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

[cooterhein]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1314294144' post='2294798']
If they are non-denominational, they are anti-Catholic. Period.
[/quote]I'm sorry, I don't think this is entirely reality-based. I'd say it's quite probable that the hate-related uniformity you [b]think[/b] they have is more in your head than in theirs.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='cooterhein' timestamp='1314332301' post='2295099']

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1314294144' post='2294798']
If they are non-denominational, they are anti-Catholic. Period.
[/quote]


I'm sorry, I don't think this is entirely reality-based. I'd say it's quite probable that the hate-related uniformity you [b]think[/b] they have is more in your head than in theirs.
[/quote]

No. The reason he says this is probably due to the inherent difference between Catholics and Non-denomintationals in belief of what the Church is, what her mission is, and what tools and structures Christ left her--and which developed under the guidance of the Holy Spirit over the last 2000 yrs--in order to accomplish her mission. Such a difference does not allow for a "Mere Christianity" as Lewis describes with a plurality of belief and a [i]media via[/i] but rather only one Christianity, one Orthodox Catholic faith which Christ left to us through the Apostles. To fight against such teaching is not love or tolerance of Christianity but is probably the "anti-Catholicism" that Dust is talking about.

Edited August 26, 2011 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[cooterhein]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1314340688' post='2295124']No. The reason he says this is probably due to the inherent difference between Catholics and Non-denomintationals in belief of what the Church is, what her mission is, and what tools and structures Christ left her--and which developed under the guidance of the Holy Spirit over the last 2000 yrs--in order to accomplish her mission.[/quote]You're right, I inferred some reference to active opposition and hatred when he was probably indicating....some other kind of opposition, maybe. Perhaps an opposition that's not necessarily hateful? I spent a little bit of time on the chat thing talking to a couple of people about it and one of them was convinced that he probably meant to say non-denominationalism is the "opposite of" Catholicism, and that's what dUSt meant by "anti." I should probably leave the clarification to dUSt if he wants to comment further, though.

To each of the things you brought up, though, I think you have to admit we're not diametrically opposed to one another. We do share some common ground in all of these things, while there are also some nuanced differences. For example, we have pretty similar ideas about which humans comprise the universal church but there are differences in exactly how we believe people become a part of it and stay in it. And there's always the disagreements we always have to go through about the visible church, invisible church, and so forth. We probably have even more in common as far as the mission of the church- our biggest disagreements are most likely to come up in grossly inaccurate caricatures of each other. For example, my caricature of Catholicism's goal would be one of converting the world to Catholicism and making sure every Christian is in submission to the pope because that's the only way for a Catholic to work well with other Christians- it has to be another Catholic who's also in submission to the pope. And then your caricature of me would be one in which my goal is the infinite fissiparity of Christianity as it devolves into a dis-unified mass of people who can't agree on anything and don't really believe in anything either. But these are caricatures and they shouldn't be taken too seriously. Both of us do want to win the world for Christ, and both of us do want to see Christians in full unity with each other. Broadly speaking, this means Christians are capable of fully participating in church, missions, and evangelism with each other while working in full partnership and never feeling like they have to convert one another. The last part, tools and structures- I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that, although I suspect it's the sacraments. Whether it is or isn't, I'm not entirely sure what I should say about it so I should probably stop before I ramble this into another massive post.

[quote]Such a difference does not allow for a "Mere Christianity"[/quote]And yet here it is. You say it's not allowed. What do you mean by that? Do you mean we are self-styled "mere Christians" but we're really not? Or do you intend to say we're actually doing this but it's not allowed, so you'll put a stop to it?

[quote]To fight against such teaching is not love or tolerance of Christianity but is probably the "anti-Catholicism" that Dust is talking about.[/quote]Oookay....I guess I may or may not fight against it, but I have to check with you first and find out exactly what it is you're saying about me. I may or may not entirely agree with some of your ideas.

You personally, though- that's a different story. Since we're both Christians, as much as possible, I'd like for us to be able to get along and work well together. I realize there's some things about Catholicism that can make Catholics difficult to work with, but I try to be someone who works well with other Christians. If that's not how you want it to be, though, you can make that call.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='cooterhein' timestamp='1314350892' post='2295142']
[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1314340688' post='2295124']
Such a difference does not allow for a "Mere Christianity"
[/quote]
And yet here it is. You say it's not allowed. What do you mean by that? Do you mean we are self-styled "mere Christians" but we're really not? Or do you intend to say we're actually doing this but it's not allowed, so you'll put a stop to it?



[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1314340688' post='2295124']
To fight against such teaching is not love or tolerance of Christianity but is probably the "anti-Catholicism" that Dust is talking about.
[/quote]


Oookay....I guess I may or may not fight against it, but I have to check with you first and find out exactly what it is you're saying about me. I may or may not entirely agree with some of your ideas.

You personally, though- that's a different story. Since we're both Christians, as much as possible, I'd like for us to be able to get along and work well together. I realize there's some things about Catholicism that can make Catholics difficult to work with, but I try to be someone who works well with other Christians. If that's not how you want it to be, though, you can make that call.
[/quote]

When discussing points another brings up, a general rule of thumb is not to clip out parts but rather try to understand the whole of an idea in the most charitable and rational way possible. So, when you quote me as saying "such a difference does not allow for a 'Mere Christianity,'" one must try to understand the whole of the idea, not simply this little part you have clipped out. The idea is that our different faiths have different ecclesiologies (albeit the view I expressed above was a more nuanced one b/c it was broken up into more sentences that went something like this): what we believe Christ intended His Church to be and the tools (the bishops/visible transmission of authority, who are the guarantors of orthodoxy, and the sacraments that communicate and make present grace to the whole human person--body, mind, and spirit) that Christ left to the Church to fulfill her mission is what makes a "mere Christianity" impossible. By an impossible "mere Christianity" I mean that there is no such thing as a "true Christianity that does not truly exist fully on earth in one faith but that everyone participates in or that each denomination manifests in a different way as if there isn't a true, visible, embodied Christianity." (I put quotes here to denote one full idea that cannot be separated into different clauses and must be taken as a whole). When Paul speaks of a disagreement with Peter, he stresses that he and Peter are still in communion. There should be a visible link between the Church in Corinth and the Church in Rome and that all the Christians believe the true and right teaching. Denominationalism is foreign to the foundation of Christianity (which is what I mean that to fight/argue against the view of the Church that Catholics and Orthodox have held since time immemorial is in fact anti-Catholicism/anti-Christianity). It directly contradicts Jesus's prayer that all Christians be one as Christ and the Father are one. Yes, Protestants and Catholics are mystically united in Christ but Christ's prayer goes beyond the mystical. The Father and the Son and the Spirit ARE ONE GOD. Full Stop. As such, there should be ONE visible Church united around the bishops who the Apostles chose as their successors to teach and defend the true faith in Christ. We are embodied creatures; we [i]ARE [/i]a body and a soul. These ideas can be contemplated differently but in reality, they can't truly exist apart in that a human is only alive when both are there. The Church and the faith Christ instituted must speak to and redeem both. Things must be embodied, not just lived mystically, in Christianity and this is the advantage that Christianity has over the other world religions that tend too stress too much of one or the other. Christ came that both, through the fullness of life in Christ, may be in abundance. The greatest scandal in Christianity is its disunity, division, and splintering into multiple sects.

Edited August 26, 2011 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[MithLuin]

It is true that Catholics do not go in for nondenominational mission projects very often, but I think you may be a bit mistaken as to...[i]why[/i], exactly. You suggest that there is a fear that the person might convert to some other 'brand' of Christianity, so that if we want to preserve our doctrinal purity, we can't have other voices in the world.

But to be honest, your average Catholic doesn't really care two figs about trying to silence nondenominational churches. We simply ignore them most of the time, which does not suggest this competitiveness. So then, what's the problem? Why can't we work together all hunky dory?

Catholics believe that mission work is about a lot more than evangelization and bringing people to the faith. It's not about 'buying' someone's loyalty with free rice, either. Catholics go on mission to show the love of Christ to others. If these other people need clean water, we work to provide that for them. If they need schools, hospitals, orphanages...we build them. We build churches, too. We plant our faith in foreign lands. But very seldom do we view mission work as strictly evangelization. This is not to say that there aren't Catholic evangelization groups in developing nations; there are. But when you say 'Catholic Mission,' that's not what comes to mind.

People are going to think of [url="http://www.maryknoll.org/"]Maryknoll[/url] (celebrating its 100th anniversary this year) living in solidarity with the people. Or [url="http://www.crs.org/"]Catholic Relief Services[/url], feeding the starving in Somalia and rebuilding after the earthquake in Haiti. Or [url="http://www.salesianmissions.org/"]Salesian Missions[/url], running more technical institutes than any other organization...in the world (secular, Christian, or otherwise). Or Mother Teresa's [url="http://mcpriests.com/01_who.htm"]Missionaries of Charity[/url] working with the poorest of the poor, helping lepers and picking up dying Hindus off the streets of India.

Catholics are there for the long haul, building up the local community. It's not a short-term mission 'project', but a way of life, involving total dedication spanning generations, a 'project' much bigger than any single missionary. So, no, Catholics aren't often going to partner with a mission that strictly supports church-building in the third world, because we see the gospel mandate as being a lot bigger than that. And when a non-denominational organization shares our view of what Christian charity involves? Then yes, by all means we partner with them!

[url="http://www.foodforthepoor.org/about/leadership/"]Food for the Poor[/url] has the Catholic archbishops of Tegucigalpa, Honduras and Diocese of Anse-à-Veau et Miragoâne, Haiti on its board of directors. It also has an Episcopal bishop from southern Florida on the same board. The founder, Robin Mahfood, is a lay Catholic trained by Jesuits. The executive director, Cuban [url="http://www.foodforthepoor.org/resources/angel/guatemalan.html"]Angel Aloma[/url], led a group of Lutheran pastors on a mission trip supporting the work in Guatemala. When there is a truly excelent Catholic mission project happening, they do not have any difficulty soliciting funds and support from non-Catholics. Other Christians, Jews, those of no formal faith recognize the love for God being shared with the community and want to be part of it. I can share countless individual examples of this, but I thought the example of the third largest charitable organization in the US was worth mentioning!

It is also true that predominantly non-denominational organizations will work, sponsor, and fund Catholic missions for the same reason. [url="http://share-compassion.org/church/why-the-church/"]Compassion International [/url]partners with local churches...including the Catholic Church. Why? Because we have more schools, orphanages and indigenous churches than most other groups. If they want to help children, partnering with Catholics is a good way to do it. They don't have a problem with it, and neither do we.

Don't tell me that Catholics can't play nicely with others. We do all the time. We just don't have a narrow definition of what 'mission' means.

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='cooterhein' timestamp='1314247140' post='2294639']
lots of stuff
[/quote]

I think you missed my point, which is probably my fault. I've skimmed your posts and you seem like a fairly intelligent person but your long-winded posts seem like verbal gymnastics to me. Maybe they are not. I'm certainly not the only phatmasser who feels your posts are way too freaking long! I struggle with brevity too and my point can get lost in all the words, but I'm curious to know what your point is. If you're the new guy and you want to make a point just cut to the chase you know?.Time is money babe.



Just as an aside, I want to let you know I studied Eastern Orthodoxy. I wanted it to be true, I wanted Catholicism to be wrong and a part of that was so that people couldn't tell me "it's just cause you grew up that way . . . etc." There were some reasons I wanted it to be true that I now recognize as selfish (EO are a little more lax when it comes to contraception for example), so for me it didn't seem like turning back to Catholicism was something I could take comfort in simply because I grew up in it. If anything I think I got hung up on it.

And if growing up in something has such a strong pull on adults, then I wonder why ALL of the people whom I know personally that I got confirmed with, are no longer practicing.

And maybe it did have a strong influence on me. I believe it's more because of the power of the sacraments other than mere psychological conditioning, but hey who knows? To be objective about my own experience is nearly impossible though I make every effort to be. People are free to speculate. I take no offense.
[quote]


It's better if you actually do it than if you talk about it[/quote]
idgi. Do what?

[penguin31]

Unless you continually visit new and different churches, and different *types* of churches on a constant basis, by it's very definition you [b]have[/b] a denomination. Ultimately, it's far better from a marketing and identity standpoint to say you're Christian rather than "Methodist" or "Presbyterian" or "Adventist" or what have you, hence the rise of nondenominationalism.

[Amppax]

tl;dr

Edited September 5, 2011 by Amppax

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='cooterhein' timestamp='1314244409' post='2294624'] It's kind of a big deal, you know. And while some of those people in a few of those countries may have been lapsed or non-practicing Catholics, it's not close to being a significant chunk of that figure.
[/quote]
Yes, I'm sure that the people being reached by "evangelistic" groups like the one run by the Tebow family have never heard of Christianity, particularly considering that they like to operate in places like the Philippines and Latin America.

(Also, protip: those countries in which it is actually likely that there are invincibly ignorant people are probably not terribly likely to allow Christian missionaries (I'm looking at you, Muslim world and China).)

Edited September 5, 2011 by USAirwaysIHS

[Papist]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1314294144' post='2294798']
If they are non-denominational, they are anti-Catholic. Period.
[/quote]
If one disagrees with this, attend a non-denominational bible study and tell them you are Catholic.

[MithLuin]

I was involved with InterVarsity Chrisitian Fellowship in college. They are nondenominational, and many of the people who attended the meetings (gatherings) were also attending nondenominational churches.

They knew I was Catholic, and everyone was mostly alright with that. There were one or two other Catholic members of the group, and one Orthodox. The rest were all Protestant.

I did Bible studies with them, and said what I thought, and again, did not get backlash.

One of the Bible studies was on the book of John. Including the sixth chapter.

When literature for meditation was passed out on a retreat that included an aside about Catholics 'not really being Christian', the adult leader of the entire college group got up and apologized for that without either of the two Catholics on the retreat having said anything to complain. Clearly, it was one of the Protestants who pointed out the uncharitable line on our behalf.

So, I give them credit as [i]not[/i] being an anti-Catholic group.

They are, however, certainly not a Catholic group, either, and if one views the Catholic Church as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church founded by Jesus, then...their efforts at evangelization fall short of the mark.



My mom attended a Bible study that was billed as 'Christian' and everyone was instructed to leave their denominational baggage at the door. The goal was to have a fruitful discussion without any infighting or bad blood between Christians. Fair enough; but in practice, this meant that if anything 'Catholic' were mentioned, the leader would say 'we can't have that here' and silence those voices. I was not there, so I can't say if something similar were done to members of other denominations, but my mom says the rule was being applied to Catholics only, even if they were sharing a personal story of their own faith life (ie, saying the rosary helped me through this difficult time, etc.) Eventually, all the Catholic members of the group left and found [url="http://www.cssprogram.net/"]Catholic bible studies [/url]to attend instead.

So, yes, I can understand the comment about trying to go to a Bible study with nondenominationals...but I would say that in my own experience, the implied criticism is not always present.

[ardillacid]

This seems like one of the more combative thread titles in some time: 'you got a.problem with me?' :boxing:

[dUSt]

:bump:

[Amppax]

A walk down memory lane. I miss a lot of people. 

[Anastasia13]

Ahh, non-denominationals. God love you.