Does Non-Denominational mean No Name and No Definition?

[mayra_hart]

to hellisreal: thank you for your suggestion for my sister, but at this moment she is in deep waters with the sect. she state that this sect filled her up. she stay that the music is good. in my opinion there is a lot of not knowing the why? of the catholic church. the meaning of the mass etc… when you are in this possition you are easy prey for this sects. an the sad part is that most of there member are ex catholics. an some of them like to even attack the catholic church. anyway as long as she pray to the same god is ok i guess, maybe one day she will come back. ah sorry for my punctuation May the Sacred Heart of Jesus be Adored, Glorified, Loved & Preserved throughout the world, now & forever. Sacred Heart of Jesus, please pray for me. Saint Jude, Worker of Miracles, please pray for me. Saint Jude, Helper of the Hopeless, please pray for me. Amen

 

[mayra_hart]

to jmcrae thank you for your information about the disciple of christ. i also did my own reading an i found that the founder mr. campbell was a presbyterian.i have never been into a baptist or any other sect in sunday, but i did attend two of the disciple of christ cult in a friday, an i didn’t like it too loud an the choir in the altar?. i went because of my sister. an out of curiosity.i didn’t stay for the whole service.too long.an i didn’t feel like the real presence was there either.iam a cradle catholic so iam not use to there ways. about the bible some of them are very attach like baptist, an i believe that for most of them the bible is the only authority. the sad part of this that most of there member were catholics once .the other day my sister try to tell me that they also has eucharist, but i search an i ask an they told me NO, at least that was what father cestudie told me. anyway i pray for my sister that some day she will come back home.
"May the Sacred Heart of Jesus be Adored, Glorified, Loved & Preserved throughout the world, now & forever. Sacred Heart of Jesus, please pray for me. Saint Jude, Worker of Miracles, please pray for me. Saint Jude, Helper of the Hopeless, please pray for me. Amen:thumbsup:

 

[jmcrae]

to jmcrae thank you for your information about the disciple of christ. i also did my own reading an i found that the founder mr. campbell was a presbyterian.i have never been into a baptist or any other sect in sunday, but i did attend two of the disciple of christ cult in a friday, an i didn’t like it too loud an the choir in the altar?. i went because of my sister. an out of curiosity.i didn’t stay for the whole service.too long.an i didn’t feel like the real presence was there either.iam a cradle catholic so iam not use to there ways. about the bible some of them are very attach like baptist, an i believe that for most of them the bible is the only authority. the sad part of this that most of there member were catholics once .the other day my sister try to tell me that they also has eucharist, but i search an i ask an they told me NO, at least that was what father cestudie told me. anyway i pray for my sister that some day she will come back home.

We should pray to her Guardian Angel to bring her back to the truth of God and to the Church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi All
The first thing I want to say here is that most Protestant churches hold to the same core beliefs. I know that some play instruments and some don’t, or some are Faith only, but the core commandments are the same. My Wife’s family are all Catholic and her Sister believes in reincarnation, and her Uncle thinks that all but about 10 percent of people will go to Heaven because “God is a loving God”. My point is that if you think for ONE MINUTE that every Catholic believes everything your church teaches, then you’ve got your head in the sand. People in your church have come up with their own ideas of God just like in other Protestant churches, so before arrogantly slinging mud around you better start with your own church first.
In Him and Only Him

You are correct. There are Catholics who believe things that the Church does not teach. There are a billion of us, after all, so some divergence and disagreement is understandable.

However, and this is key, there is only one formal teaching by the Catholic Church. Differences are the result (primarily) of ignorance or willful disobedience.

This situation is VASTLY different from the fact the Protestant denominations through their formal governing bodies issue documtents and statements expressing conflicting and contradictory doctrines.

Protestantism is discredited by the lack of unity resulting from adherence to the false doctrine of sola scriptura. Each denomination has issued its own “song book” if you will. Each believer freely interprets that song book as he or she sees fit. And all under the banner of “the Bible Alone”.

Catholicism, in your estimation, is discredited by its like of discipline in keeping its members singing from the same page in the song book.

Very different situations.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[toaslan]

Digitonomy;

I think you are conflating the beliefs of a denominational body with the individual beliefs (which Toaslan is calling “opinions” for the purpose of differentiating them from the beliefs of the denomination) of the adherents thereof.

well said!

The beliefs (official teachings) of the Catholic Church are found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

yup

Where does one find the beliefs (official teachings) of non-denominational Christian communities? (Do they even exist?) Again, we are not speaking about the beliefs of particular individuals, but of the community with which they are affiliated.

Previous posters have said that there is usually a “constitution”, an agreed-upon statement of belief for those willing to sign on to it–that constitutes that group’s official beliefs…

It is perfectly possible for individuals to disagree completely with the teachings of the Church they attend each Sunday, while being completely oblivious of that fact

sadly true of the Catholic Church, though we adherents have even less excuse than our non-denom friends because our teachings are so “out there”.

…especially if they can’t find an official body of teachings that would clearly contradict them.

I guess that would make it even harder to know what any one non-denominational would believe–since his group’s official statement of belief is even less transparent to the world than is the Catholic Church’s statement of belief. Shorter, yes!, but less accessible, known only to a few. (e.g., I have been told, on this thread, to ask my Protestant friends for a copy of the constitution of their non-denom church–well, they won’t have it on them…)

 

[toaslan]

Digitonomy;
I think you are conflating the beliefs of a denominational body with the individual beliefs (which Toaslan is calling “opinions” for the purpose of differentiating them from the beliefs of the denomination) of the adherents thereof.

Ok by me!

The beliefs (official teachings) of the Catholic Church are found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

yup

Where does one find the beliefs (official teachings) of non-denominational Christian communities? (Do they even exist?) Again, we are not speaking about the beliefs of particular individuals, but of the community with which they are affiliated.

Previous posters have said that there is usually a “constitution”, an agreed-upon statement of belief for those willing to sign on to it–that constitutes that group’s official beliefs…

It is perfectly possible for individuals to disagree completely with the teachings of the Church they attend each Sunday, while being completely oblivious of that fact

sadly true of the Catholic Church, though we adherents have even less excuse than our non-denom friends because our teachings are so “out there”.

…especially if they can’t find an official body of teachings that would clearly contradict them.

That would make it even harder to know what any one non-denominational would believe–since his group’s official statement of belief is even less transparent to the world than is the Catholic Church’s statement of belief. Shorter, yes!, but less accessible, known only to a few. (e.g., I have been told, on this thread, to ask my Protestant friends for a copy of the constitution of their non-denom church–well, they won’t have it on them…)

All too true, unfortunately!

 

[toaslan]

You are correct. There are Catholics who believe things that the Church does not teach…
However, and this is key, there is only one formal teaching by the Catholic Church. Differences are the result (primarily) of ignorance or willful disobedience.

If we juxtapose the above with the below, we have a situation:

Digitonomy:

Just as every individual Catholic has a unique collection of beliefs, and every parish priest likewise…

To, again, address that situation: When a Catholic holds something to be true which is actually contrary to the teaching of the Church, it is a result (primarily) of ignorance or willful disobedience. AMEN. Infinitely more so if it is a priest in question.

One of the marks of the Church is unity–all Catholics everywhere believe the same truths, obey the same laws, receive the same sacraments, and accept the authority of the one pope–straight out of the catechism. This kind of unity is one of the ways anyone can identify the Catholic Church.

This situation is VASTLY different from the fact the Protestant denominations through their formal governing bodies issue documents and statements expressing conflicting and contradictory doctrines.

Protestantism is discredited by the lack of unity resulting from adherence to the false doctrine of sola scriptura. Each denomination has issued its own “song book” if you will. Each believer freely interprets that song book as he or she sees fit. And all under the banner of “the Bible Alone”.

Well said, sir!

 

[jmcrae]

Previous posters have said that there is usually a “constitution”, an agreed-upon statement of belief for those willing to sign on to it–that constitutes that group’s official beliefs…

And it won’t really tell you anything about what non-denominational Christians generally believe, since each group has its own - the next non-denominational Christian that you meet will have a completely different set of beliefs, because he attends a different church.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

And it won’t really tell you anything about what non-denominational Christians generally believe, since each group has its own - the next non-denominational Christian that you meet will have a completely different set of beliefs, because he attends a different church.

Hi JM,

I thought you were above propoganda . I dont think you can back up your statement.

I bet if you you check out all the non-denom in the USA you would find we have the same core beliefs that are most likely the same as the other protestant churches and the CC.
What are those core beliefs you ask
Trinity
death,resurrection and ascention of Christ for our sins
saved by grace through faith
hypostatic union
baptism
communion
Im sure Im missing something but you get my point.

The first 4 on my list are truths we must believe in order to be christians. Salvation if you will.

 

[mayra_hart]

iam a cradle catholic went to catholic school for 12 years. during those times i never ask the why of the catholic church. i just attended an that was it. then later in live i stop going by then i was in my 20’s. now that iam a mother i went back to church an after reading a lot of book an history of the early church and early father now i can said that i enjoy going to church.like i say catholics need to read and educated themselves that way they can defend there faith against this fundamentalist.“May the Sacred Heart of Jesus be Adored, Glorified, Loved & Preserved throughout the world, now & forever. Sacred Heart of Jesus, please pray for me. Saint Jude, Worker of Miracles, please pray for me. Saint Jude, Helper of the Hopeless, please pray for me. Amen.”

 

[mayra_hart]

It is this principle of a living authority divinely commissioned to preserve and authoritatively interpret Divine Revelation which is the bond of union among the different members of the Catholic Church. To its repudiation is not only due the initial separation of non-Catholics, but also their subsequent failure in preserving union among themselves. Protestantism in particular, by its proclamation of the right of private interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures swept away with one stroke all living authority and constituted the individual supreme judge in doctrinal matters. Its divisions are therefore but natural, and its heresy trials in disagreement with one of its fundamental principles. The disastrous results of the many divisions among Christians are keenly felt today and the longing for union is manifest. The manner, however, in which the desired result may be attained is not clear to non-Catholics. Many see the solution in undogmatic Christianity or undenominationalism.this i quoted from the catholic encyclopedia. “May the Sacred Heart of Jesus be Adored, Glorified, Loved & Preserved throughout the world, now & forever. Sacred Heart of Jesus, please pray for me. Saint Jude, Worker of Miracles, please pray for me. Saint Jude, Helper of the Hopeless, please pray for me. Amen.”

 

[Digitonomy]

toaslan, thanks for clarifying this confusion with the help of jmcrae.

To, again, address that situation: When a Catholic holds something to be true which is actually contrary to the teaching of the Church, it is a result (primarily) of ignorance or willful disobedience.

Agreed. At which point I must reiterate what I said earlier: There are many things which we believe that are not defined one way or another by the Church. Likewise, there are many issues which may not be defined by a particular non-denominational church. The point I was trying to make in reply to your post #8…

Digitonomy:

The question is which of those beliefs the church decides to make dogma.

Many churches define very few doctrines. So if Church A declares that say body piercing is a sin, they may well think that Church B is wrong not to have so stated. But in spite of that, it may be that all the members of Church B believe that body piercing is sinful. So you’d have a situation where two churces are in disagreement technically, but not practically.

ALLFORHIM:

I bet if you you check out all the non-denom in the USA you would find we have the same core beliefs

I’d agree with ALLFORHIM that most non-denominational churches are on the same page on most issues, but he clearly underestimates the diversity of belief that are out there. I have a friend whose church basically follows Sabellianism. I don’t think it’s part of a larger denomination, so that would technically qualify as a non-denominational church. And they effectively deny the Trinity.

While these sorts of things happen, they are not as frequent in the Catholic Church. This is due to historical precedent resolving many big issues either definitively or leaving them to prudential judgement, and its centralized structure which limits some decisions to Rome and allows other local decisions to be overridden by Rome.

 

[toaslan]

*The disastrous results of the many divisions among Christians are keenly felt today and the longing for union is manifest. The manner, however, in which the desired result may be attained is not clear to non-Catholics. Many see the solution in undogmatic Christianity or undenominationalism. * this i quoted from the catholic encyclopedia.

So for some Protestants, the solution to Christian disunity is to have few doctrines or undenominationalism (which I guess is meant as the same thing)? Well, I can see how this might appear a remedy. Sort of falls apart when you go into it, though! And it would appear only a solution to protestant disunity–even if they all could agree on the same small core of beliefs, they would still exclude Catholic Christianity… (and I agree, Mayra, all Catholics young and old should seek deeper formation in their Catholic faith!)

 

[toaslan]

Man, I started your post in such high hopes!

There are many things which we believe that are not defined one way or another by the Church.

Well, speaking for myself, in the area of faith I believe *nothing *which is not defined by the Church. If I could think of something, or if anybody challenges me on any statement of doctrine, I would compare the challenged opinion against our objective standard of belief, the Catechism. If my belief can be shown to contradict some part of the Content, then I am prepared beforehand to give up that unbelief.

I accept, with my mind, what is proposed for my belief by the Church. I embrace, with my will, what I accept with my mind. Thus, I believe, I have the Faith.

I have no belief, in the area of my religion, outside of/other than the stated Content of Faith. Really!

I have, on the other hand, lots of opinions.

The examples you choose are not to me examples of beliefs.

Maybe I could see your point if you could illustrate it using an actual, undisputed belief of the Catholic Faith. Like, Mary was Immaculately Conceived. Now, that is formally proposed for our belief, that we must believe to be Catholics, and that I do believe. If my belief in this proposition, unbeknownst to me, is in any way contrary to the way this truth is intended by the Church to be received by the faithful, then in advance I pray Mary and God to help my unbelief.

Likewise

but, not!

Rather than “likewise”, the dissimilarity is stark between our Deposit of Faith, and what I have read on this thread so far as to the varying lists of beliefs for various non-denominational groups. Catholics, admire us or scorn us for it, have a Catechism stating the propositions we must accept as true (believe).

Can’t you use another word than “believe” when, in a Catholic context, you are outside the defined Deposit of the Faith? Such use of “believe”–the use which works in a sentence like (and I’m going for a clearly non-religious use), “I believe my shoe is untied,”–I submit that such use does not serve in conversation about religious belief.

What the individual members hold to be true, and what your Church B teaches them is true, may be two different things. They may be mistaken, due to ignorance or willfulness, as to the doctrine proposed for their belief by Church B. So what they think is “belief” is really “unbelief” in the teachings of Church B.

Because lots of Catholics think it’s OK to use contraception is irrelevant to whether or not the Catholic Church teaches us contraception is wrong. If people think it is right, they err, that’s all. They believe something which, insofar as they believe it, makes them less Catholic. It is not a Catholic belief, and you can’t be Catholic and believe it. IN THAT RESPECT, one would be less-than-Catholic.

In fact, if you take it far enough, and public enough, and egregious enough, you will be self-excommunicated. You will truly be not-Catholic.

continued…

 

[toaslan]

(regarding diversity of beliefs) While these sorts of things happen, they are not as frequent in the Catholic Church. This is due to historical precedent resolving many big issues either definitively or leaving them to prudential judgement, and its centralized structure which limits some decisions to Rome and allows other local decisions to be overridden by Rome.

Wow. ** I** think it is due to having an objective standard of belief–“Here is the list of (divinely inspired) beliefs, and you must accept this list as a member of this Church!”

I see this as a battle between objective and subjective, which is why I may be beating this sidepoint to death. For Catholics, we have the relief of an objective standard of belief, (ooo, a rap) and the divine guarantee behind that. For Protestants, they are at the mercy of influence, both within their own minds and from any convincing self-proclaimed pastor. They cannot escape the trap of subjectivity.

On this topic of the right use of the term “belief”, I think I’ll let you have the last word, Digit! Because I believe I am now just repeating myself myself myself.

I’d agree with ALLFORHIM that most non-denominational churches are on the same page on most issues, but he clearly underestimates the diversity of belief that are out there. I have a friend whose church basically follows Sabellianism. I don’t think it’s part of a larger denomination, so that would technically qualify as a non-denominational church. And they effectively deny the Trinity.

I don’t know that word, Sabellianism. Do those who embrace it “label” themselves non-denominationals? It’s a denial of the Trinity? how would they differ from Unitarians?

 

[Digitonomy]

If my belief can be shown to contradict some part of the Content, then I am prepared beforehand to give up that unbelief.

What if it cannot be shown to contradict the CCC, but one could reasonably draw a different conclusion than the one you drew? Does your belief suddenly become just an opinion?

There is also the issue that the CCC is incomplete, so you can’t very well believe only what is found in it - there are many other sources of doctrine.

toaslan:

Can’t you use another word than “believe” when, in a Catholic context, you are outside the defined Deposit of the Faith?

You are free to use separate words to distinguish between those views held by Catholics which conform to the Catechism, and those views held by Catholics which are neither confirmed by nor refuted by the Catechism, and those views held by Catholics which contradict the Catechism.

But I’m trying to reflect the use that individuals themselves would apply. It also happens to reflect the use of social scientists and other observers. If a person believes that burying a figurine of St Joseph in his back yard will help him sell the house, that’s his belief. It may be an erroneous belief, but he considers it part of his faith. Calling it an opinion, as you suggest, would be misleading. Also, using the word “belief” for the informal but firmly-held views of Protestants but not for those of Catholics would be a silly and confusing dichotomy.

toaslan:

Such use of “believe”–the use which works in a sentence like (and I’m going for a clearly non-religious use), “I believe my shoe is untied,”–I submit that such use does not serve in conversation about religious belief.

This is an interesting proposition, but not one I have heard before this thread. You might expect that the Catechism would limit use of the word in the way you recommend, but even in a book that is primarily applied theology, the word “believe” is used in a non-religious way.

Even in human relations it is not contrary to our diginity to believe what other persons tell us about themselves and their intentions…(154)

Moreover, I am using the term in matters which are very much religious, so I’m missing the point of your shoe-tying analogy.

toaslan:

What the individual members hold to be true, and what your Church B teaches them is true, may be two different things. They may be mistaken, due to ignorance or willfulness, as to the doctrine proposed for their belief by Church B. So what they think is “belief” is really “unbelief” in the teachings of Church B.

Ah, now we’re getting back to my real argument. Since the doctrine stated by Church B may be cursory at best, and since the arbiters of doctrine are the congregation and the pastor, then what the congregation believes in many cases IS that church’s doctrine, even though it’s not spelled out on paper.

 

[Digitonomy]

toslan:

I don’t know that word, Sabellianism. Do those who embrace it “label” themselves non-denominationals?

I believe some do. Although I don’t think the label of “non-denominational” is as important to them as other labels, such as Christian, evangelical, pentecostal, holiness, or whatever other label may apply.

toaslan:

It’s a denial of the Trinity? how would they differ from Unitarians?

Sabellianism is strictly speaking a type of unitarianism, but modern Unitarianism rejects the divinity of the Son, while Sabellianism states that not only was the Son God, it was the Father/Son/Holy Spirit that was crucified. The present Unitarian Universalist church has a number of additional views that deviate from traditional unitarianism.

 

[jmcrae]

Digitonomy;

What exactly is your thesis? I’m trying to figure it out, and I’m getting very, very confused.

 

[Digitonomy]

Digitonomy;What exactly is your thesis? I’m trying to figure it out, and I’m getting very, very confused.

The main point I was trying to make was my post #10 in response to toaslan’s post #8.

Most of what I’ve said since then has been discussion with** toaslan** about why my use of the word “belief” was appropriate, especially in a thread like this where we are comparing beliefs of Catholics with beliefs of those in churches which in some cases have no formal statement of doctrine.

If you can point to other specific issues where I’ve been confusing, I will try to clarify my views.

 

[jmcrae]

Non-denominational churches sometimes pick a name - usually by joining an established denomination.

Um - no.

Protestant denominations don’t “take in” already-existing congregations. In fact, one of the functions of denominational leadership is church planting, and what they do is they raise money from existing congregations, train up leadership, and go into communities where they haven’t yet got a presence to build up a new church.

There could be a non-denom church to the left, to the right, across the street, and out the back, but they will not absorb even one of them into their own denomination. They might try to entice individuals to convert, but they won’t wholesale take any of them over, and even if the non-denom wanted to convert wholesale, the denominational body would require them to take membership classes, move out of their current building, and accept an already-existing leader from that denomination to be their pastor.

Pastor Billy-Bob of the Whizz-bang Church of the Loud Halleluja couldn’t just suddenly become a Baptist pastor, nor could his flock just suddenly become Baptists - there would be a whole process that they would have to follow, before each individual congregant could be considered a Baptist - and most likely Pastor Billy-Bob would be nicely asked to step aside and be kind enough to disappear into the hills while Pastor James Hilltop Junior the Third takes over his pulpit - Pastor Billy-Bob would have to get credentials from a Baptist seminary before he would be permitted to return - and if he did by some chance have the money to go back to school, and if he was actually dumb enough to come back in the hopes of getting his old job back, they might let him guest preach once or twice a year, maybe in the summer time when there’s not too many people around.

Just as every individual Catholic has a unique collection of beliefs, and every parish priest likewise, so too do non-denominational Christians, and likewise each non-denominational church. The question is which of those beliefs the church decides to make dogma.

No, this is backwards. In the case of the Catholic Church, Christ gave the teachings of the Church to the Apostles, and they in their turn passed them on to us.

In the case of Protestant denominations, the founders come up with a statement of beliefs, and teach them to the people.

In no case does either the Catholic Church nor any Protestant church ever start with the already-existing beliefs of the lay people and then “make them dogma.” That just doesn’t happen. Even the recent experiment with this idea in the United Church of Canada ended up going to a committee of the Moderator of the General Council, which apparently is still trying to figure out what “the United Church of Canada” actually believes - and the end result is going to be what they think members of the United Church of Canada ought to believe, rather than what the members who were polled actually do believe.