No Denominations?

[IggyAntiochus]

Only if you deny that myth holds deep Truth within its framework and cannot be understood apart from it’s “story”…I do not. I do not place my faith in the “myth”…but in the One whom the myth seeks to make known.

If the One it seeks to make known is not reliable enough to make Himself known in true, historical information, but instead seeks to make Himself known through false data, then why would I really want to know Him? Especially given that I have no assurance that I really know Him unless I have the ability to discern His truth from His error.

The early martyrs and the apostles suffered torture and death for the statement that Christ is the Son of God, conceived by the Spirit, was born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, and was raised on the third day for our justification. They did not die for mythical information about a nebulous deity or inner enlightenment.

 

[Publisher]

If the One it seeks to make known is not reliable enough to make Himself known in true, historical information, but instead seeks to make Himself known through false data, then why would I really want to know Him? Especially given that I have no assurance that I really know Him unless I have the ability to discern His truth from His error.

The early martyrs and the apostles suffered torture and death for the statement that Christ is the Son of God, conceived by the Spirit, was born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, and was raised on the third day for our justification. They did not die for mythical information about a nebulous deity or inner enlightenment.

Myth…sacred story…is historically based…but the Truth is much more profound and deep than can be contained in simple historical events…many have died for faith traditions that have nothing to do with Christianity…martyrs prove nothing…just that some people are willing to die for their beliefs.

If your understanding of the Sacred Stories contained in scripture only find meaning in ascribing absolute historical events to them…wonderful…but they make no sense to me outside of understanding them as myth.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Myth…sacred story…is historically based…but the Truth is much more profound and deep than can be contained in simple historical events…many have died for faith traditions that have nothing to do with Christianity…martyrs prove nothing…just that some people are willing to die for their beliefs.

Not applicable to the apostles and other martyrs who knew Jesus during His ministry on earth. The apostles and eyewitnesses to Christ objectively knew whether Christ rose from the dead or not. They did not just die for the belief that He was raised. If they didn’t see Him, they died for something they knew was false.

 

[TypesAndShadows]

I actually said that I do not receive communion in the Catholic church here (or at least, this is what I meant).

I receive in the Episcopal Church, and I used to in a more liberal Catholic church back in the States. The reason I received there is they made it clear that they disagree with Rome’s rules about communion, and invited everyone to partake.

If I’m invited, I go. If not, I don’t. I can still be welcome, and not receive.

Such Catholic churches should be reported to the Bishop, or higher, because they are mispresenting the faith and leading souls astray. If they “disagree with Rome’s rules about communion”, do they even believe in the sacrifice of the Mass? These are not “liberal Catholic churches”, but “Catholic churches that have fallen out of communion and into error”, and the hierarchy should be made very aware of what is going on.

 

[englishredrose]

Do you believe in God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Spirit?

the answer of that alone should be enough…

 

[Publisher]

Not applicable to the apostles and other martyrs who knew Jesus during His ministry on earth. The apostles and eyewitnesses to Christ objectively knew whether Christ rose from the dead or not. They did not just die for the belief that He was raised. If they didn’t see Him, they died for something they knew was false.

We have no eyewitness accounts of those who knew Jesus…we have pseudynomous/anonymous writings written int he names of his apostles…Paul claimed to have met some of the original 12…but we have no writings from any of the original 12…sacred story/tradition not withstanding…and Paul claims to have learned all he knew thru revelation directly from the Risen Christ.

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

Do you believe in God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Spirit?

the answer of that alone should be enough…

Are you asking me?

I absolutely believe on God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost!

I say everything in the Apostle’s Creed except for the lines:

• Born of the Virgin Mary
• Descended into Hell
• Ascended into Heaven

And I leave these out mostly because I am very unsure about either what they mean, or because, in the case of the Virgin Birth, I think it is untrue.

I believe in God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. More complex concepts of the Trinity and Hypostatic Union are unclear to me, though I enjoy speculating. I lean toward an adoptionist view (the Shepherd of Hermas is one of my favorite non-canonical Christian texts).

 

[Stephen168]

There’s a concept I’ve been thinking about, called post-denominational Christianity. First, some definitions:

Denominational Christianity: Here I mean any Christian communion that has a history, a creed and a defining character (it is in some way exclusive). Even groups that may not be denominations under the standard definition, such as Orthodox or Catholics, qualify as part of denominational Christianity under this definition.

Non-denominational Christianity: This was an effort to break away from any denominations and to found a Christian community that did not have any defining character or creed. Very quickly it developed a character and creed. After a couple decades, it also developed a unique history, and therefore itself became a denomination.

Post-denominational Christianity: This is a meta-group within Christianity. Different denominational Christians can be post-denominational. Post-denominational Christianity will not become a denomination, because it will be open to all denominational forms of Christianity, and indeed all groups that identify as Christian. Any worship or doctrinal choice will be a matter of taste, or even a matter of believing that one form of worship or element of doctrine is true or right, while remaining open to the possibility of being wrong. To keep from having a centralised character, post- denominational Christians will worship within multiple denominations; it may be helpful for its diversity that post-denominational Christians attend a different denomination each time they move, or that they go to multiple different churches on Sunday or through the week. The only denominational element post-denominational Christianity will come to have is a historical character.

I am a post-denominational Christian. I worship during the week with a group at my university (non-denominational), p ray the morning prayer at a Scottish Episcopalian Church, and attend contemporary Presbyterian worship on Sundays (while twice a month going to Catholic Mass on Saturday evening). I have made meaningful connections within these communities, and am starting to build bridges.

What do you think of this sort of movement?

It seems you desire to move from a cult of every pastor is a Pope to a cult of every individual is their own Pope. If you believe everyone is right then nothing is true

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

It seems you desire to move from a cult of every pastor is a Pope to a cult of every individual is their own Pope.

I think that, on a practical level, every individual is his or her own pope! You can go to the discussion I’m having at forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9257187#post9257187 to discuss this issue further. Maybe I adopt this view more directly than some?

If you believe everyone is right then nothing is true

I do not believe everyone is right. I think that it’s very likely that everyone is wrong.

The view that is most likely right is my own. If I thought differently, I’d have to change my mind in order to keep with basic intellectual integrity.

 

[Stephen168]

I do not believe everyone is right. I think that it’s very likely that everyone is wrong.

The view that is most likely right is my own. If I thought differently, I’d have to change my mind in order to keep with basic intellectual integrity.

So you do believe in a denomination in which you are the Pope.

 

[silverdenali]

Define ‘this’

This idea of denomination free Christianity… Goin great til Eastern folk leaders saw things differently then Martin Luther did & so on.

 

[fbl9]

We have no eyewitness accounts of those who knew Jesus…we have pseudynomous/anonymous writings written int he names of his apostles…Paul claimed to have met some of the original 12…but we have no writings from any of the original 12…sacred story/tradition not withstanding…and Paul claims to have learned all he knew thru revelation directly from the Risen Christ.

And what physical proof can you offer for this view. The Gospel Written by St. John the Apostle, 3 letters and the apocolypse. 2 letters from the hand of St.Peter. 1 letter from the hand of St.James. The Gospel written by St.Matthew. 1 letter from St.Jude an apostle. Now this is what my church tells me. And eons from the source some claim to know otherwise.

 

[grandfather]

I don’t see how we can know.

Thank you for your kind letter and warm admonition. I just don’t see how I can possibly know with certainty, this side of Heaven. I am hopeful that, after I die, then truth will be revealed, and then I may enjoy the same certainty in both faith and science that I currently enjoy in mathematics.

The reason you know truth with certainty is God is the witness of faith. You trust in God in what He has revealed to mankind in public revelation.

Denominationalism is an evil. You are correct in discerning that. The reason it is an evil thing is that Christ commands unity of us. Scripture makes that abundantly clear.

The phenomenon of nondenominationalism was motivated by Protestants being frustrated with endless divisions brought about by so many contradicting doctrines held by various denominations. They gave up trying to sort it all out and naively said lets just all be Chrisitians.

Implicit in this is that programmed into us is the desire for unity. That is probably what motivated you to come up with your notion of postdenominationalism. The motivation is good. Unity is not only commanded of us, but desired by all sincere Christians.

If you are a mathematician you have a logical mind and are trained in logic.

There are two ways to test your idea to see if it is valid. One way is to simply see what happens. Will the idea catch on and last. Time is the test. The Catholic Church has lasted for two millenia. Nondenominationalism lasted two decades.

The other way is to look for logical flaws in your new version of Church.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

We have no eyewitness accounts of those who knew Jesus…we have pseudynomous/anonymous writings written int he names of his apostles…Paul claimed to have met some of the original 12…but we have no writings from any of the original 12…sacred story/tradition not withstanding…and Paul claims to have learned all he knew thru revelation directly from the Risen Christ.

Given the evidence both internal and external that those writings are from the apostles or associates of theirs, I don’t see that as a problem. Be that as it may, the writings themselves are not contingent for our knowledge that those who lived during Jesus’ ministry were murdered for their confession of faith that they saw the risen Christ. That is a matter of historical record. So the point still stands. Either they saw the risen Christ and died for that belief, or countless martyrs died for something they objectively knew didn’t happen.

 

[grandfather]

Such Catholic churches should be reported to the Bishop, or higher, because they are mispresenting the faith and leading souls astray. If they “disagree with Rome’s rules about communion”, do they even believe in the sacrifice of the Mass? These are not “liberal Catholic churches”, but “Catholic churches that have fallen out of communion and into error”, and the hierarchy should be made very aware of what is going on.

Which has nothing to do with Brandon’s attempt to make sense of the confusion created by denominationalism. The lack of displine in the Catholic Church is not his doing or problem to solve.

 

[TypesAndShadows]

Which has nothing to do with Brandon’s attempt to make sense of the confusion created by denominationalism. The lack of displine in the Catholic Church is not his doing or problem to solve.

I’m sorry if I created that impression, or took this thread off topic. I merely meant to make it very clear that these churches were not part of the accepted variation in Catholicism, and that disagreeing with Rome on this point is not actually permitted. I felt this was an important distinction to make, when someone is hopping from church to church and is not that clear on the differences between different groups of Christians.

 

[grandfather]

Brandon,

Another thing to think about as you try to cope with denominationalism and get past it is its cause. Where did it come from, this great disparity of versions of doctrine, so many groups that call themselves church?

What is the root cause? The many denominations are versions of Protestantism. They split off from one another. It is essentially a Protestant phenomeon.

It is caused by believing a false doctrine that has led to the endless divisions. That doctrine is sola scriptura, Luther’s justification behind the novel things he taught to contradict the tihngs the Church believed over the centuries. He believed the Bible confirmed his doctrine. So do the various Baptists, Jehovah Witnesses, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, nondenominationalists, Methodists, Church of the Firstborns, Seventh Day Adventists and on and on. The divisions and this confused mess can be traced back to that one error. All of these groups insist their doctrines are Biblical. Logic says that is impossible. They are wrong.

You can know that with certainty by logic. If you can’t know any specific doctrine is true for certain (yet), you can use logice to know what is false for certain and eliminate it from consideration. God is not the author of confusion. The devil is.

They will continue to be wrong.as long as they hold this false doctrine and say the Church Christ founded has no authority to teach His truth.

If all authority is in scripture there is non left for Church.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I disagree that questioning the historicity of the virgin birth disqualifies one from being a Christian. One does not have to believe in a literal “virgin birth” to accept that God was in Christ and in Christ God is disclosed as His Revealed Word in our midst.

Well, all of Nicene Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox, and Nicene Protestant Christianity) disagrees with you…

I have yet to feel unwelcome in a Catholic church.

I’m grateful, relieved, and happy to hear that, my friend.

Everyone should be welcome in a Catholic church. Obviously, though, to belong fully to the Catholic Church, one must ultimately choose to profess the teachings to which the Catholic Church adheres, as interpreted by the Magisterium.

I’m happy, however, to hear that you’ve never been made to feel unwelcome. No one should be made to feel unwelcome.

I don’t see communion as a right. “Right” is a word that is used too much.

Roman Catholics should be able to determine the pre-requisites for their own rituals, just like any other religion. Religions should be able to be as esoteric or exclusive as they like.

I would be very happy, however, if Rome decided to change the rules (or if the local church would), and open communion. But if they don’t change the rules, my rights remain unviolated.

Well said. Some posters in this thread have been unfair to you. You never said you had a right to our Communion, and in fact you explicitly stated that when you attend Mass, you do not receive.

I respect and admire your humility and passion for ecumenism, even if I think your idea of post-denominational Christianity won’t solve the problem of Christian disunity.

Yet, you say you take it anyway

No, he didn’t. He said he takes Communion at “liberal Catholic Churches” - that does not mean a truly Catholic parish that happens to be relatively liberal. The term “Liberal Catholic Church” identifies an offshoot that is not in communion with the Catholic Church. They practice open communion, let their priests marry (even after ordination), etc. Here is the wikipedia article on them. I’m pretty sure he was talking about that denomination.

Brandon Rimmer made it quite clear, I thought, that he respects the rules of our church.

Such Catholic churches should be reported to the Bishop, or higher, because they are mispresenting the faith and leading souls astray. If they “disagree with Rome’s rules about communion”, do they even believe in the sacrifice of the Mass? These are not “liberal Catholic churches”, but “Catholic churches that have fallen out of communion and into error”, and the hierarchy should be made very aware of what is going on.

Please see my above link. There is a denomination called “Liberal Catholic Churches” that is not in communion with the Catholic Church. I imagine it was in one of them that Brandon Rimmer received communion.

 

[Publisher]

Well, all of Nicene Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox, and Nicene Protestant Christianity) disagrees with you…
.

Thankfully “nicene Christianity” is not the One who makes the decision whom grace is bestowed to…and it is He that my trust is in…“my hope is in the Lord.”…not a group of ecclesial bodies.

 

[fbl9]

Thankfully “nicene Christianity” is not the One who makes the decision whom grace is bestowed to…and it is He that my trust is in…“my hope is in the Lord.”…not a group of ecclesial bodies./QUOTE

So your trust is in a mere human.