Why Do Some People Have A Problem With Non-Denom People Self-Identifyi

[Guest]

I didn't know all that about T.D. Jakes. Been years since I seen him on t.v.

[Lisa]

My response, to the OP:

My thoughts: there is such a think as objective Truth. All Christians believe a lot of that Truth in terms of Jesus' death and resurrection, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as the Trinity (or the Triune God, as one of my friends refers to the concept), etc.

As Catholic Christian we believe that it's still the Truth even it doesn't fit with someone's personal interpretation of the Bible. For non-denominational Christian churches, or even in many denominations, if someone has a different interpretation, they leave and form a new church. This splinters the church, it leaves the impression that reality, Truth, can be changed. And over the years, "Truth" has changed dramatically since the first split with the Catholic Church. [b]So, my question to the OP is this: what are the things that you hold as truth? Who is to say they can't be argued, won't be changed?[/b]

At some point, as a Catholic... but even more importantly as a fairly humble person (still working on pride, as we all are), I have realized that *gasp,* [b]I can be wrong[/b]. I'm not so full of pride that I would start a new church just to have people to follow what my thoughts are. But that is what happens soooo frequently in non-denominational churches. The congregations gets a new pastor and a few people don't like what he has to say? They start a "church plant" and either one of the churchgoers begins preaching or they find someone out there who agrees with them.

As a person from the Midwest, our small, low-population county has probably 40 churches, probably 30 of them self-identify as "non-denominational" and say they won't make you believe something... and they won't. If you don't believe it, you can always start the 31st non-denominational Christian Church.

Now, all that being said. You asked for what we think individually. My opinion is that while I admire and respect their passion/zeal for Faith and their acceptance of many important parts of Christian doctrine, I don't understand the concept of thinking you know better than those that have come before you.

As Christians in today's society, it's inevitable that we have different opinions on certain things. That shipped sailed about 400 years ago, though I can pray for unity and a return to the fullness of Truth found in the Catholic Church. But, how can we claim to be united in Christ; how can we tell the world about His message if we clearly state by our actions that "there is no single 'right' answer."?

[i]May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to think in harmony with one another, in keeping with Christ Jesus, that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. -Romans 15:5-6[/i]

[i][b]Edited[/b] to make it easier to read. Sorry it's so long![/i]

Edited August 19, 2011 by Lisa

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Lisa' timestamp='1313761567' post='2291265']
As Catholic Christian we believe that it's still the Truth even it doesn't fit with someone's personal interpretation of the Bible. For non-denominational Christian
At some point, as a Catholic... but even more importantly as a fairly humble person (still working on pride, as we all are), I have realized that *gasp,* [b]I can be wrong[/b]. I'm not so full of pride that I would start a new church just to have people to follow what my thoughts are. But that is what happens soooo frequently in non-denominational churches. The congregations gets a new pastor and a few people don't like what he has to say? They start a "church plant" and either one of the churchgoers begins preaching or they find someone out there who agrees with them.
[/quote]
It was actually my (nominally) Methodist* pastor who, in a way, helped steer me towards the Church by commented that we should always acknowledge the possibility that we could be wrong. I finally started thinking about my various beliefs and whether I could be wrong, instead of saying "that congregation is wrong so I'm finding something else". It was largely a matter of pride on my part, though wasn't recognised as such since there was an underlying assumption that the Spirit was leading a certain way or whatnot. That's not to say the Spirit doesn't lead, but that it's folly to think that all of my ideas/thoughts/whatever regarding my religious beliefs were Spirit-led. Or, conversely, to think that it doesn't matter if there's a conflict of belief/understanding on, say, baptism. Perhaps these are the two extremes, but they are the ones I see, not just with non-denoms, though, but with most Protestants I know.

*I say nominally Methodist because that congregation doesn't advertise their Methodist affiliation really and comes across more like one of the non-denominational mega-churches. In fact, there's a non-denom mega-church not far from that one that is very similar in style, beliefs, etc.

[Papist]

I understand Non-Denomination = Not-Catholic

However, if one thinks about it, it should be that Non-Denomination = Catholic b/c the Catholic Church is not a denomination. It IS the Church, while all others are a denomination of it, or denomination of a denomination of it or a denomination of a denomination of a denomination of it, etc. etc. etc.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Papist

[thessalonian]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1313724860' post='2291108']
Well I don't hold to your theory that St. Peter was the "head of the church" and therefore the Roman Catholic Pope is and is infallible blah blah blah. What evidence? St. AThanasius's opinion was worth more then that of the Roman Catholic Pope at Nicea. It wasn't the roman Catholic Pope's approval that validated Nicea,
[/quote]

Peter wasn't the head? Then why, every time the apostles as a group were asked a question, was Peter the one to respond? Why was Peter mentioned in scripture more than any of the other 12 BY A LONG SHOT (190 times to John at 30). Go to any Churches website and you will find the pastors name far more than anyone else. Why was Peter always mentioned first in lists of the apostles even though Andrew was the first apostle. Why did Jesus pray for peter singularly, that he would restore the others? Why wouldn't Jesus just pray for them all if there was no leader? Is it insignificant that Jesus preached from Peter's boat, payed Peter's tax, dialogued with Peter the most? Is it insignificant that Peter performed the first post pentecost miracle and converted the first post pentecost Christians and Gentiles? I could go on and on. Only one who is closed to the idea of Peter being the leader could deny it. It is in fact black and white.

[thessalonian]

"I will keep in mind that there are different kinds of Catholics, and each of you is best equipped to speak on behalf of a certain kind of Catholic. You can keep in mind that there are different kinds of non-denom congregations and individuals, and I am best equipped to speak on behalf of a certain kind of animal from my end. You guys can tell me about the specific animal I'm inquiring after, and I'll tell you exactly what animal I am. Once that happens and only after that happens, we can get into it a little bit more."

If you mean by this different doctrinally then one big difference with us is that we have a sure source of doctrine that resides in the magesterium and is expressed best by decrees of the councils and Popes and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I find little or no difference in doctrine between myself and others on this board. There is far less disagreement among Catholics on this board than protestants any protestant board you will go to. Further I can go to Mass in Minnesota today and fly to Austrailia tommorrow and go to Mass and find very like minded individuals and the same doctrines taught. I recall reading a story by a Kim Franklin who was Protestant and a missionary in South America converting "pagan Catholics". She was struck one day seeing three pentecostal churches on one block. Christ prayed that they might all be one yet if you look at Church history up until the reformation this unity was mostly intact. After the reformation with the advent of sola scriptura the Churches divided like cancer. Martin Luther himself said "there are more theologies than heads". This is the fruits of the reformation. Since then estimates are that there are over 30,000 denominations.

[Basilisa Marie]

Just replying to the OP.

In my experience, I can put non-denoms into two categories. First, the flaky kind that many of you have described that are Christian in name only. Second, the kind that actually sit there, read the bible and try to discern its meaning through asking the Holy Spirit through prayer, and just haven't found a denomination they don't have any issues with. One of my best friends in high school was this kind of non-denom, and I spiritually bettered from our conversations more often than most any I had with my Catholic friends. These people actually know what they believe, and I can have respect for that. Actually, that's why I generally have more respect from "mainline" Protestants than general non-denoms - they [i]know [/i]what they believe and why they believe it and why others are wrong, at least from their line of reasoning. I'll always do my best to respect someone's ability to reason honestly, even if it ends up with a conclusion I don't agree with.

But getting to your original question, I think some people see non-denoms as wishy-washy, people who just won't make a decision and pick a denomination, OR are somehow arrogant enough to think that their own interpretation of the bible is the end-all, be-all. I can see how this frustrates some Catholics, who are used to submitting (through reason) to the guidance and conclusions of a 2000-year-old institution, guided by the Holy Spirit so as to be free from error. It's hard to compare a mere single human's reasoning to God and 2000 years of scholarship.

What I've noticed about this position is that it assumes non-denoms have the same kind of certainty about what the Bible means, which often isn't the case. Non-denoms can be some of the most authentic Christians I've met, because they don't have anything to their faith but doing it on their own, unlike others who were raised in a branch of Christianity but never think about it or pursue a deeper relationship with God.

[Winchester]

Since a denomination gave the non-denoms their source material, it just seems kinda goofy to me.

[mortify]

Catholicism is the [i]original[/i] non denominational church.

[cooterhein]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1313659553' post='2290494']

The question that I have for you is: How many other non-denominational 'churches' [more like religious gatherings] have you visited?[/quote]How many have I visited? A few dozen. As far as how many I've been involved with somewhat intimately, that's somewhat less. But offhand....

There's the IFCA Bible church I grew up in, where I've spent about 20 years getting to know everyone really well- only a couple hundred people attend there. I got to know a couple of pastor's kids throughout grade school and high school that were in my grade; one is the daughter of a pastor at another local IFCA church that's identical except for how 10 to 20 times as many people attend. They have 5 different "Sunday morning" services, two of which are actually on Saturday, so I've been around there a bit. The pastor's daughter actually wasn't the strongest connection I had there; there were some guys I played basketball with in a church league and a few other people I got to know from youth/young adult things at a couple of other churches that wound up landing there later on. The other pastor's kid was the son of a pastor of a church that met in my high school's auditorium, so I checked that out a bit and got to know some of the other people there. Then there's two local churches that are each known as "Grace" in their immediate areas- one is Grace Fellowship, where the pastor's family has been pretty close with my family going back a generation and a half (he was the youth pastor before that and I did that through middle school and high school), and the other is Grace Bible. I got to know a few of the families there through CEF (that's Child Evangelism Fellowship) and one of those families includes the area director and his son, plus there's a softball-related connection between the churches. And there's some close friends who used to go to my church but now they go there. There's also a nearby church called Homer Congregational- my church and their church combined AWANA programs over a dozen years ago and it's still like that. The pastor back then went through a health situation, which he recovered from, but he's not the pastor there anymore and now he does a house church kind of thing. I was employed by his son for several years, and a couple of guys who did the house church thing worked there too. I've checked that out a couple of times, but it's more of a situation where I know the people involved without being involved much myself. But anyway, I sort of get two churches out of that situation.

Then when I was in college, I attended- where else- College Church. For the first couple of years, anyway. Kent Hughes was the senior pastor there for almost 30 years until he left....about five years ago now, I guess. (I don't know if you've heard of him- he's kind of famous). A lot of college kids go there and they always have a bunch of people working there as associate pastors- at any given time, there's anywhere from a half dozen to a dozen pastors working there- so I didn't get to know everybody. Most of the people who go there are from pretty far away though, actually. The last time I randomly ran into people who went there was in Coal City, about an hour away. If they don't come right from campus, most people drive a half hour or more from out of town. After that, I started going to a more charismatic church that had a heavy emphasis on small groups, discipleship, and evangelism. Couple of friends got me into that- they're both missionaries in India now, btw- and that was a little different for me, but a lot of the differences were really good. That one met up on Sundays in a theater that was being renovated. Before that- when it was a lot smaller- they met in a foyer area at IIT. (That's the Illinois Institute of Technology). Couple of brothers were more or less in charge of that one. They usually went by J Gul and S Gul. It was a lot more informal than most churches I've been at, and this is coming from someone who mostly knows pastors that prefer to just be called by their first name. (Ie.- Scott, John, Bob). These guys took even further than that. (Side note- one notable exception to that trend is the guy who's now doing the house church thing. He's got grandsons that are still in the AWANA program, though, so Scott doesn't go by Scott during AWANA stuff out of professional courtesy).

More recently, I moved to the Kansas City area. The current youth pastor at the church where I grew up actually grew up here, so I go to his old church and I've gotten to know his parents pretty well and his brothers that are still around. So I guess I'm going to his old church and he's going to mine.

Short answer: Yes, I've been around just a bit. I haven't become a formal member of any church yet, though- I'm waiting until I settle down somewhere a little more permanently. The only reason is that a membership at a non-denom church only makes you a member there and nowhere else, and it kind of excludes you from membership anywhere else too. (Assuming I don't become a member of a denomination- which is still a possibility). Either way, I just don't want to be a member somewhere if I know I'll have to revoke the membership within a few years.

[quote]I'd attended a "non-demoninational" church for 3 years of my early teens but when I was studying anthropology I'd also attended three or four others. What I'd witnessed from an athropological perspective, was that they had more in common then they'd liked to acknowledge.[/quote]I don't mind acknowledging it. In my experience with non-denom churches, we have practically everything in common. Except for the charismatic church being more charismatic, that was the only real difference. Anyone from any of those churches could have easily attended anywhere else and become a member at any one of them, if they wanted. Which they sometimes did, and it wasn't really a thing. Grace Bible is a slightly different situation because it's an EV Free church that was specifically designed in order to be a bridge-building church between two denominations that formally separated (while still being quite open to anyone else who wants to go there), but all the rest of them were started and continue to exist in largely the same way and for largely the same reasons. Where I grew up, people would maintain a lot of connections between various churches. If anyone leaving high school or college was headed off to bible college or seminary, five or six different pastors in the area would know about it and ask to keep in touch- and if he needs to intern somewhere a few years down the road, he's got five or six different places he can go without any problem.

[quote]Therefore, thou they may not have been affiliated as a "denomination" such as the Four Square, Baptist, Methodists, etc under a common title or communion, but they did share a common history, which is why they agreed on most things with their doctrine too. Much like Martin Luther and John Calvin, who founded two distinct religious groups under the same pretenses.[/quote]I don't disagree with any of that. Are you saying these commonalities are sufficient for a group of congregations to be a denomination? I think my position is that these things are largely true of ND churches, but anything that can legitimately follow the "while they may not" phrase is the stuff that makes them ND.

In governmental terms, it's like they're thousands of tiny countries on Planet Christianity. There's some empires on other portions of this planet, there's some republics, and there's some unions between various nation-states, but these non-denom congregations are the teeny tiny countries. Like Monaco. Or, oddly enough, Vatican City. Look at how much shared history there is between Vatican City and Italy. Look how similar the people-groups and culture are. Look at how similar their religious practices tend to be. But it's the "while they may not" stuff pertaining to sovereign governments that cause them to be what you'd call "separate countries."

It's not like every tiny country believes theirs is the only Christian country, of course, and it's rare for any one of these countries to think they have an exclusive claim to being the "right kind" of Christian. (IOW, "fullness of truth" is something that's not going to come up). But that's pretty much what they are. Tiny countries with a ton in common and something of a de facto free trade agreement where its members are concerned- provided that they cancel membership in one country upon deciding to obtain it from another.

That's what my experience has shown me, anyway. Nothing about it is really different from what you've seen, but there might be some greater detail to it. Membership and authority aren't things that affect high schoolers at all, so if your only concern is what youth group you're attending, nothing from the "while they may not" category really makes any difference to you. It has more of an effect later in life, though, particularly if you're looking beyond the social experience and the leadership roles have some personal significance.

[cooterhein]

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1313685144' post='2290569']

I'm a word/literary person. That's my problem with non-demoninationalist. Not the people themselves, but the name. If you look at the root of the word "denomination", you find it's from the Latin for "name" nominalis (not sure if that's spelled right) and nomen. Take a look at these definitions for denomination: [color=#333333][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=3]a[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=3]name[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=3]or[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=3]designation,[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=3]especially[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=3]one[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=3]for[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=3]a[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=3]class[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=3]of[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=3]things. [/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=3]a[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=3]class[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=3]or[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=3]kind[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=3]of[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=3]persons[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=3]or[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=3]things[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=3]distinguished[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=3]by[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=3]a[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=3]specific[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=3]name. [/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=3]the[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=3]act[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=3]of[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=3]naming[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=3]or[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=3]designating[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=3]a[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=3]person[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=3]or[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=3]thing.[/size][/font][/color][/quote]"Denominational" indicates that every place of worship affiliated with that denomination will have the same name on their sign out front. If a church belongs to the Lutheran denomination, it will have "Lutheran" somewhere on its sign. I could give other examples, but it's all the same thing. Fill in the blank- belonging to a denomination indicates a specific name that goes on your sign.

[quote]non-denominational would mean not separating something by name, yet as soon as you call it "non-denominational" it has a name, and it even implies certain shared beliefs, which would make the term non-demoninational and oxymoron.[/quote]Non-denominational is a word that very rarely goes on a sign. Instead, it indicates that a wide variety of different names may go on a sign. "No particular name" is what's being implied here. Some of the possibilities even include names that are normally associated with a certain denomination- but they are sometimes used by churches that aren't actually a part of it. Westboro Baptist, for example, is not actually a Baptist church.

Just a few of the non-denom churches I've been a part of- couple of different Bible churches, a Free church, one that went by Fellowship, one that was called College Church, one that was a Community Church, and one that ended with Christian Church. Prefixes to those names were sometimes based on the subdivision in which the church started, the town it was in (which changed to the street it was on once it switched buildings), a city's name that's associated with ancient Christianity and an early school of Christian thought, and two of them started with Grace because that's a popular name for whatever reason. Oh, and I guess College Church picked its name because it's right by a college and has a long-standing tradition of employing a lot of students and graduates from there.

It doesn't mean "nameless." It just means you don't have to pick one name in particular.

[quote]I one time passed a sign for a Non-Denom church that said "No creed! No Doctrine! No Judgement!" Well, you have to believe SOMETHING. And I would imagine that the group of people who go to that church believe something similar or else they wouldn't go to that church.[/quote]That is a bad sign in a lot of ways.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Dominus vobiscum, Possibly because christ is more than a persoanl saviour though there is a personal relationship whit god and some non-denomiational ministries seem to hold personal salvation in some manners above the salvation of the community, i may be way off the mark usually these things come about due to mis-information, but anyhow jesus died on the cross for all not just me though he died for me too,we as christians are called to be interccesors/saints for all not just ourself. hopefully that helps.

God Bless.

Edited August 21, 2011 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye

[cooterhein]

[quote name='Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye' timestamp='1313698773' post='2290738']

May the peace of our lord and saviour christ jesus be with you,in you and through you [/quote]Thanks.

[quote]I have no problem with non-denominational groups in general unless there anti-catholic, I base my opinion on the gospels and jesus said that one must be baptised and believe and that anyone whom speaks in my name can eventually do no evil. Also the apostles complained that others where casting demons out in jesus name but where not following them,jesus rebuked them and said "whom is for you can not be against you(i believe he was speaking of himself and the apostles preciding his ascention being the body of christ" therefore if your not anti-catholic i am not anti-non denominational, though even than if you where i would understand one may be mis-informed about what the church truely believes.[/quote]Cool, thanks for the details.

[quote] May i reccomend you a book, Rome sweet Rome, by somone hahn or hann (unsure of his first and last name, can somone please post the mans full name,but the book is definately Rome sweet Rome). Tis book is about a protestant man whom was mis-informed about what the catholic church truely believes. I had access to the book for 30 minutes and read about the first 20 pages and was blowen away.[/quote]Scott Hahn, former Presbyterian who converted in '86, his wife was baptized Catholic in '90 in Joliet, IL about 15 minutes from where I grew up. He's a popular speaker who's easiest to find on EWTN (easiest to find there on a regular basis, at least) and the book you refer to is entitled "Rome Sweet Home." Dr. Hahn's conversion started with his exploration of whether or not contraception is ok and how you can be really sure one way or the other, but it wound up centering around the Eucharist as the centerpiece of a religious experience that's communal and covenantal. Another book he's well-known for is [i]The Lamb's Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth[/i]. He's also responsible for a smaller piece of work called "The Fourth Cup," but that involves some really unique interpretations of the gospels (especially portions of John) that aren't taken as seriously by other Catholics. If you call up EWTN at some point (open lines on Tuesday and Thursday, 3-5 pm Pacific time), there's a chance that you'll be able to talk to someone who can explain why that is. The last time I called them up about something, the caller right before me got a detailed explanation on that topic. It was basically the same thing I said about it after I read it a couple of times and did some research, but it was still nice to hear a Catholic apologist say the same thing on air. I think that's especially important because without it, most Catholic forum-user type people will just read it and largely agree with all of it because they like Scott Hahn. And while he may be pretty dependable most of the time, "The Fourth Cup" is not his best work. Just a heads-up if you run into it. [i]Lamb's Supper[/i], though- far as I know, it's largely gotten good marks from his peers. If I wasn't already familiar with it, I'd tell me to pay attention to what it does with Revelation and how that's different from anything that I've seen on the topic as a Protestant.

[quote]God Bless you (the person whom started this topic and any other non-denominational or denominational other christians in topic)


P.S. My idea on catholics that attack other baptised believers is they may be as mis-informed about what you believe as much as you are of what they believe.
JC "seek and ye shall find, knock and the door will be open"(jesus never says how many times you have to knock nore how long one must be seeking)[/quote]I try to be pretty well informed. When you identify with something that makes claims of exclusivity to "the genuine article," though, it's not much of a surprise when you see some of those people engaging in and even encouraging ignorance of anything outside it. It's not all that uncommon for someone to talk about how bankers recognize counterfeits- they study actual money in great detail, especially the unique way it feels, and then they can recognize anything that's not real money. For some Catholics, anything non-Catholic is "not real" and that's all you really need to know about it.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

aye anyhoo i rarely read anything that doesn't have the imprimateur or nihil obstat, even though these prints are not infallible. I would like a black list for reading material and movies, the church actually has a black list the da vinci code is in there as is the golden compass or so i'm led to believe, i prefer burning books than people
God bless you

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

also have you heard of encyclical letters, your best bet is to read a few of those from pope benedict and pope john paul the second, and if you can digest those maybe go in a time warp and check out the other popes through history to find out what is truely catholic.

God bless you.
P.S. God is good , god is love, god saves, the highest high above all the earth.