Non-Catholics, a question

[Hisalone]

No, he’s not making things up. General dictionaries are not the best source for defining theological terms. There are good reasons to avoid applying the word “denomination” to the Roman Communion. Denominationalism really is a Protestant phenomenon (and largely an American one, or at least an Anglo-American one, at least in its origins).

Edwin

Tom nor you have provided no source for your position. You have no support.

 

[Mickey]

Denominationalism is a comparatively recent phenomenon. The theological distinction between the church visible and invisible, made by Wycliffe and Hus and elaborated by the Protestant Reformers, underlies the practice and defense of denominationalism that emerged among seventeenth century English Puritans, who agreed on most things but not on the crucial issue of how the church should be organized. The eighteenth century revivals associated with Wesley and Whitefield greatly encouraged the practice, especially in America, where it became dominant.
http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/denomina.htm

 

[Tomster]

Denominationalism is a comparatively recent phenomenon. The theological distinction between the church visible and invisible, made by Wycliffe and Hus and elaborated by the Protestant Reformers, underlies the practice and defense of denominationalism that emerged among seventeenth century English Puritans, who agreed on most things but not on the crucial issue of how the church should be organized. The eighteenth century revivals associated with Wesley and Whitefield greatly encouraged the practice, especially in America, where it became dominant.
http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/denomina.htm

Thank you Mickey.

 

[Sellers1]

Tom you could not be more wrong.
This concept of yours of One True Church is nothing more than a ploy to beat nonCatholic Christians into submission.
Do you not think that Jesus knew there would be divisions amoung us? Did he not know the human heart? His prayer that we would be one as He and the Father are one. Are the Father and Jesus one visibly?
The concern of “The One True Church” is not one of Protestants that is a Catholic concern. There is a visible church made up of the Body of Christ all believers and they are one when they operate “In Christ” but become seperated again when they operate “in the flesh”.
Christ operating in and through His believers constitutes His visible Church.

Well said.

Christ was all about inclusion. Catholics are all about exclusion.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well said.

Christ was all about inclusion. Catholics are all about exclusion.

Absurd. Christ was all about inclusion? Define inclusion. Did he say to the sinful adulteress, “your sins are forgiven, no go ahead and commit them again anytime you want, that’s cool!” That feel-good 60’s hippie talk isn’t the gospel I read. “Your sins are forgiven you, no go and sin no more” is what I remember.

Paul’s epistles describe homosexual acts as being part of God’s handing idol-worshippers over to a reprobate mind. Hardly sounds “inclusive.” Paul talks constantly about how no adulterer, sodomite, and other perverse folks will inherit God’s kingdom. Boy, that sounds kind of exclusive as well!

Religion should have exclusions. Isn’t the purpose of religion to shape us, to help us spiritually evolve to where God wants us to be within the bounds of our potential? Your theology seems to be a setup where we mold God and shape Him in our image so we can be more “inclusive.” Sounds like idolatry to me.

Show me how Catholics are exclusive in their beliefs in a manner inconsistent with the Gospels or the Pauline Epistles, tradition, and reason. You can’t.

In each of your posts, you paint groups with a broad, huge brush. It smacks of the same ignorance we see in racism, “all” of a group is ______" or “all” a race is ____________"

All Catholics are excluders
All Anglicans don’t want to be Catholic and hate Catholicism
All priests are pedophiles.

These are your posts tonight…

Homosexuality is a sin in Scripture, divorce and remarriage is a sin in Scripture except in some instances, abortion is a sin in scripture, on and on. Yet we’re supposed to make those into virtues to comfort the sensibilities of the left wing of pseudo-Christianity. No dice.

 

[josie_L]

Absurd. Christ was all about inclusion? Define inclusion. Did he say to the sinful adulteress, “your sins are forgiven, no go ahead and commit them again anytime you want, that’s cool!” That feel-good 60’s hippie talk isn’t the gospel I read. “Your sins are forgiven you, no go and sin no more” is what I remember.

Paul’s epistles describe homosexual acts as being part of God’s handing idol-worshippers over to a reprobate mind. Hardly sounds “inclusive.” Paul talks constantly about how no adulterer, sodomite, and other perverse folks will inherit God’s kingdom. Boy, that sounds kind of exclusive as well!

Religion should have exclusions. Isn’t the purpose of religion to shape us, to help us spiritually evolve to where God wants us to be within the bounds of our potential? Your theology seems to be a setup where we mold God and shape Him in our image so we can be more “inclusive.” Sounds like idolatry to me.

Show me how Catholics are exclusive in their beliefs in a manner inconsistent with the Gospels or the Pauline Epistles, tradition, and reason. You can’t.

In each of your posts, you paint groups with a broad, huge brush. It smacks of the same ignorance we see in racism, “all” of a group is ______" or “all” a race is ____________"

All Catholics are excluders
All Anglicans don’t want to be Catholic and hate Catholicism
All priests are pedophiles.

These are your posts tonight…

Homosexuality is a sin in Scripture, divorce and remarriage is a sin in Scripture except in some instances, abortion is a sin in scripture, on and on. Yet we’re supposed to make those into virtues to comfort the sensibilities of the left wing of pseudo-Christianity. No dice.

By the way he/she just got banned (talk about being excluded ). I can’t say I didn’t see it coming.

 

[kalt]

Well said.

Christ was all about inclusion. Catholics are all about exclusion.

No one is excluced by others, though many choose to exclude themselves.
Anyone may say, Yes, to the Christ’s Church at any time.

 

[Contarini]

No one is excluced by others, though many choose to exclude themselves

I think that’s a cop-out. If I were to say, “You can all join my church as long as you wear nothing but purple robes with a big E on and say ‘Hail to Edwin the Great, Almighty Arbiter of Existence’ a thousand times a day,” I think you would be right to say that I was being rather exclusive.

In other words, clearly establishing parameters for membership is excluding some people. The best response to the charge of “exclusion” is to point out that some exclusion is inevitable if a movement or institution is going to have any definition or purpose at all, and then to defend the specific grounds on which your institution excludes people. It seems to me that just as many liberals try to avoid this specific kind of discussion by denouncing “exclusion” on principle, so you are trying to avoid it by claiming that anyone who doesn’t accept your group’s particular parameters is “excluding themselves.” Both of these avoid the real question, which is: what ought the parameters of the Church to be?

Edwin

 

[Graubo3]

I think that’s a cop-out. If I were to say, “You can all join my church as long as you wear nothing but purple robes with a big E on and say ‘Hail to Edwin the Great, Almighty Arbiter of Existence’ a thousand times a day,” I think you would be right to say that I was being rather exclusive.

Edwin,

Where do I sign up and exactly how much will it cost me?

I enjoy your wisdom, knowledge, and spunk. Have a nice weekend.

Peace, Graubo

 

[Hisalone]

Denominationalism is a comparatively recent phenomenon. The theological distinction between the church visible and invisible, made by Wycliffe and Hus and elaborated by the Protestant Reformers, underlies the practice and defense of denominationalism that emerged among seventeenth century English Puritans, who agreed on most things but not on the crucial issue of how the church should be organized. The eighteenth century revivals associated with Wesley and Whitefield greatly encouraged the practice, especially in America, where it became dominant.
http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/denomina.htm

This is your authoritive source? In other words you cant do better than this?

I looked up in approximately 10 theological dictionaries both Catholic and nonCatholic the term denomination and all yes all there was no reference. Your claim that it is a ttheological term and can only be defined by non secular sources appears to be false.

 

[Contarini]

This is your authoritive source? In other words you cant do better than this?

It’s pretty good. The bibliography cites Russ Richey (a respected historian of Methodism) and H. Richard Niebuhr (a very famous theologian). If these guys aren’t authoritative, I don’t know who is.

The point isn’t that “denomination” is “only a theological term” whatever that would mean. The point is that we are discussing its theological meaning, not the loose meaning it has acquired in common usage from the fact that American Christianity is characterized by denominations.

We could go round and round all day on the semantic issue, and that would be silly. There’s no “right” definition. The point I’m making is that the Catholics who insist that their Church isn’t a “denomination” are not just making this up. They are using the word “denomination” in the way that scholars of American religion generally use it–to describe a certain kind of religious affiliation which is purely voluntary and which gladly accepts a place within a spectrum of such voluntary organizations. Traditional churches, whether the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church or the Protestant state churches of Europe, aren’t really denominations. At least, it is legitimate for them to object to the term being applied to them, since their conception of what it means to be a church is so different from that of an American Protestant denomination.

Edwin

 

[Mickey]

In other words you cant do better than this?

I am sorry that you cannot admit that you are wrong.

 

[Mickey]

It’s pretty good. The bibliography cites Russ Richey (a respected historian of Methodism) and H. Richard Niebuhr (a very famous theologian). If these guys aren’t authoritative, I don’t know who is.

The point isn’t that “denomination” is “only a theological term” whatever that would mean. The point is that we are discussing its theological meaning, not the loose meaning it has acquired in common usage from the fact that American Christianity is characterized by denominations.

We could go round and round all day on the semantic issue, and that would be silly. There’s no “right” definition. The point I’m making is that the Catholics who insist that their Church isn’t a “denomination” are not just making this up. They are using the word “denomination” in the way that scholars of American religion generally use it–to describe a certain kind of religious affiliation which is purely voluntary and which gladly accepts a place within a spectrum of such voluntary organizations. Traditional churches, whether the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church or the Protestant state churches of Europe, aren’t really denominations. At least, it is legitimate for them to object to the term being applied to them, since their conception of what it means to be a church is so different from that of an American Protestant denomination.

Edwin