John the apostle wrote to the early church and expressed the visions which had been given to he, himself, alone, in the revelation of Jesus Christ, given by God. That revelation contained letters to seven churches which were viewed as lampstands with the Son of man seen 'in the midst'. These churches were all subject to the apostle John. *There was unity of teaching.* These churches were singular in the districts in which they existed. *There was no schism.* Many denominations today admit of differences within their numbers. Many allow of their participants following different 'ministeries' and 'leaderships'. If such a state as that seen in Revelation is not real, today, then is it a fact that the Son of man is not 'in the midst' of much of what professes to be the 'church' ? True, he is in the midst where but two, or three, are gathered in his name. Even if it is but one household within a district. Or like-minded persons meeting in a place where many 'churches' exist but none are truly naming Jesus Christ and properly identifying him. My question is adressed to Protestant Trinitarians. Does any Protestant Trinitarian gathering, anywhere, specifically profess to be gathered to the same state and condition as the seven churches addressed by John ? For if gatherings do not so profess, then by so much they are admitting that the Son of man is not 'in their midst'. --------------------------------- Edit, for clarity, regarding comment : There was, indeed, the beginnings of schism at Corinth, as you refer, in the first epistle. This was corrected by apostolic authority and was largely absent by the time the second epistle was completed. Thereafter Paul's writings and the gospel accounts, together with Peter's epistles, Hebrews, James and Jude, were widely available. So by the time John wrote there was a unity *which is very noticeable indeed* in the content of the seven missives to the seven churches. My question is, Who claims to have such a unity, right now, and who, thus, can say that the Son of man is in their midst ?

NPR ran an interesting piece about [the saga of whether or not Catholics could eat alligator on Fridays during Lent](http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/03/27/175058833/forget-fish-fridays-in-louisiana-gator-is-on-the-lenten-menu) . According to the story, an alligator merchant by the name of Jim Piculas advocated in a letter to [Archibishop Gregory Aymond](http://www.arch-no.org/aymond) for permission to consider alligator as seafood, and thus exempt from the prohibition on Friday meat consumption. Now, aside from the giggles on the matter, what authority does the Archbishop of New Orleans have to set out the orthopractic model of Catholic belief in New Orleans? I understand that the Bishop of Rome has the authority, when speaking ex cathedra, to promulugate doctrine - but I've never heard that other Bishops have this right. In declaring a reptile equivalent to a fish, the Archbishop seems to have made a fairly significant theological interpretation. What gives him the authority to do so?

My question is not that which was asked previously Where should the church gather ? which was a question about h*ow should persons gather* in a locality and w*hat arrangement should be made* for that. My question is different. I live in England and I recently travelled elsewhere and was invited to attend a meeting where someone spoke from a platform and prayed and some verses were sung from a screen above us. But also my host invited me home and there we read through a book of the bible together, chapter by chapter alternately ; we sang a psalm and we knelt and prayed. I realised that what we had done in the home had been more spiritual, more edifying and more charitable than the formal meeting in a large building. If one, out of desire 'not to forsake the assembling together' meets in a formal setting and submits to an exterior form of worship which is not altogether satisfactory, then one may not feel that that gathering is a true representation of the 'church', that is to say the body of Christ and the house of God. Is it the case that one may experience a closer representation of that which Christ builds ('I will build my church') in one's own home ? And is that what Paul alludes to when he writes of 'the church which is in their house' Romans 16:3-5 and 'the church in thy house' Philemon 1:2 ? This is no technical point or mere inquisitive inquiry. For those of us who believe we are seeing the end times and the appalling effects of an arising opposition to the gospel which 'uprises' (*apostasis*) and elbows out that which is truly of Christ in order to take over the 'temple' and sit within it 'as God' and 'being worshipped', 2 Thessalonians 2:4 - to us who see that happening, the reality of the church being 'in our house' is something that needs to be seriously thought about. Is it the case that when Jesus Christ says 'where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst', Matthew 18:20, that what is done *in the home* may more closely align with his words than what one is doing publicly, for the sake of corporate conformity ? My question is asked of those who are trinitarian and protestant. >Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus: Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. Likewise greet **the church that is in their house.** [Romans 16:3-5 KJV] >... unto Philemon our dearly beloved, and fellowlabourer, And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to **the church in thy house**: [Philemon 1:2 KJV]

What is the current growth or statistics of the house church movement in the US, or the West in general? I suppose they don't exist in the UK or Europe. I have heard that this type of church model exists in China and in some poor countries due to an organic need arising from the political situation. However, to see this trend going in the West rich nations is very interesting, where they are moving away from the institutional church model. The house church model also rejects the Pastor system or a senior Pastor system in the structure of church; and they are smaller size to avoid expense of building and maintenance. Are there some government data that shows surveys of believers to give a good estimate, and how to find it? If you have other basic related information about their structure and whether certain traditional churches have condemned them as heretics, share them as well.

Where my congregation gathers, we have a Brethren-like "house church" system, which means that we have no building for the church meeting. But the number of members is increasing and we are about to face a decision: split the members into 2 house groups, or go up and rent a hall in order to gather everyone in one place. We had a discussion about that with the elders and one argument was that > There is no reference of a christian regular gathering model in the New Testment other than house gathering (eg. Act 2:46; Rom 16:5, 14, 15; 1Cor 16:19; Col 4:15; Phm 2). And the reference of the Temple in Acts 2:6 wasn't properly a christian meeting, but a practice of Judaism transfered to Christianity at that time. But the counter-argument to the above was that > There is no doctrine at all about the **place** of gathering in the New Testment. We have doctrine about how to gather, what to do and how to do almost everything in the church meeting, how to order the meeting, even the necessity of gather, but no word is written about **where** the meeting has to take place. We only have examples and to make theology out of examples we need to (specially) consider the context, and in considering the early church context (historical, cultural, religious, thological) we see why they gathered in houses, but this is no such thing as a limit, but a solid ground for us to build upon. ## The controversy After the discussion, the question was settled: **are the examples of house gatherings in the New Testament an evidence of a theological stablishment, an oral doctrinal statement and a common sense at the early church that just houses are expected to host the Church regular gathering? Or just the natural flow that the Holy Spirit chose?** ## My questions 1. Is there any writing from a reliable source of church meeting in the early church (400AD-) outside the context of a house host? 2. Is there any writing from a reliable source that the church had a prohibition on theological grounds for hosting a meeting in a rented or built hall instead of the house context? 3. Is there any good argument about why we should host the church regular meeting in a hall building, if there is no example of that in the NT? ---------- *Sorry for my bad English, Portuguese speaker here. God bless.*

I’ve attended several Masses at my local Catholic Church, but am not feeling fulfilled, and sometimes, it almost feels like I’m not even welcome. There is another Catholic Church one town away that I’m thinking about trying to attend. I’m wondering if this would be wrong because then I wouldn’t be supporting my local Catholic Church. Is it OK to join a Catholic Church in a different town than where I live?

I have often heard it said that believers need to be members of a local church in order to be ‘accountable’. I am assuming all believers understand that they should regularly fellowship with a local church. My question is not about that. My question is from the scripture in what sense might this accountability mean? I am not sure the word accountable is actually used in the New Testament except that the whole world is accountable to God by the Law but I take it to mean in certain situations some form of answerable agreement of conduct, or something along that line is implied by various bible verses which make people chose the word ‘accountable’ as though people were accountants making some kind of record or enforcement of some basic standard. What does it actually mean? What are its limits? What sense does the scripture support or limit such a concept?

Does "gospel-preaching church" have a shared meaning among Christians? What is it supposed to mean, and what are the signs of this "gospel-preaching church"? Is the term a tautology? Or is the negation of the term a way to criticize and slight other types of Christians or denominations that one group of Christians may disapprove of or dislike? If possible, where did this phrase come from, and by whom is this phrase typically used?

Our diocese recently had a big re-org and went down from over 100 parishes down to 30. But now our cozy little ex-congregation can't do anything fun unless the big mega-church ladies say so or we beg our pastor. Given the principle of subsidiarity, are there any lay-structures that exist, or have existed in the past, to allow some level of self-governance in parish life? We'd like to be able to organize our own men's and women's slightly-larger-than small groups, youth activities, dances, novenas, non-Eucharistic processions (like the seven-churches visitation) I think there would still be a point person who would go to the priest for approval, where necessary, but we could avoid the hassle of being vetoed by church ladies and the stress of being lone wolves trying to organize things in vacuums.

**Unique Catholic (liturgical or otherwise) Feasts of local Churches?** I would like to gather information on local unique feasts that exist or have at one time existed within the Catholic Church either at a parish, diocesan or national level. For example the Catholic Church in Malta celebrates the Feast of the Shipwreck of St. Paul each year on February 10th. > This coming Wednesday 10th February, Malta will be celebrating the feast of St. Paul’s Shipwreck. Although usually celebrated with particular fervour in Valletta, it is a public holiday across the whole country, for this feast has for centuries held a special significance for the Maltese people. > > According to the Acts of the Apostles, in the year 60 AD, St. Paul was on a ship headed to Rome, where he was to face trial. At one point during the voyage, the ship was caught in a violent storm, which eventually led to the vessel foundering off the Maltese coast. St. Paul and everyone else aboard made it to shore safely, where they were welcomed and looked after by the locals. St. Paul remained here for three months, during which time it was claimed that he performed a number of miracles, but most importantly, he was also credited with introducing Christianity to Malta, and to have converted the local people. > > This, at least, is what tradition claims. Some academics are more sceptical; for starters, the earliest archaeological evidence of Christianity in Malta has been dated to the 4th century AD, several hundred years after the shipwreck. One also has to bear in mind that following the Arab conquest in 870 AD, Islam would have become the dominant faith here for quite some time, before Malta was eventually re-Christianised. It was then, perhaps, in an attempt to emphasise Malta’s Christian roots while encouraging a breaking off from Islam, that some stories associated with St. Paul’s visit started to gain popularity. His cult grew and was strengthened even more with the arrival of the Knights of St. John, who found the perfect opportunity to win over the locals by championing their patron saint, not to mention that being in possession of a number of Pauline sanctuaries would also have increased their own prestige. Thus, with time, many Pauline legends sprung up. - 7 Legends linked to St. Paul’s Shipwreck For the sake of clarity I am interested in both liturgical and/or piously recognized local traditions of non-liturgical feasts by the local Ordinary of the diocese in question. If possible please include the date of celebrating the Feast and any pertinent information or sources attached to it.

Pending Vatican approval, my diocese is moving the Cathedral to a neighboring parish. The Cathedral Parish was St. Raphael, the new Parish is St. Bernards. Now, nothing against St. Bernard, but he's not exactly an archangel. So what I'm wondering is, is it the norm to rename the parish a Cathedral moves to (in this case, rename St. Bernard's parish St. Raphael's parish) or is it normal to leave St. Bernard alone and re-dedicate the diocese? Also, since this is the only church in the parish, would it also be normal to rename the church building itself?

As far as I understand it, the concept of having parishes and parish churches means that regions are divided up geographically, that each region will have a church that is specifically dedicated to that region, and that everybody in that region is expected/required to be a part of that local church. I know that there is a huge variety when it comes to implementation. What I would like to know is what modern traditions fully embrace this concept to the point of enforcing it on some level. Are there any traditions that would refuse to let members cross parish lines to attend another church? Do any others with perhaps a less hard line rule have specific doctrines encouraging this but define exceptions where it might not be required?

I’m Catholic, and have been since birth. I attend parish of St. Francis in Bakersfield, California. I have noticed recently, that all Catholic Churches, for the most part are named after a Saint, i.e. Saint Francis, Saint Phillip, Saint Anne, Saint Stephen etc. I’ve always wondered, how to they pick which Saint? Is their a list of names to choose from or are they just chosen at random?

We're undergoing a big flip in the diocese of Madison and almost all the that were churches canonical parishes before are becoming part of a bigger grouping of churches within an expanded parish boundary. There's lots of hubbub about what we're going to name the new parish, but I don't know that anybody in the parish itself has much of a say over such things. Are they decided by committee, from above, by popular opinion, by tradition (do we just keep the name of the central parish church) or what?

In the city where I live there's a church called Mana Church . I know they venerate (not to the level of God) the founder, Jorge Tadeu. This gives me chills because of Luke 4:8 [KJV] > And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for > it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt > thou serve. In fact, they call this person Apostle. Without providing clarity, this term is misleading people into believing Jorge Tadeu is at the same level of authority as "the twelve" (Matthew 26:14; John 6:67, 20:24; 1 Corinthians 15:5) and we know > a true apostle in the New > Testament style is no longer possible because it would require that > the person had been with Christ and/or have seen the risen Lord. Can't stop thinking if there are any christian doctrines they deny? If yes, which ones? (Psalms 11:3) > If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

Our diocese is doing a rather major restructuring and the church in my small town is being joined to a larger parish. We've heard that the diocese cannot sell off churches unless "the congregation" wants them to. So, if we're being swallowed up into a parish with five other churches, what's to stop those five churches from making a practical business decision to sell off our Church? Or, to be more direct, who represents the congregation once the parish is reorganized?

Are there any Church traditions or legends that state what species of fish the young man Tobias caught in the Book of Tobit according to the Catholic, Orthodox or other local churches of the East? > The Book of Tobi is a book of scripture that is part of the Catholic and Orthodox biblical canons, pronounced canonical by the Council of Hippo (in 393), Councils of Carthage of 397 and 417, Council of Florence (in 1442) and confirmed for Roman Catholics by the Council of Trent (1546). - Book of Tobit (Wikipedia) Here is what the Book of Tobit has to say about Tobias and the fish: > 1 And Tobias went forward, and the dog followed him, and he lodged the first night by the river of Tigris. 2 And he went out to wash his feet, and behold a monstrous fish came up to devour him. 3 And Tobias being afraid of him, cried out with a loud voice, saying: Sir, he cometh upon me. 4 And the angel said to him: Take him by the gill, and draw him to thee. And when he had done so, he drew him out upon the land, and he began to pant before his feet. 5 Then the angel said to him: Take out the entrails of the fish, and lay up his heart, and his gall, and his liver for thee: for these are necessary for useful medicines. 6 And when he had done so, he roasted the flesh thereof, and they took it with them in the way: the rest they salted as much as might serve them, till they came to Rages the city of the Medes. - Tobit 6: 1-6 . The Jewish Encyclopedia states that the Book of Tobit is was probably composed between 200 and 50 B.C.

Our town has approached our parish and requested that the parish sign ownership of our Parish Center over to them. The town wants to build a pool but can only do so if they have enough land to do so and they think the property that out Parish Center is located on would be an ideal location. They don’t want to pay any money for the building. The tax assessment on the building is over $1 million. Can the parish legally give the building away for nothing?

Our local mobile church leadership has proposed a merger with another local church. Reasons cited were a) pandemic meant they couldn't meet at the public school they had been using for 8 years so we would "get a permanent church home" b) we are young families; they are older c) we are better together than apart What are some best practices to follow, especially that avoid respondent bias? Such as, what if people are loyal to the pastor, or feel left out of the conversation, or want to ask disruptive questions, or feel surprised, or excited, etc. I have observed a church merger go poorly in the past because it was not handled well. It was a generational split. The reason by the younger leaders was that "the neighborhood is not like us" because of diversity so we "can't be effective in our outreach." The older generation wanted to stay. The merged church received the money from the sale of the mergee building. The church merged after a split vote, and the younger leaders left to join larger churches, the older stayed or left. Now a few remain 20 years later. My current nondenominational church in question, an elder model, began seeking this out 6 months ago, but didn't tell the congregation, wants to merge, and would take on the other church's denomination, Southern Baptist Convention. My sense is that though they say we welcome questions, and "our values are aligned," we are "likeminded," that they are muting critique with code words for in-group. The Pastor of my church will become lead pastor, and the new name will be our church's name. Both are financially solvent. The location will change to a different city, but about 15 minutes away. We originally joined partly because the pastor "felt called" to serve our current city. My question is for why do churches merge? Thank you for your time!

**Unique Catholic Blessings of local Churches?** Just as I asked this question concerning Catholic feasts of local Churches, I would like to know if some readers here know of any local blessings attached to a local church, diocese or region which have been approved by the Catholic Church? I am interested in more historical blessings, even if they are no longer in vogue or usage.