Catholicism is not a denomination - do I understand correctly?

[Usbek_de_Perse]

Us,

I prefer to accept the OHCAC as unchanged and if you read Church documents then the Church is on to this notion “Gaudiem et spes”…The Church in the Modern World.

The Church exists in the world and what happens around it is relevant but does not change what it.

If someone takes the name Christian and uses it that does not mean that it is a Christian organization. I dare say Mormons in my opinion are not Christians.

If someone takes the name Church and uses it that does not make it a Church. Scientology declares itself to be a Chruch and in my opinion that does not make it the Church.

Protestants declare themselves to be Christian and the OHCAC recognizes them as Christians not because they say so rather because we accept the Trinitarin Baptism that as Paul says in Roman’s 6 incorporates them into the life and death of Christ. It also incorporates them into the mystrery, the Church, by which Gentiles are made fellow heirs with Christ.

Do I abrogate Paul because someone chooses not to know what it is they should know about the use of words or do I see through the Semantic problem of use as accepted by some but not by all. You may want to read Alfred Korzybski, Science and Sanity…the founding work for General Semantics. Here is the basic tenet.

The map is not the territory.

If you want to incorporate your understanding of words in your map…just know that it does not equate to the territory.

I am talking about language and lexicography. Your response above has nothing to do with what I wrote earlier. You are talking about Catholic doctrinal theology. From that standpoint, I suppose you are right. But not from the standpoint of descriptive language. But even Catholic anesthesiology admits that the churches of the east are churches. Do you shrink from calling Greek Orthodoxy a denomination?

 

[CopticChristian]

I am talking about language and lexicography. Your response above has nothing to do with what I wrote earlier. You are talking about Catholic doctrinal theology. From that standpoint, I suppose you are right. But not from the standpoint of descriptive language. But even Catholic anesthesiology admits that the churches of the east are churches. Do you shrink from calling Greek Orthodoxy a denomination?

Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic East/West cause me to shout …hey bra…this be da OHCAC.

 

[KathleenGee]

Anodos…

You are correct. The universal Christian Church (Latin and Orthodox) was founded by the Apostles. The schism is what separates us, and it is something we must pray for daily.

The rite of baptism is universal Christian, so those Christians who receive the rite of baptism are baptized into the universal church but separated brethren.

Also, the Anglican and some branches of the Lutheran churches are considered churches because they have maintained their episcopacy. The more the 7 Christian sacraments are lost, the more the loss of ‘church’ is lost. The latter is defined as ecclesial communities.

The more the sacraments are lost, the more Christians’ roots are lost and it is very hard for them to understand the nature and mission of the universal church.

 

[mick321]

Anodos…

You are correct. The universal Christian Church (Latin and Orthodox) was founded by the Apostles. The schism is what separates us, and it is something we must pray for daily.

The rite of baptism is universal Christian, so those Christians who receive the rite of baptism are baptized into the universal church but separated brethren.

Also, the Anglican and some branches of the Lutheran churches are considered churches because they have maintained their episcopacy. The more the 7 Christian sacraments are lost, the more the loss of ‘church’ is lost. The latter is defined as ecclesial communities.

The more the sacraments are lost, the more Christians’ roots are lost and it is very hard for them to understand the nature and mission of the universal church.

Separated brethren. That is an interesting term to apply to this discussion. As you correctly point out, the RC and EO churches have an undisputed common heritage in Christ and the Apostles.

But what about all these Protestants? The Orthodox Church does not think of them as “separated brethren”. Why should they? Most modern Protestants have never even heard of the Orthodox Church, let alone its traditions, liturgy and saints.

The Protestant Reformation was specifically a rebellion against the Roman Catholic Church and its practices of the 16th century. Every Protestant knows that. Indeed, by its own actions, RCC appears to have spawned the reformation and every manifestation of Christianity that followed. The Church’s own use of the term “separated brethren” would seem to suggest a biological and/or cultural link with every Protestant, living and dead. Would it not?

 

[KathleenGee]

They are called separated because they do not attend Mass with the same belief, and their faith tenants are not supported by the teachings of the Apostles and Tradition – faith lived out, our creed, our liturgy…which they reject.

Big difference. But their baptisms are recognized, and for a Protestant to enter the Catholic Church it is a matter of going through the pastor and what he designates necessary…and the new member, in complying with the pastor’s directives, then is allowed to attend Mass as a full fledged Catholic – the following Mass day if possible.

If you don’t believe in the Creed, the Mass and sacraments…then wouldn’t you say the person is separated from the universal church?..or is your concept of brethren symbolic?

 

[KathleenGee]

And Mick,

What the Protestants ignored were all the actions taken by the Church to reform itself…and it did.

So where is the forgiveness and understanding on the side of them? Our faith is based on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, His Oral Tradition given us by His chosen witnesses…

Protestantism has its different denominations headed by individual, unchallenged men, based on personal interpretation which St. Peter in his second letter exhorted us not to do. The other part of Protestantism is its own going comparative against the Catholic Church…which is retro and unsubstantiated.

There is a good site, www.calledtocommunion.com that is put together with various articles written by former Protestants who have become Catholic and explain in fundamental, foundational concepts of why they changed…

I highly recommend it to you as the more I have learned my faith as a cradle Catholic, that demands I put my focus on Christ and my own life and not always looking at other religions knocking them down…that through the Church, and in particular the full way of accepting the Holy Father with the bishops and believers, the universal church is best able to bring me and us to full communion, not symbolic, but actual at the same table…with the Holy Trinity, all believers in the world and the world God created…as one…communion.

I don’t need to have part of my Christian construct of faith put me above or protest against other Christians…

 

[Izdaari]

Ah! Thank you for correcting me on that. You’re most certainly right! Thank you!

I know! But, does the First Foursquare United Gospel Association of Continuing Baptepresbytericostal Reforming Church really sound like they have valid orders?

I know what you mean though, I just like making up overly-exaggerated names, that’s all. Now the buildings they worship in are “churches” don’t get me wrong.

LOL! Angloluthicostal here! :egyptian:

 

[JPeter]

Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic East/West cause me to shout …hey bra…this be da OHCAC.

Coptic,

You do realize that the Orthodox consider some of your beliefs heretical right? Considering the Roman Catholic Church stands or falls by the Papacy I would be careful to conclude that you are in agreement. Because if Orthodoxy is the fullness of the faith then the Papacy is no longer essential. And Orthodoxy does not consider you the other lung of the Church. Orthodoxy views Orthodoxy as the fullness of the faith. There is only one truth. If you want to call Orthodoxy the fullness of the faith then purgatory, the immaculate conception of Mary, clerical celibacy, the supremacy and infallibility of the Pope, along with a few more doctrines go into the fire pit.

I think your doing the right thing by declaring Orthodoxy to be part of the OHCAC but I have to wonder if you have thought about it fully. For me its one step towards accepting the Anglican branch theory.

 

[KathleenGee]

There is schism because, through culture, politics, geography, miscommunication, and failure to see new reforms to the papacy…there is denial to this day of the role of Peter…one head as sign of universal Christian faith and practice.

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic,

You do realize that the Orthodox consider some of your beliefs heretical right? Considering the Roman Catholic Church stands or falls by the Papacy I would be careful to conclude that you are in agreement. Because if Orthodoxy is the fullness of the faith then the Papacy is no longer essential. And Orthodoxy does not consider you the other lung of the Church. Orthodoxy views Orthodoxy as the fullness of the faith. There is only one truth. If you want to call Orthodoxy the fullness of the faith then purgatory, the immaculate conception of Mary, clerical celibacy, the supremacy and infallibility of the Pope, along with a few more doctrines go into the fire pit.

I think your doing the right thing by declaring Orthodoxy to be part of the OHCAC but I have to wonder if you have thought about it fully. For me its one step towards accepting the Anglican branch theory.

J,

The Orthodox believe in 7 sacraments/mysteries and we are all united in Eucharistic Worship as the focal point. This is where the discussion begins. We have common worshp with valid priesthoods and a valid Eucharist. No Orthodox I know would deny this.

Considering the Papacy I am OK with Rome being the first among equals. The Orthodox acknowledge Bishoprics and Rome is a Bishopric. What they choose to call Rome beyond the first among equals does not equate in my mind a denial of the Papacy. I could elaborate as to how this could work out but being the first among equals does not equate in my mind to anything but calling the Roman Catholic Church East/West equal to the Orthodox Eastern and Oriental.

Concerning the need for a Papacy it is necessary as the head of the Roman Catholic Church East/West the first among equals. Then the other Bishops are just like the Bishop of Rome with one exception. Rome is not the equivalent of just Rome as say for instance for example Russian Orthodox with a Russian Patriarch. I understand that there are other unities within that Patriarchy however I don’t have a problem with any of this as it concerns any Orthodox. I don’t find quibbling over what the Papacy is and the first among equals means to anything except as to how leadership speaks to each other.

It is not relevant that the Orthodox do not see themselves as the other lung of the Church. It is the Roman Catholic Paradigm and not meant to be imposed as something the Orthodox must see or believe. It is just a way of speaking of what Roman Catholicism sees and believes. First among equals would suggest that since all are equal the paradigm is differently understood, yet the same in essence.

There is no requirement for the Orthodox to accept the beliefs as defined concerning Mary, Purgatory, Celibacy and the Papacy. The Orthodox beliefs in my opinion are what I believe to be similar but not developed to the extent that they are in Roman Catholicism. The seeds of these beliefs in Roman Catholicism are found in Orthodoxy and since Rome is the first among equals this includes some notion of similar beliefs. Beliefs defined beyond Orthodoxy does not make them new and novle just different in my opinion.

Anglican Branch theory I reject.

 

[JPeter]

Anglican Branch theory I reject.

You say that but by your answer it seems like you kind of do accept the Anglican branch theory.

The Orthodox believe in 7 sacraments/mysteries and we are all united in Eucharistic Worship as the focal point. This is where the discussion begins. We have common worshp with valid priesthoods and a valid Eucharist. No Orthodox I know would deny this.

Then you might want to go to an official website because many deny this. Some would say that your sacraments and Priesthood are invalid.

Considering the Papacy I am OK with Rome being the first among equals. The Orthodox acknowledge Bishoprics and Rome is a Bishopric. What they choose to call Rome beyond the first among equals does not equate in my mind a denial of the Papacy. I could elaborate as to how this could work out but being the first among equals does not equate in my mind to anything but calling the Roman Catholic Church East/West equal to the Orthodox Eastern and Oriental.

I agree.

Concerning the need for a Papacy it is necessary as the head of the Roman Catholic Church East/West the first among equals. Then the other Bishops are just like the Bishop of Rome with one exception. Rome is not the equivalent of just Rome as say for instance for example Russian Orthodox with a Russian Patriarch. I understand that there are other unities within that Patriarchy however I don’t have a problem with any of this as it concerns any Orthodox. I don’t find quibbling over what the Papacy is and the first among equals means to anything except as to how leadership speaks to each other.

I agree. Is this how the Roman Catholic Church officially believes?

There is no requirement for the Orthodox to accept the beliefs as defined concerning Mary, Purgatory, Celibacy and the Papacy. The Orthodox beliefs in my opinion are what I believe to be similar but not developed to the extent that they are in Roman Catholicism. The seeds of these beliefs in Roman Catholicism are found in Orthodoxy and since Rome is the first among equals this includes some notion of similar beliefs. Beliefs defined beyond Orthodoxy does not make them new and novle just different in my opinion.

If its not required for them to be the fullness of the Church it isn’t required for Roman Catholics either. Your words here match the Anglican branch theory almost word for word. If this is truly how the Roman Catholic Church officially believes then I will sign up for RCIA tommorrow.

 

[JPeter]

The seeds of these beliefs in Roman Catholicism are found in Orthodoxy and since Rome is the first among equals this includes some notion of similar beliefs. Beliefs defined beyond Orthodoxy does not make them new and novle just different in my opinion.

The Anglican branch theory theory is that, though the Church may have fallen into schism within itself and its several provinces or groups of provinces be out of communion with each other, each may yet be a branch of the one Church of Christ, provided that it continues to hold the faith of the original undivided Church and to maintain the Apostolic Succession of its bishops.:hug1:

 

[CopticChristian]

You say that but by your answer it seems like you kind of do accept the Anglican branch theory.

Then you might want to go to an official website because many deny this. Some would say that your sacraments and Priesthood are invalid.

I agree.

I agree. Is this how the Roman Catholic Church officially believes?

If its not required for them to be the fullness of the Church it isn’t required for Roman Catholics either. Your words here match the Anglican branch theory almost word for word. If this is truly how the Roman Catholic Church officially believes then I will sign up for RCIA tommorrow.

Keep in touch after you start RCIA