Is it better to have many denominations?

[Father_of_8]

The analogy of roads is an apt one. I believe that the many different Christian denominations are like different roads, all leading to Heaven. However, I believe the Catholic Church offers the straightest path to that goal. But, you can be on any one of the various roads, including the road of the Catholic Church, and either be moving towards the goal, standing still, or even moving in the opposite direction based on your actions. I also believe that few in number from all of the roads will converge at the narrow gate to Heaven. So it’s not enough to just be on the right road. You must also be moving in the right direction by doing the Father’s will. Those people on different roads may have a different journey, but they too can reach the narrow gate by living like Christ.

 

[Teflon93]

The analogy of roads is an apt one. I believe that the many different Christian denominations are like different roads, all leading to Heaven. However, I believe the Catholic Church offers the straightest path to that goal. But, you can be on any one of the various roads, including the road of the Catholic Church, and either be moving towards the goal, standing still, or even moving in the opposite direction based on your actions. I also believe that few in number from all of the roads will converge at the narrow gate to Heaven. So it’s not enough to just be on the right road. You must also be moving in the right direction by doing the Father’s will. Those people on different roads may have a different journey, but they too can reach the narrow gate by living like Christ.

Well said!

It’s also worth noting it is much easier to reach one’s destination on a straight road than a twisting one.

How hard it is to live the Christian life without the aid of the full complement of Sacraments!

 

[Kay_Cee]

I do think different denominations are good for Christianity. Like you said, more brands leads to bigger mindshare. It also leads to a healthy competition between denoms which keeps them all honest.

Honesty is in adherence to truth.

When different denominations teach different doctrines that contradict each other, how can that possibly be adherence to truth?

Jesus prayed in John 17 that we all be one *as he and the Father are one. *I can’t imagine Jesus and the Father having “a healthy competition” between them.

 

[Genesis315]

I agree with St. Thomas and the Catholic Encyclopedia:

HERESY

I. CONNOTATION AND DEFINITION

St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas”. "The right Christian faith consists in giving one’s voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ’s doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval. The heretical tenets may be ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas: in none of these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness–free choice–is wanting and such heresy is merely objective, or material. On the other hand the will may freely incline the intellect to adhere to tenets declared false by the Divine teaching authority of the Church. The impelling motives are many: intellectual pride or exaggerated reliance on one’s own insight; the illusions of religious zeal; the allurements of political or ecclesiastical power; the ties of material interests and personal status; and perhaps others more dishonourable. Heresy thus willed is imputable to the subject and carries with it a varying degree of guilt; it is called formal, because to the material error it adds the informative element of “freely willed”.

IV. GRAVITY OF THE SIN OF HERESY

Heresy is a sin because of its nature it is destructive of the virtue of Christian faith. Its malice is to be measured therefore by the excellence of the good gift of which it deprives the soul. Now faith is the most precious possession of man, the root of his supernatural life, the pledge of his eternal salvation. Privation of faith is therefore the greatest evil, and deliberate rejection of faith is the greatest sin. St. Thomas (II-II, Q. x, a. 3) arrives at the same conclusion thus:* “All sin is an aversion from God. A sin, therefore, is the greater the more it separates man from God.* But infidelity does this more than any other sin, for the infidel (unbeliever) is without the true knowledge of God: his false knowledge does not bring him help, for what he opines is not God: manifestly, then, the sin of unbelief ( infidelitas) is the greatest sin in the whole range of perversity.” And he adds: "Although the Gentiles err in more things than the Jews, and although the Jews are farther removed from true faith than heretics, yet the unbelief of the Jews is a more grievous sin than that of the Gentiles, because they corrupt the Gospel itself after having adopted and professed the same. . . . It is a more serious sin not to perform what one has promised than not to perform what one has not promised." It cannot be pleaded in attenuation of the guilt of heresy that heretics do not deny the faith which to them appears necessary to salvation, but only such articles as they consider not to belong to the original deposit. In answer it suffices to remark that two of the most evident truths of the depositum fidei are the unity of the Church and the institution of a teaching authority to maintain that unity. That unity exists in the Catholic Church, and is preserved by the function of her teaching body: these are two facts which anyone can verify for himself. In the constitution of the Church there is no room for private judgment sorting essentials from non-essentials***: any such selection disturbs the unity,and challenges the Divine authority, of the Church; it strikes at the very source of faith.*** The guilt of heresy is measured not so much by its subject-matter as by its formal principle, which is the same in all heresies: revolt against a Divinely constituted authority.

(The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII. Published 1910. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York) newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm

In Summation, I reiterate, heretics and are not Christian in the slightest, that includes but is not limited to, many Christian denominations. GOD Bless you.

I don’t see how this is at odds with anything I wrote (I am assuming you were implying that it was) .

Formal heretics are indeed separated from the Body of Christ, but they do retain the indellible mark, which is why they are not re-Baptized upon re-entering. There is a true ontological difference between a “never-been-Christian” and a former Christian.

That being said, that is not what was at issue. I was specifically discussing individuals who were not formal heretics–whose who had not willed the choice by means of what suited their own pleasure or the other reasons St. Thomas gave.

Again, someone who is separated from the visible unity of the Church but is united by their Baptism (which truly incorporates them as members according to the Scriptures and the Holy Councils of the Church) and their desire to believe the truth about the faith, God, and His Church (even if they have an erronrous understanding of that truth) do carry the indellible mark and are incorporated into the Body of Christ. I maintain the assertion that given this state, calling them “not Christian in the slightest” is erroneous and at best “close to heresy” by denying the power and effects of Holy Baptism and by denying the necessity of will in regards to the imputability of actual sin. (see this article and the cited sections of the Summa: newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm )

The first paragraph from this article from the CE draws the distinction between formal heretics or schismatics and infidels. You seem to be wanting to place even formal heretics into the same class of infidels or formal apostates, but this is not the case:

newadvent.org/cathen/08002b.htm

 

[Contarini]

That doesn’t make them any more Christian than a practicing Catholic he renounces the Faith and becomes a satanic priest. If you don’t hold and profess all of the Truths of the Faith then you’re not a Christian.

Why would I, as a Protestant, care what you think when you are plainly contradicting the current teaching of your own Church? If your Church has really erred as seriously as you are implying (since it certainly does not teach today what you are saying), then clearly it was never what it claimed to be. Your position deconstructs itself and cannot possibly be true.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Hi all! Something just occurred to me. I was thinking, is it better to have many denominations? The reason being that, like in economics/marketing, the more denominations/brands we have, the bigger the market share that Christendom has. So in this regard, is it better to have more denominations?

Anyway, just something that just occurred to me. Please be gentle!

This is an argument put forward by the sociologists of religion Rodney Stark and Roger Finke (see especially their book Acts of Faith). Of course, this presupposes that the purpose of the Church is to “corner the market” for some ideology called Christianity. If the purpose of Christianity is to bring all persons into union with God and each other by incorporating them into Christ’s Body the Church–well, then, things look very different. I don’t really care about how big a share of the market “Christianity” has. I care about the Church, period.

Edwin

 

[mozart-250]

Hi all! Something just occurred to me. I was thinking, is it better to have many denominations? The reason being that, like in economics/marketing, the more denominations/brands we have, the bigger the market share that Christendom has. So in this regard, is it better to have more denominations?

Anyway, just something that just occurred to me. Please be gentle!

I dunno but it is kind of difficult for me to believe that a gazillion or so denominations is what Jesus had in mind when He designed the church. I’d love somebody to argue the opposite, however.

And I am not sure the original premise is correct either. Certainly Christianity would be more credible to a skeptical world if it were able to speak with one voice.

(disclaimer: this does not imply that I believe Catholicism to be the church that Jesus had in mind)

 

[Teflon93]

I dunno but it is kind of difficult for me to believe that a gazillion or so denominations is what Jesus had in mind when He designed the church. I’d love somebody to argue the opposite, however.

And I am not sure the original premise is correct either. Certainly Christianity would be more credible to a skeptical world if it were able to speak with one voice.

(disclaimer: this does not imply that I believe Catholicism to be the church that Jesus had in mind)

I’d love so see the argument that the Catholic Church *** isn’t*** the one he had in mind given none but the Orthodox can even come within a millennium of it’s founding!

 

[Father_of_8]

In Mark 9:38-40 we hear the Apostles complaining to Jesus that someone else is doing works in His Name, but they don’t belong to the same group as the Apostles.

"38. John said to Him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to hinder him because he was not following us.” 39. But Jesus said, "Do not hinder him, for there is no one who shall perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. 40. “For he who is not against us is for us.”

In John 10:16 we hear our Lord tell the Apostles,

"And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they shall hear My voice; and they shall become one flock [with] one shepherd.

Both of these passages tell me that we must not assume that only “us” will be saved. Many people who are not Catholic will do great things in Jesus’ name and hear his voice. We will become one flock some day, although it may not be until His Second Coming.

 

[justasking4]

Yes they are heretics and are not Christian in the slightest.

I thought the catholic church considered prostantents “separate brethren”?

 

[MMLJ]

Formal heretics are indeed separated from the Body of Christ, but they do retain the indellible mark, which is why they are not re-Baptized upon re-entering. There is a true ontological difference between a “never-been-Christian” and a former Christian.

That being said, that is not what was at issue. I was specifically discussing individuals who were not formal heretics–whose who had not willed the choice by means of what suited their own pleasure or the other reasons St. Thomas gave.

Again, someone who is separated from the visible unity of the Church but is united by their Baptism (which truly incorporates them as members according to the Scriptures and the Holy Councils of the Church) and their desire to believe the truth about the faith, God, and His Church (even if they have an erronrous understanding of that truth) do carry the indellible mark and are incorporated into the Body of Christ. I maintain the assertion that given this state, calling them “not Christian in the slightest” is erroneous and at best “close to heresy” by denying the power and effects of Holy Baptism and by denying the necessity of will in regards to the imputability of actual sin. (see this article and the cited sections of the Summa: newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm )

Yes you are correct, heretics are not re-baptized upon re-entering (I sure you mean re-entering The One and Only Church - The Catholic Church). In addition, the Baptism must be a valid, that is as outlined in the Catholic Encyclopedia (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume II. Published 1907)newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#XII
or in the Catechism of the Council of Trent. In particular,

Authoritative Statement of Doctrine (which includes The Positive Document: "The Decree for the Armenians" and The Negative Document: "De Baptismo"), Institution of the Sacrament, Matter and Form of the Sacrament, Effects of Baptism, etc. So yes, if it is this baptism we are talking about, than of course they would have a valid baptism. I thought it was understood that baptism, by a denomination, is an invalid one (i.e. not adhere to Council of Trent). But for the most part, the baptism performed by the denominations, is not as outlined by the Council, and hence not Christian because it is invalid.
I do not see he value of denominations since there is only one Church instituted by our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ+, and that is the Catholic Church.

 

[ryanoneil]

Luke 22:31-32
31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat;
32 but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers”.

“you” in the first verse is a second person plural pronoun. In other words “you all”, and in the second verse “you” is singular applying to Simon.

Sounds alot like Satan’s trying to divide the faithful and Jesus wants Peter (bishop of Rome) to hold them together.

 

[bankerdavid]

I do think different denominations are good for Christianity. Like you said, more brands leads to bigger mindshare. It also leads to a healthy competition between denoms which keeps them all honest.

Actually, no protestant church is completely honest to the word o God. There is only one truth, Jesus passed that truth to the Apostles and Peter, who passed it down to their disciples, and so on and so on. This is called the **One Holy Catholic **and Apostolic Church.

 

[Delphinus85]

Hi all! Something just occurred to me. I was thinking, is it better to have many denominations? The reason being that, like in economics/marketing, the more denominations/brands we have, the bigger the market share that Christendom has. So in this regard, is it better to have more denominations?

Anyway, just something that just occurred to me. Please be gentle!

I don’t think so. I rather think of the more denomnations there is, the more pieces the body of christ is hacked up in to. Even one piece is too many