A thought (or two) on unity.

[MoreCoffee]

Yet Jesus prayed And now I am no more in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. While I was with them, I kept them in thy name, which thou hast given me; I have guarded them, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled. But now I am coming to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them thy word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth. "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.
(Joh 17:11-23)

 

[Josiah]

.

See post # 2.

It is IMPOSSIBLE, fruitless and a waste of time to discuss the "RESTORATION" point of this thread until MoreCoffee tells us WHEN (a date, please) when ALL Christians agreed with ALL Christians on ALL matters of Christian faith and practice... when ALL Christians were officially registered in a parish legally and economically owned and operated by one specific denomination (unity in teaching, unity in institution). MoreCoffee evades his own premise.

Sure, he can claim that the individual RC Denomination is in a very limited sense "united" with ITSELF alone, uniquely, solely, only. So what? The same can be said of the LDS or any other parish or person or denomination that could be named. SO WHAT? MoreCoffee evades that, too.

Yet Jesus prayed And now I am no more in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. While I was with them, I kept them in thy name, which thou hast given me; I have guarded them, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled. But now I am coming to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them thy word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth. "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.
(Joh 17:11-23)

I don't think this has ANYTHING to do with institutional unity or unmitigated power/lordship of any institution. The Father and the Son are not one congregation, one denomination. This isn't a prayer for one mega-denomination that itself claims that it itself is unaccountable, the Lord over all, with godlike power, to which all must docilicly submit to as unto God.


I think this is a prayer for unity of love, unity of spirit - I think it's a prayer for something that happens in the hearts and lives of Christians. Of course, as the Bible and the Creed state, we ARE one - but I think Jesus is praying that we may behave as such. IMO, His call that we NOT "lord it over one another as the Gentiles do" is an aspect of this - and is contradicted by the obsession that the RC Denomination has over the claimed POWER of it itself alone over all. And I think His call for TRUTH to the be issue.... that the WORD be the source/rule.... this also is contradicted by the RC Denomination which renders truth irrelevant (what instead matters is just docilicly swallowing whole whatever the individual RC Denomination says at that moment because it itself does) and that what matters is membership in it itself.


Thank you.


- Josiah


.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Unity existed in the years 30 to 33 AD when Jesus was with the apostles despite their differences, petty ambitions, external pressures (from friends, family, and enemies), and every other thing that this world and Satan brought against them. Unity continued to exist in the apostolic Church despite divisions, apostasies, false prophecies, fake exorcists, lying spirits, and every other thing that this world and Satan brought against them. Unity continues to exist in the Church today despite the fruits of schisms, perversions of the gospel message, lies, hate, false witnesses, and every other thing that the world and Satan brings against them. The truth is that there has always been one Church in Unity and many schisms and divisions and falsehoods in the world and from Satan. Unity can be extended by surrendering egoistic schisms, divisions, calumnies against the brethren, and every other hindrance to unity that this world and Satan brings against the faithful in the Church.

 

[Josiah]

Unity existed in the years 30 to 33 AD

Okay... you CLAIM where was unity for a maximum of 48 months. Of course, the problem is we have little from those 48 month period, just from one book - the Acts of the Apostles, chapters 1 through maybe chapter 7 at most. What here states that ALL Christians totally agreed with ALL Christians in ALL matters of faith and practice? What states that ALL Christians were officially registered in ONE parish that was owned and operated by ONE denomination? Funny, because it NEVER says all totallty agreed on all things.... and there's no mention at all of any specific parish or denomination, much less a statement that there was but one. Thus, no statement about being in total agreement about everything... all being officially registered in a parish owned and operated by any denomination. Nothing. It says they were devoted to the Apostles' teaching but nothing about practices at all and nothing about being in agreement - much less total agreement on everything. It says they held property in common but nothing about some denomination owning and operating some parish.

despite their differences, petty ambitions, external pressures

The word "unity" doesn't appear in any of these chapters. If they had difference, how does that prove they were united with no disagreements in teachings or practices?

Unity continued to exist in the apostolic Church despite divisions, apostasies, false prophecies, fake exorcists, lying spirits

I think you've just proven your whole point false.... your whole premise unhistorical, unbiblical and untrue.


Yes, there was a SPIRITUAL unity - a unity theirs by virtue of the gift of faith in Christ - the unity the Bible talks about, the unity the Creed proclaims, the unity Protestants believe and teach. But that has NOTHING to do with all Christians agreeing with all Christians on all matters.... it has NOTHING to do with all being in one parish or all parishes being in one denomination.

Unity can be extended by surrendering egoistic schisms, divisions

Our lives would reveal our unity far better if denominations (such as the RCC and LDS) would not confuse itself with the church, with Christ, with God.... would not be obsessed with lording it over others as the Gentiles do.... would not view that unity means all just laying aside truth and instead docilicly submitting to the unmitigated/unaccountable POWER of it itself alone as it itself baselessly claims enormous egotistical things for it itself alone. I agree with you.... in the early church, we had no denominations - not the RCC, not the OOC, not the EOC, not the LDS, not the LCMS, not the UCC, not the UPC, not the URC, not the UMC. The OBSESSIONS with power, lording it over others, the individualism and institutionalism is - sadly - something the Roman Empire infused into things. Nowhere does this Roman obsession exist today more than in the RC Denomination. If you object to it, start with your denomination.



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

Josiah, after reading your post I am inclined to say meh. It is easy to lose patience with a post that so obviously misses that meaning of the words to which it is an attempted reply.

Unity does not mean sameness. It does not mean everybody agrees about everything. It does not exclude petty ambitions, errors in understanding, fierce verbal fights, superficial agreement that cannot withstand pressures, and so forth. I'd repeat what I said about the apostles under the tutelage of Jesus Christ but it will not help us to communicate. As for the two other periods in history I mentioned it seems that there's nothing to be gained from discussing them with you if you didn't see any unity in the church when it was embryonic and under the direct earthly supervision of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Josiah]

Josiah, after reading your post I am inclined to say meh. It is easy to lose patience with a post that so obviously misses that meaning of the words to which it is an attempted reply.

Unity does not mean sameness. It does not mean everybody agrees about everything. It does not exclude petty ambitions, errors in understanding, fierce verbal fights, superficial agreement that cannot withstand pressures, and so forth. I'd repeat what I said about the apostles under the tutelage of Jesus Christ but it will not help us to communicate. As for the two other periods in history I mentioned it seems that there's nothing to be gained from discussing them with you if you didn't see any unity in the church when it was embryonic and under the direct earthly supervision of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I'm the one stating that the church IS one.... you are the one insisting that we need to "RESTORE" the unity that once existed (you claim for 48 months: 30-33 AD but you offer nothing - nothing at all, nothing whatsover to support your claim). You have offered NOTHING from these 48 months to say there was any institutional unity of one parish or denomination thereof.... nothing to show that all Christians were united with all others in all teachings and practices. IF you are abandoning the claims of your denomination..... if you are abandoning the call of the RCC for all to just docilicly submit to itself .... if you are agreeing with me and Protestants that the "unity" of Christians and thus the church is NOT a matter of cognative agreement or some institutional denomination (it has NOTHING to do with the RC Denomination ) - then fine, note your agreement with we non-Catholics.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'm the one stating that the church IS one....

No Josiah, you're stating a fantasy you're saying that your denomination is one with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Apostolic Lutheran Church of America and the Alliance of Renewal Churches and the Southern Baptist Church and ... and ... and ... all the liberal Lutheran bodies all the charismatic Lutheran bodies all the Wesleyan bodies all the trinity accepting messianic Jewish bodies with the Seventh Day Adventists and ... the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church and ... who knows what independent churches and groups and para-church organisations including those whose doctrine you cannot tolerate. But it is obvious that these groups are not one. They divided one from another and separated one from another to form their own churches groups denominations or whatever they call themselves because they disagree and disagree so much that they cannot bear to be in fellowship one with another under the same roof teaching the same doctrine practising the same baptism and sharing the same communion. Just say it Josiah, these folk are not in unity and many are not even slightly interested in unity with your denomination.

 

[Stravinsk]

Stravinsk, a bishop's mitre has absolutely nothing to do with a fish or with Dagon (what makes you think Dagon was a fish god anyway?) the mitre has two "horns" signifying the two testaments of the Lord God. It serves as a crown pointing to the glory of God almighty.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1712&t=KJV

The root of this word is H1709 which means "fish"

Insofar as how Dagon or priests of Dagon are represented in art it sort depends on who's history you read. But the word does mean "fish" and Dagon was a Philistine deity of the Scriptures.

 

[MoreCoffee]

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1712&t=KJV

The root of this word is H1709 which means "fish"

Insofar as how Dagon or priests of Dagon are represented in art it sort depends on who's history you read. But the word does mean "fish" and Dagon was a Philistine deity of the Scriptures.

Meh! I am not convinced by the blue letter bible thing. "dgn" also means grain. Apparently Dagon was a fertility God and the Canaanites were not noted for the maritime exploits though the Philistines may have been.

Name (from Wikipedia)
The name is recorded as Ugaritic Dgn (Dagnu or Daganu), Akkadian: Dagana.

In Ugaritic, the root dgn also means grain: in Hebrew דגן dāgān, Samaritan dīgan, is an archaic word for grain. The Phoenician author Sanchuniathon (according to Philo of Byblus) explained Dagon as a word for "grain" (siton). Sanchuniathon further explains: "And Dagon, after he discovered grain and the plough, was called Zeus Arotrios." The word arotrios means "ploughman", "pertaining to agriculture" (confer ἄροτρον "plow").

It is perhaps related to the Middle Hebrew and Jewish Aramaic word dgnʾ 'be cut open' or to Arabic dagn (دجن) 'rain-(cloud)'.

The theory relating the name to Hebrew dāg/dâg, 'fish', based solely upon a reading of 1*Samuel 5:2–7 is discussed in Fish-god tradition below. According to this etymology: Middle English Dagon < Late Latin (Ec.) Dagon < Late Greek (Ec.) Δάγων < Heb דגן dāgān, "grain (hence the god of agriculture), corn."

 

[Stravinsk]

Meh! I am not convinced by the blue letter bible thing. "dgn" also means grain. Apparently Dagon was a fertility God and the Canaanites were not noted for the maritime exploits though the Philistines may have been.

Name (from Wikipedia)
The name is recorded as Ugaritic Dgn (Dagnu or Daganu), Akkadian: Dagana.

In Ugaritic, the root dgn also means grain: in Hebrew דגן dāgān, Samaritan dīgan, is an archaic word for grain. The Phoenician author Sanchuniathon (according to Philo of Byblus) explained Dagon as a word for "grain" (siton). Sanchuniathon further explains: "And Dagon, after he discovered grain and the plough, was called Zeus Arotrios." The word arotrios means "ploughman", "pertaining to agriculture" (confer ἄροτρον "plow").

It is perhaps related to the Middle Hebrew and Jewish Aramaic word dgnʾ 'be cut open' or to Arabic dagn (دجن) 'rain-(cloud)'.

The theory relating the name to Hebrew dāg/dâg, 'fish', based solely upon a reading of 1*Samuel 5:2–7 is discussed in Fish-god tradition below. According to this etymology: Middle English Dagon < Late Latin (Ec.) Dagon < Late Greek (Ec.) Δάγων < Heb דגן dāgān, "grain (hence the god of agriculture), corn."

Ok, the blue letter bible is just Strong's concordance, btw. But if you are so convinced, just go to the root word, found here:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H1709&t=KJV

And scroll down a bit - substituting "grain" every time you see fish or fishes.

I especially the part where Jonah is swallowed by a giant grain! :xD:

 

[MoreCoffee]

Ok, the blue letter bible is just Strong's concordance, btw. But if you are so convinced, just go to the root word, found here:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H1709&t=KJV

And scroll down a bit - substituting "grain" every time you see fish or fishes.

I especially the part where Jonah is swallowed by a giant grain! :xD:

That isn't the root word. It's a 19th century notion. Drawn from a 13th century Jewish notion. It is not convincing.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Some more thoughts on unity in the church.

The Unity Of The Church.

By unity is meant that the members of the true Church must be
united in the belief of the same doctrines of revelation, and in
the acknowledgment of the authority of the same pastors. Heresy
and schism are opposed to Christian unity. By heresy, a man
rejects one or more articles of the Christian faith. By schism, he
spurns the authority of his spiritual superiors. That our Savior
requires this unity of faith and government in His members is
evident from various passages of Holy Writ. In His admirable
prayer immediately before His passion He says: "I pray for them
also who through their word shall believe in Me; that they all
may be one, as Thou, Father, in Me and I in Thee, that they also
may be one in Us; that the world may believe that Thou hast sent
Me," (John 17:20,21) because the unity of the Church is the most luminous
evidence of the Divine mission of Christ. Jesus prayed that His
followers may be united in the bond of a common faith, as He
and His Father are united in essence, and certainly the prayer of
Jesus is always heard.

St. Paul ranks schism and heresy with the crimes of murder
and idolatry, and he declares that the authors of sects shall not
possess the Kingdom of God. (Gal 5:20-21) He also addresses a letter to

the Ephesians from his prison in Rome, and if the words of the
Apostle should always command our homage, with how much
reverence are they to be received when he writes in chains from
the Imperial City! In this Epistle he insists upon unity of faith in
the following emphatic language: "Be careful to keep the unity
of the Spirit in the bond of peace; one body and one Spirit, as you
are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one
baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through
all, and in us all." (Eph 4:3-6) As you all, he says, worship one God, and
not many gods; as you acknowledge the same Divine Mediator
of redemption, and not many mediators; as you are sanctified by
the same Divine Spirit, and not by many spirits; as you all hope
for the same heaven, and not different heavens, so must you all
profess the same faith.

Unity of government is not less essential to the Church of
Christ than unity of doctrine. Our Divine Saviour never speaks
of His Churches, but of His Church. He does not say: "Upon this
rock I will build my Churches," but "upon this rock I will build
My Church," (Matt 16:18) from which words we must conclude that it never
was His intention to establish or to sanction various conflicting
denominations, but one corporate body, with all the members
united under one visible Head; for as the Church is a visible
body, it must have a visible head.

The Church is called a kingdom: "He shall reign over the
house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there shall be no
end." (Luke 1:32,33) Now in every well-regulated kingdom there is but one
king, one form of government, one uniform body of laws, which
all are obliged to observe. In like manner, in Christ's spiritual
kingdom, there must be one Chief to whom all owe spiritual
allegiance; one form of ecclesiastical government; one uniform
body of laws which all Christians are bound to observe; for,
"every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate." (Matt 12:25)

Our Savior calls His Church a sheepfold. "And there shall
be made one fold and one shepherd." (John 10:16) What more beautiful
or fitting illustration of unity can we have than that which is
suggested by a sheepfold? All the sheep of a flock cling together.
If they are momentarily separated, they are impatient till reunited.
They follow in the same path. They feed on the same pastures.
They obey the same shepherd, and fly from the voice of strangers.
So did our Lord intend that all the sheep of His fold should be
nourished by the same sacraments and the same bread of life;
that they should follow the same rule of faith as their guide to
heaven; that they should listen to the voice of one Chief Pastor,
and that they should carefully shun false teachers.​

 

[Josiah]

MoreCoffee,


The RC Denomination has a unity of NONE. It has theological unity with NONE. It has institutional unity with NONE. Is that the "unity" you applaud? One united ONLY and EXCLUSIVE with the ONE that ONE sees in the mirror?

Yes, I know... the RCC does have "unity" with IT ITSELF - exclusively, solely, uniquely, only - at least officially, institutionally and currently and in those things that it itself exclusively currently says are good for it itself to agree with it itself concerning. So what? The LDS is "united" with it itself at least as much as the RCC is "united" with it itself. I can't think of a denomination that isn't currently "united" with it itself and officially, institutionally in agreement with it itself currently in whatever it itself currently says is necessary for it itself to agree with it itself concerning.

If "unity" is so important to the RCC, why doesn't it start with itself? It is in unity with none, so LOTS of room for improvement. There is none with less unity than the RC Denomination has. Physician - heal thyself. As I read the laughable things you quote from the isolated, separate RCC in unity with NOTHING, all I can think of is Jesus' log/speck point... pot calling kettle black.



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

Josiah, the faithful carefully shun false teachers. Your post is false teaching.

 

[psalms 91]

MoreCoffee,


The RC Denomination has a unity of NONE. It has theological unity with NONE. It has institutional unity with NONE. Is that the "unity" you applaud? One united ONLY and EXCLUSIVE with the ONE that ONE sees in the mirror?

Yes, I know... the RCC does have "unity" with IT ITSELF - exclusively, solely, uniquely, only - at least officially, institutionally and currently and in those things that it itself exclusively currently says are good for it itself to agree with it itself concerning. So what? The LDS is "united" with it itself at least as much as the RCC is "united" with it itself. I can't think of a denomination that isn't currently "united" with it itself and officially, institutionally in agreement with it itself currently in whatever it itself currently says is necessary for it itself to agree with it itself concerning.

If "unity" is so important to the RCC, why doesn't it start with itself? It is in unity with none, so LOTS of room for improvement. There is none with less unity than the RC Denomination has. Physician - heal thyself. As I read the laughable things you quote from the isolated, separate RCC in unity with NOTHING, all I can think of is Jesus' log/speck point... pot calling kettle black.



- Josiah

Actually truthful

 

[Sword7]

The Second council of the Vatican held in the 1960s is a life time ago for most folk on CH yet the issues raised in the council and debated by its members and also by those from other faith traditions that confess the Christian faith are still with us today and some have become more urgent. Unity between Christians has advanced in some circles and retreated in others. The council had these things to say in its opening paragraphs on the matter of Unity

The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided.[SUP](1)[/SUP] Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.

But the Lord of Ages wisely and patiently follows out the plan of grace on our behalf, sinners that we are. In recent times more than ever before, He has been rousing divided Christians to remorse over their divisions and to a longing for unity. Everywhere large numbers have felt the impulse of this grace, and among our separated brethren also there increases from day to day the movement, fostered by the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the restoration of unity among all Christians. This movement toward unity is called "ecumenical." Those belong to it who invoke the Triune God and confess Jesus as Lord and Savior, doing this not merely as individuals but also as corporate bodies. For almost everyone regards the body in which he has heard the Gospel as his Church and indeed, God's Church. All however, though in different ways, long for the one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal and set forth into the world that the world may be converted to the Gospel and so be saved, to the glory of God.

The Sacred Council gladly notes all this. It has already declared its teaching on the Church, and now, moved by a desire for the restoration of unity among all the followers of Christ, it wishes to set before all Catholics the ways and means by which they too can respond to this grace and to this divine call. (source)

1. Cf. 1 Cor. 1, 13.

unity of the church and the unity of the Holy Spirit are two completely different things. And seldom presented with any honesty . which immediately exposes a disunity with the holy Spirit who is never dishonest .
for example when you speak of unity of the church you automatically, by ingrained bias, are referring to YOUR denomination . not Christs Church .and immediately there can be no unity .
Those who are led by the spirit of God are the sons of god . There then is Christs church .
It has no limitations, no earthly location ,it is not led by men, is not under the imposition, nor rule of mankind in any form at all .
The moment it is, it is then become the church of the one imposing rule over it and no longer Christs Church .

so the Vatican2 does not speak about unity of those who are led by the Spirit of God who are the sons of God .For they require no reunifying , they are already one in Christ Jesus,having been born again as NEW creatures in Christ ,having made partakers of the divine nature in Christ ,having been reconciled to god in unity ,having been made coheirs with Christ . walking in the Spirit of the living God .

so it is certainly not speaking of them . It is speaking of those it deems to be not under its own imposition,seeking to regain "control " over them and implying any who will not conform to "its image " are not i unity . and it is correct , they are not in unity with IT . but remain in unity with Christ Jesus being filed with the Holy Spirit .led by him and are thus n, the Sons of God .

 

[Josiah]

Josiah, the faithful carefully shun false teachers. Your post is false teaching.

Then name 5 denominations with which the RCC is in complete unity - institutionally or doctrinally. Oh, can't name even one? Not even one? Ah - what unity that is! The RCC is just like the LDS or UCC or UPC - sure, it's one with ITSELF but not with any other. So, that's your idea of "UNITY?" If one is in unity with NONE ergo such is in unity? How is the "unity" of the RCC any better than that of the LDS? The LDS is in institutional unity ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY with it itself and no other - exactly like the RCC is in institutional unity ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY with it itself. The LDS is in full, official, formal, denominational, current doctrinal unity ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY with it itself and no other - exactly like the RCC is in doctrinal unity ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY with it itself and no other. Ah. Your idea of "unity" is each self looks in the mirror at self and says, "Hey, I look like me!" You think that equals unity (well, only when it's the RCC).



.

 

[Sword7]

test post

 

[Rens]

come on kids dont fight. this unity thing doesnt hurry up this way.

 

[MoreCoffee]

unity of the church and the unity of the Holy Spirit are two completely different things.

I do not think that unity of the Church and the unity of the faithful in the Holy Spirit are different things because the Church is Christ's bride and body as well as the temple of the Holy Spirit. While it is true that on earth there are weeds as well as wheat in the field and good as well as bad fish in the net of the Kingdom of God this does not vitiate the unity of Christ nor the unity of the Church on earth nor the union of the faithful in Christ through the Holy Spirit. Paul wrote "Be anxious to preserve the unity of the Spirit within the bonds of peace. One body and one Spirit: to this you have been called by the one hope of your calling: one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in us all. Yet to each one of us there has been given grace according to the measure allotted by Christ. (Ephesians 4:3-7)" And those who are in communion with Christ agree with him.

And seldom presented with any honesty . which immediately exposes a disunity with the holy Spirit who is never dishonest .
for example when you speak of unity of the church you automatically, by ingrained bias, are referring to YOUR denomination .

The Church is not a denomination. That is an error straight from the pit of hell and a most wicked sander against Christ and his bride which is the Church. But many who have been raised in faith communities that are separated from the Catholic Church are taught errors about her and form opinions hostile to her which is what is present in the words you've written. It may not be a fault in them that they've been taught to despise the Catholic Church by their teachers, pastors, and others who write pamphlets (such as Jack Chick) or books (like Foxe's Book of Martyrs or The Two Babylons) but it is a most serious error to believe these hostile 'witnesses' and receive their venom as spiritual milk. It is time for maturity to take its place and for dispassionate examination of the facts. Those who want to know what the Catholic Church believes and teaches need only reach out for help from her sons and daughters. Read a Catechism or a book explaining Catholic teaching and see what the truth of her teaching is. Don't be deceived any longer by the dishonest appraisals of those who hate the Catholic Church.

not Christs Church .and immediately there can be no unity .
Those who are led by the spirit of God are the sons of god . There then is Christs church .
It has no limitations, no earthly location ,it is not led by men, is not under the imposition, nor rule of mankind in any form at all .

The Church is here on Earth as well as in heaven so it most assuredly does have a location and leaders who are men leading under Christ and led by the Holy Spirit. It is a serious error and slander against Christ himself to say that Christ did not found a Church here on Earth and that he did not give men to be its pastors, apostles, prophets, teachers and elders. Paul speaking in the Spirit said

Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. (1 Corinthians 12:27-28)​

and in another place he wrote

Yet to each one of us there has been given grace according to the measure allotted by Christ. Because of this, he says: "Ascending on high, he took captivity itself captive; he gave gifts to men." Now that he has ascended, what is left except for him also to descended, first to the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is the same one who also ascended above all the heavens, so that he might fulfill everything. And the same one granted that some would be Apostles, and some Prophets, yet truly others evangelists, and others pastors and teachers, for the sake of the perfection of the saints, by the work of the ministry, in the edification of the body of Christ, until we all meet in the unity of faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God, as a perfect man, in the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ. (Ephesians 4:7-13)​

These are men living on earth among us and they lead a body which is the Church of the Living God and is called by men the Catholic Church because it is present in all places (both on earth and in heaven) and over all time (since the day of Pentecost and later the ascension of the Lord to heaven).

The moment it is, it is then become the church of the one imposing rule over it and no longer Christs Church .

so the Vatican2 does not speak about unity of those who are led by the Spirit of God who are the sons of God .

The second Vatican council did speak Unity to the scattered faithful and offer a pathway for them to be received back into full communion within God's Church here on earth. That your post claims it didn't reflects more upon the teaching against the Catholic Church that you've received and its harmful effect upon those who accept it than it speaks about the truth regarding God's Church.

For they require no reunifying , they are already one in Christ Jesus,having been born again as NEW creatures in Christ ,having made partakers of the divine nature in Christ ,having been reconciled to god in unity ,having been made coheirs with Christ . walking in the Spirit of the living God .

so it is certainly not speaking of them . It is speaking of those it deems to be not under its own imposition,seeking to regain "control " over them and implying any who will not conform to "its image " are not i unity . and it is correct , they are not in unity with IT . but remain in unity with Christ Jesus being filed with the Holy Spirit .led by him and are thus n, the Sons of God .

There is something about your typing that reminds me of a chap who used to come here and who chatted a great deal in another forum - he too wrote a great deal against the Catholic Church. Your post reminds me of his posts in style and in content.