Non-Denominationalism VS Catholicism (for AdaptableRatman)

The Catholic Church claims to be the one true church, but the early church was way more flexible than Catholics are today. It used to be that the church was unified, there were no denominations, yet theological and liturgical differences existed and were accepted as long as they weren't against core Christian teachings.  In other words the original church was "catholic" as in universal/unified but also non-denominational. This begs the question then, why did the church turn into a mess of different sects arguing over who is right instead of embracing their common Christian heritage? It all boils down to the papacy.

The only reason protestantism exists as we know it is because the pope kicked Martin Luther out of the Catholic Church. This was a pointless decision since the catholic church started making major reforms directly afterwards, so they basically conceded that Luther was right and it needed serious reforms. Likewise the great schism was caused by the pope taking it upon himself to singlehandedly add the filioque to the nicene creed, which was ecclesiologically inappropriate  even if theologically justified because the pope isn't supposed to just overrule ecumenical councils (especially when the pope overseeing it at the time said nothing in it can be changed). The pope literally in doing so defied an "ex cathedra" (supposedly infallible) statement from a previous pope. So as we can see, the "one true catholic church" is the biggest source of division in the church and it's all because people didn't obey a single man.

If catholicism is true, your salvation and identity as a true christian is entirely contingent on one man. For catholics, the pope is as inherent to true christianity as Jesus himself. Even if the pope defies other popes, even if you are right and pope is wrong, christianity is about submitting to the papacy for catholics. At times the pope and the body of clergy in general within the catholic church have been objectively corrupt to the core, are we to believe this hasn't affected doctrine in any meaningful way? If you are Catholic your answer is simple: shut up and obey, the magisterium always knows better.

The bishop of rome was originally the apostle Peter, from whom the pope is said to derive special authority over other bishops. However the pope wields more authority over the catholic church today than peter wielded over the early church, making the pope a dictator who's claim to dictatorship is derived from a non-dictator. If Peter was seen the way the pope is seen today, Paul wouldn't have been able to argue with him and win about multiple topics such as spreading christianity to gentiles instead of focusing only on jews until the majority of jews are saved. This innovation is justified by the concept of development of doctrine for catholics, the way the bishop of rome gradually gained more and more power in the church is merely a series of verdicts by the magisterium that progressed church doctrine over time. Why then can it not be said that abandoning the papacy is merely another form of development of doctrine?

As a catholic or orthodox you have to blindly agree that whatever the church decided is right even if it doesn't make sense to you. As a protestant you have to live with a denomination's doctrine even if you don't agree with all of it. As a non-denominational christian you can select what makes the most sense to you out of any denomination you choose, and still be christian as long as you adhere to the core defining principles of christianity. This makes it dangerous sure as nothing is stopping you from being a heretic but your own discernment, but you would have to use your own discernment to pick the correct denom/church out of 500 anyway. Non-Denominational Christianity at it's best allows you to pinpoint the correct beliefs and take them as your own without it coming with the unwanted baggage of any given sect.

It is easy to say

===

The definition of a Christian.

Yes, I define it the Catholic way. My opponent has to challenge it.

===

How exactly is a church set up with adherents who could all disagree with other members on multiple aspects of doctrine?

It seems the ND are forced to either attend churches they disagree with or to defy themselves and form 'ND Church' places to pretend it is a denomination that has adherents that agree and attend a unified faith practice together, I presume once a week.

They may even operate in ways for Communion and procedure during Mass that are blasphemic, not just heretical under the logic and value system of other NDs present.

This is not semantic trickery, this is truly a semantic issue at the core of NDism and renders it indefensible in any way that holds up to keep it ND.

===

Meanwhile Cs claim their Founder is Jesus Christ himself and that their first Pope was St. Peter (yes, the genuine apostle Simon Peter).

The ND movement did not at all stem from Luther's 1500s split. It stems from a separate split in the 19th century known as the Restoration movement. 

My duty is not to represent my opponent's side. I can tell you it becomes quite a bunch of intellectually dishonest nonsense when you realise that the Restoration movement went beyond Lutheran Reform.

The fact NDs can even deny Nicene Creed and basically deny everything Christian is crazy.

Cs now also have Apostle's Creed on top of Nicene. Anglicans adhere to it too somehow and even some Reform say it 😂

Look:

A Reform Protestant Church is saying

(Prior link)

That is how they end off the Creed (pledge).

===

If you are the true way to worship Christ, you would surely find that the deeper one delved into the doctrine of NDs and the longer one experienced the lifestyle, the more they would resemble a consistent CHity vibe/aura and lifestyle.

Instead, the NDs that know least, think least past the word of the Bible and have the least experience being ND will be the most likely to agree. In contrast, the gurus of it will potentially be the apex opponents of the other doctrinally, as there is no limit on how much they can disagree on literally everything except, I presume, that the Christ messiah was Jesus.

Cs literally define how tk be Christian by their Catechism and a lot of complex high intellect works with indeed some expert clashes such as Thomism vs Molinism. I am not saying they dont have expert clashes. However, overall, they agree on what all Catholics (and ideally all CH as they see C as the 1 true Church) must agree on to then disagree apart from that.

They may even challenge current doctrine and realise they are heretical on specicis of tradition, blessing style, Mass style etc. 

Yet, what you find is that the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, Deacons and any highly experienced and respected laity (Nuns for instance)  have is unity under Christ one consistent way agreeing to vast majority and especially key non negotiable aspects of Catechism and related doctrine.

They even vary in clothing, Maronites vs Roman Catholics differ on tradition and Maronites have a Patriarch figurehead the Pope must acknowledge approvement of a d adhere to Rime's doctrine but differ on specifics of how to Mass and structure certain prayers etc.

ND, however, are not unified under Christ in anything close to a uniform manner. They are varely even able to define what being Christian is unless tbeyd refer to Nicaean concepts that means they needed either Catbolics or Orthodox (even the Orthodox needed the Catholic thinkers, especially the Byzantine EO, to end up with their Sect existing doctrinally) to exist and make foundational doctrine much earlier.

What even is a ND?

They are not this, not that but what are they?

They cabnot msaningfully define themselves in terms of beliefs or traditions witbout risking challenging a principle of another ND.

So NDism is divisive, disuniting us beneath Christ. It is incaoabke of achieving the very core goal of Christianity by its very nature. In complete contrast, Catholicism unifies us under Christ as 1 true Church doctrine that we may argue about the specifics of tradition wise or 'how exactly All knowing' the omniscient God is in terms of thomist vs mokninist approaches to explain why Calvinism is wrong on predestination but Catholics unite under Christ.

===

Papacy proof:

Have a blessed week ahead reader.