or Eucharist, Confirmation, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony. These sacraments are not just symbolic but actually confer grace. Their catechism says, “the sacraments confer the grace that they signify. They are efficacious because in them Christ Himself is at work.”

The Bible never mentions the seven sacraments or their necessity for salvation. We are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Moreover, the Bible only speaks of two ordinances, baptism of believers and the Lord’s Supper. And contrary to Roman Catholic teaching, both are purely symbolic.

 

[GodsGrace]

What was the reason that the Early Fathers baptised that Augustine changed?

Hi Mungo,
The Apostolic and Early Fathers baptized babies, and the chances are that there were children in Acts 13:33 the jailor and his entire household were baptized.

The Early Fathers believed that baptism took away sin, but that it was also a blessing in the case of little ones and that they should not be denied this offering from God.


"And when a child has been born to one of them[ie Christians], they give thanks to God[ie baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins."
Aristides,Apology,15(A.D. 140),in ANF,X:277-278


“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).
Irenaeus
"And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family."
Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition,21(c. A.D. 215), in AT,33

Read more: https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/baptism/church-fathers-on-infant-baptism/

The reason is was good to baptize infants at the beginning is because those that considered themselves to be Christian were intent on raising their children that way.

The CC teaches that Adam and Eve committed a personal sin and that this sin would cause man to be born in a fallen state. IE The sin nature of man.
It is a sin contracted and not committed -
A state and not an act.

CCC 404-405
404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man".By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
source: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/405.htm
What changed with Augustine is that he declared Original Sin to be treated as a personal sin.
So, IOW, when a baby is born, he already has a sin on his soul, which must be removed.
Augustine taught that if a newborn baby died without baptism, it would be impossible for him to enter into heaving, citing Rev. 21:27 --- nothing unclean will enter into heaven


Augustine taught that infants who died unbaptized suffered the pains of hell, although in ameliorated form. Medieval theologians developed the notion of limbo to mitigate Augustine's teaching, and ideas about limbo have become progressively milder throughout Church history.

source: https://www.google.com/search?q=aug...i390i650l4.4972j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


This idea was so horrendous that even the Church could not accept it after Augustine's death, and the myth of Limbo began to circulate. A place the CC never actually taught existed.

To this day the church states that if an infant dies without baptism we depend on God's mercy...
difficult it must be to go against something taught for many years, but unacceptable.

 

[Johann!@#]

Then allow me to believe the Spirit baptism is Imperative and don't flood my simple question with the Catholic Homepage Church Fathers and their answers.


1. Work-based salvation
First and foremost, the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t teach the biblical gospel but a work-based gospel. Whereas the Bible says we are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), Roman Catholicism says we are justified by faith plus the sacraments.

There are seven sacraments in Roman Catholic teaching: Baptism, Holy Communion or Eucharist, Confirmation, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony. These sacraments are not just symbolic but actually confer grace. Their catechism says, “the sacraments confer the grace that they signify. They are efficacious because in them Christ Himself is at work.”

The Bible never mentions the seven sacraments or their necessity for salvation. We are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Moreover, the Bible only speaks of two ordinances, baptism of believers and the Lord’s Supper. And contrary to Roman Catholic teaching, both are purely symbolic.

Thanks for the edit wondering but I didn't "Catholic Bash" as you put it.
You folk don't want me here just say so-or ban me-no problem, guess it is OK for Catholics to "bash" Christians or proselyte.
You are not even aware how many Protestants convert to Roman Catholics.
As always, on day 3 or so-I run into problems-without saying anything, a huge disappointment.
My Father never disappoints.
J.

 

[Johann!@#]

Hi Mungo,
The Apostolic and Early Fathers baptized babies, and the chances are that there were children in Acts 13:33 the jailor and his entire household were baptized.

The Early Fathers believed that baptism took away sin, but that it was also a blessing in the case of little ones and that they should not be denied this offering from God.


"And when a child has been born to one of them[ie Christians], they give thanks to God[ie baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins."
Aristides,Apology,15(A.D. 140),in ANF,X:277-278


“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).
Irenaeus
"And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family."
Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition,21(c. A.D. 215), in AT,33

Read more: https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/baptism/church-fathers-on-infant-baptism/

The reason is was good to baptize infants at the beginning is because those that considered themselves to be Christian were intent on raising their children that way.

The CC teaches that Adam and Eve committed a personal sin and that this sin would cause man to be born in a fallen state. IE The sin nature of man.
It is a sin contracted and not committed -
A state and not an act.

CCC 404-405
404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man".By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
source: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/405.htm
What changed with Augustine is that he declared Original Sin to be treated as a personal sin.
So, IOW, when a baby is born, he already has a sin on his soul, which must be removed.
Augustine taught that if a newborn baby died without baptism, it would be impossible for him to enter into heaving, citing Rev. 21:27 --- nothing unclean will enter into heaven


Augustine taught that infants who died unbaptized suffered the pains of hell, although in ameliorated form. Medieval theologians developed the notion of limbo to mitigate Augustine's teaching, and ideas about limbo have become progressively milder throughout Church history.

source: https://www.google.com/search?q=aug...i390i650l4.4972j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


This idea was so horrendous that even the Church could not accept it after Augustine's death, and the myth of Limbo began to circulate. A place the CC never actually taught existed.

To this day the church states that if an infant dies without baptism we depend on God's mercy...
difficult it must be to go against something taught for many years, but unacceptable.

Who is Catholic bashing now?
Thanks
J.

 

[GodsGrace]

No mention of hudatos here-right?
J.

No, but do we then ignore when Jesus DOES mention it?

Matthew 28:19-20
19“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
20teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”


Jesus spoke this as some of His last words to the Apostles.
He said to baptize them...the disciples...
He said to teach the disciples to observe all that He commanded.

It seems to me that getting baptized is a command.

 

[GodsGrace]

Who is Catholic bashing now?
Thanks
J.

If you take this to TWTS we could discuss better.

 

[GodsGrace]

Thanks for the edit wondering but I didn't "Catholic Bash" as you put it.
You folk don't want me here just say so-or ban me-no problem, guess it is OK for Catholics to "bash" Christians or proselyte.
You are not even aware how many Protestants convert to Roman Catholics.
As always, on day 3 or so-I run into problems-without saying anything, a huge disappointment.
My Father never disappoints.
J.

Hi Johann,
I guess I could reply here so that other new members can also understand how we operate here to keep it pleasant for everyone.

The first part of your post was replying to the thread and is your opinion and is respected and accepted.

Then you went into other Catholic Doctrine that is not being discussed at all and it began to sound like a tiraid.
I'm sorry if you don't agree, but maybe you could find out how we keep the peace around here.

I'm sure you don't agree with that other stuff, but there was no reason to put it in that thread.
If you still want to discuss, use TALK WITH THE STAFF, or PM me.

We're very happy to have you here!

 

[Johann!@#]

If you take this to TWTS we could discuss better.

I have no idea what TWTS is-but like I've said-I did not "Catholic bash" anyone-but you can. Also-they are allowed to "bash" Christians-that is permissible.
Double standards.
Thanks
J.

 

[Johann!@#]

Hi Johann,
I guess I could reply here so that other new members can also understand how we operate here to keep it pleasant for everyone.

The first part of your post was replying to the thread and is your opinion and is respected and accepted.

Then you went into other Catholic Doctrine that is not being discussed at all and it began to sound like a tiraid.
I'm sorry if you don't agree, but maybe you could find out how we keep the peace around here.

I'm sure you don't agree with that other stuff, but there was no reason to put it in that thread.
If you still want to discuss, use TALK WITH THE STAFF, or PM me.

We're very happy to have you here!

I'd rather you PM me.
J.

 

[GodsGrace]

Rom 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

Yes. We must not only HEAR but also DO.

What I'm saying is that DOING without faith is worth nothing.

First we must have faith, we must believe in God.
Hebrews 11:6
6And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

Then we must do good works to be pleasing to God.
James 2:14-17
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

 

[GodsGrace]

Thanks for the edit wondering but I didn't "Catholic Bash" as you put it.
You folk don't want me here just say so-or ban me-no problem, guess it is OK for Catholics to "bash" Christians or proselyte.
You are not even aware how many Protestants convert to Roman Catholics.
As always, on day 3 or so-I run into problems-without saying anything, a huge disappointment.
My Father never disappoints.
J.

https://christianforums.net/forums/talk-with-the-staff-report-a-site-issue.59/

There is no problem with you.

 

[Johann!@#]

https://christianforums.net/forums/talk-with-the-staff-report-a-site-issue.59/

There is no problem with you.

Then please PM me BEFORE editing any posts-there is always a reason why I do things-speaking from experience.
Shalom.

 

[Johann!@#]

Matthew 28:19-20
19“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
20teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

28:19 "Go" This is an aorist passive (deponent) participle used as an imperative. This should not be interpreted "as you are going" because this would translate a present imperative, not an aorist. "Going" may be the most accurate option. All Christians are commanded to be lifestyle witnesses (cf. 1 Pet. 3:15 and possibly Col. 4:2-6). It is a priority. This is the Great Commission — not the Great Option.

"make disciples"
This is an aorist active imperative. The term "disciples" meant "learners." The Bible does not emphasize decisions, but lifestyle faith. The key to evangelism is discipleship. However, discipleship must start with a repentant faith profession and continue in the same way unto obedience and perseverance.

"of all the nations"
This must have been a shocking statement to the Jews, but it follows Dan. 7:14, which speaks of a universal, eternal kingdom (cf. Revelation 5). This is a reversal of Jesus' previous orders (cf. Matt. 10:5-6). Notice the number of times that the inclusive "all" appears in this paragraph.

Special Topic: YHWH's Eternal Redemptive Plan

"baptizing"
This is a present active participle used as an imperative. This is balanced with "teach" (Matt. 28:20). The two purposes of the Church are evangelism and discipleship. They are two sides of one coin. They cannot and must not be separated!

Special Topic: Baptism

"in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit"

This three-Person formula may reflect Isa. 42:1. Notice "in the name" is singular. The name of God is Triune (cf. Matt. 3:16-17; John 14:26; Acts 2:32-33, 38-39; Rom. 1:4-5; 5:1,5; 8:1-4, 8-10; 1 Cor. 12:4-6; 2 Cor. 1:21; 13:14;Gal. 4:4-6; Eph. 1:3-14, 17; 2:18; 3:14-17; 4:4-6; 1 Thess. 1:2-5; 2 Thess. 2:13; Titus 3:4-6; 1 Pet. 1:2; Jude 20-21).

The baptismal formula of Acts 2:38, "in Jesus' name," cannot be exclusive to this formula in the Great Commission. Salvation is a series of acts both initial and continual: repentance, faith, obedience, and perseverance. It is not a liturgical formula or sacramental procedure. It is an intimate, daily, growing, personal relationship with God. This was/is the purpose of creation.

Special Topic: The Trinity

Special Topic: The Personhood of the Spirit

28:20 "teaching them"
This is a present active participle used as an imperative. Notice that "what we teach" is not simply facts about Jesus, but obedience to all of His teachings. Christian maturity involves

a repentant faith profession
a life of Christlike living
a growing doctrinal understanding
Utley.

 

[Mungo]

Hi Mungo,
The Apostolic and Early Fathers baptized babies, and the chances are that there were children in Acts 13:33 the jailor and his entire household were baptized.

The Early Fathers believed that baptism took away sin, but that it was also a blessing in the case of little ones and that they should not be denied this offering from God.


"And when a child has been born to one of them[ie Christians], they give thanks to God[ie baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins."
Aristides,Apology,15(A.D. 140),in ANF,X:277-278


“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).
Irenaeus
"And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family."
Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition,21(c. A.D. 215), in AT,33

Read more: https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/baptism/church-fathers-on-infant-baptism/

The reason is was good to baptize infants at the beginning is because those that considered themselves to be Christian were intent on raising their children that way.

The CC teaches that Adam and Eve committed a personal sin and that this sin would cause man to be born in a fallen state. IE The sin nature of man.
It is a sin contracted and not committed -
A state and not an act.

CCC 404-405
404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man".By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
source: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/405.htm
What changed with Augustine is that he declared Original Sin to be treated as a personal sin.
So, IOW, when a baby is born, he already has a sin on his soul, which must be removed.
Augustine taught that if a newborn baby died without baptism, it would be impossible for him to enter into heaving, citing Rev. 21:27 --- nothing unclean will enter into heaven


Augustine taught that infants who died unbaptized suffered the pains of hell, although in ameliorated form. Medieval theologians developed the notion of limbo to mitigate Augustine's teaching, and ideas about limbo have become progressively milder throughout Church history.

source: https://www.google.com/search?q=aug...i390i650l4.4972j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


This idea was so horrendous that even the Church could not accept it after Augustine's death, and the myth of Limbo began to circulate. A place the CC never actually taught existed.

To this day the church states that if an infant dies without baptism we depend on God's mercy...
difficult it must be to go against something taught for many years, but unacceptable.

Thanks,
I didn't know that about Augustine.

 

[Johann!@#]

I didn't know that about Augustine.

Amazing!
You don't know Church History?
Never mind.
Johann.

 

[Johann!@#]

I'm sure you don't agree with that other stuff, but there was no reason to put it in that thread.
If you still want to discuss, use TALK WITH THE STAFF, or PM me.

There's no reason to put exactly WHAT in that thread?
Silence the ekklesia and allow the RCC to do what they do best-and then put a label on me as an tiraid?
J.