Do members of non-Cathoic denominations believe their church is the One True Church of Jesus Christ?

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
I do not buy of the whole notion that there is no true church and there is only a fellowship of Christians? How does that justify Jesus’s words: May they ALL be one, as the Father and I are one.

Fellowship only by name,but divided by doctrine?

I quite agree with you. As I said, that was my former belief. The Orthodox believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Exactly! The Orthodox are part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Okay but the above are rites all in communion with Rome. Different rites…ALL one universal church.

No, they aren’t just different rites. They are sui juris churches, with their own organizations. The Byzantine Catholic church in Cary, NC is not under the bishop of Raleigh but under the Eparch of Passaic, in faraway New Jersey! And the people of that parish were (at least in the 90s) very happy about this, because they thought the Roman Catholic diocese of Raleigh was way too liberal. Many of the people in the parish were Roman-Rite Catholics who attended this parish out of preference, and/or Western converts.

You simply said Byzantine,Maronite,etc which are considered eastern rites in communion with Rome. Now if you are stating the Byzantine Church is off all on its own doing whatever it pleases,then it is a renegade church no longer in communion with Rome. And?

Quote:
All in communion with Rome.Different orders all under same universal church

.

Fine. You wave a wand and say “all one church.” Protestants wave a wand and say “all one church.” Admittedly, you wave different wands. Your wand is called “all in communion with/under Rome.” The Protestant wand is called “invisible unity.” But both wands allow Christians supposedly in union with each other to attend rival parishes in the same place and to criticize each other for not getting Christianity quite right (at least, the Byzantines criticized the Latins in North Carolina.)

I waved no magic wand,because that is what Jesus founded…ONE church which should be universal,not fragmented into thousands different ones. Well I hate to rain on your parade but Protestants can make the claim “all one church” or 'invisible unity" which is not what Christ founded. An invisble church yet divided into thousands of different churches? I am still waiting for one Protestant to show me where Christ or the Apostles praised,advocated or promoted an ‘invisible’ church fragmented into chopped liver?

The question really is: how do you define denomination? You seem to assume that a denomination is something like the Roman Communion (in your terms, the Catholic Church) as a whole rather than something like the Roman or Byzantine church in particular, or (somewhat less accurately) like a religious order. Why do you assume this? When confronted with the fact that most Protestants don’t think of their denominations in this why, you then ask how they “justify” belonging to them, which makes no sense except on the prior assumption that Protestant denominations are “supposed” to be “things like the Catholic Church.”

Come again? I do not assume anything,but moreover what Christ established and it certainly is not Protestanism.And why? Because it is called history and anyone will easily acknowledge it as a fact of life. Protestanism was founded by individuals,not Christ or the Apostles.

Quote:
If they are from the Latin Rite,what difference does it make? Same church different ethnic groups,etc.

Well, what difference does belonging to two different denominations make? Most Protestants think that different denominations belong to the same Church.

What difference does it make? You think it would make a difference to Jesus or His Apostles? Again,I do not see any of them advocating denominations each with its own twist and flavor. Well ‘thinking’ and reality are two entire different things.

 

[Harpazo]

Exactly! The Orthodox are part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church

I think you may have misunderstood. We believe we ARE the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Exactly! The Orthodox are part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church

Really? So the Orthodox are the True Church then?

 

[Contarini]

How extensive is yours? I’m not going to get into an “I know more people than you do” debate, because that is utterly juvenile.

Indeed. I raised the question only because I often note Catholics on this forum making claims about what Protestants believe which turn out to be based on local experience in the South.

When I say that there are many Protestants out there who think that only Protestants “get it right” and that Protestantism is the “real” Christianity, I’m rather surprised that you would even question that

I would not have questioned it if you had said “many.” But you implied that this was either universal or at least what one might normally expect. I have not found this to be the case. I grew up in very conservative circles (my family were more ecumenical than many of the folks we knew because we were willing to acknowledge that there were truly holy people in the Catholic Church), and have been pleasantly surprised to find that most Protestants really aren’t like that.

Of course they’re out there. And of course it’s not an official or a universally-held position. It’s an attitude of suspicion of non-Protestants.

That’s very different from claiming that all Protestants are part of the true Church and non-Protestants aren’t.

I repeat: generally where you find a suspicion of non-Protestants, you will also find a suspicion of fellow Protestants, particularly liberals.

Yes, I’ve seen it among Methodists. Not yet among Northern Baptists.

Fair enough!

My Methodist mother-in-law (R.I.P.) did say to my wife when the latter (whom I did not yet know) decided to take a class on Luther with my advisor, “That’s a good idea, because that’s when it all started.” If that’s the kind of thing you are talking about–an assumption that the part of the Christian story most relevant for “us” is the part beginning with the Reformation–then I agree. But the fairly conservative Methodists of my wife’s family would never dream of questioning that the Catholic Church is a true church–just a rather strange one with a lot of unnecessary and unhelpful ideas and practices.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

You simply said Byzantine,Maronite,etc which are considered eastern rites in communion with Rome. Now if you are stating the Byzantine Church is off all on its own doing whatever it pleases,then it is a renegade church no longer in communion with Rome. And?

That is not what I am saying. If you aren’t familiar with the concept of “sui juris” churches, you can read about it here. Again, while these churches are certainly linked to specific rites, they are more than just rites–they have parallel organizations.

.

I waved no magic wand,because that is what Jesus founded…ONE church which should be universal,not fragmented into thousands different ones.

But define what it means to be a “different church.” When the Germans in my town said that they didn’t want any stinking Irish in their parish, were they really part of the same church? Is that really what St. Paul called for in 1 Corinthians? When the folks at St. Cyril and Methodius complained about the modernism and liturgical laxity at local Roman-Rite parishes, weren’t they in some sense dividing the Church? When a group of the faithful in a Roman-Rite parish requests the use of the Extraordinary Form, and proceeds to worship only at those Masses, criticizing the bulk of the parish who attend the Ordinary Form, are they fully part of one Church?

I have no interest in defending Protestantism. Of course Protestantism is hopelessly divided. But we need to speak about those divisions accurately and make proper comparisons to the similar (not identical) problems that exist even within Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

Come again? I do not assume anything,but moreover what Christ established and it certainly is not Protestanism.And why? Because it is called history and anyone will easily acknowledge it as a fact of life. Protestanism was founded by individuals,not Christ or the Apostles.

Catholic religious orders were also founded by individuals.

What difference does it make? You think it would make a difference to Jesus or His Apostles? Again,I do not see any of them advocating denominations each with its own twist and flavor.

The best definition of “denomination” I’ve gotten out of you is this one–different “twists and flavors.” These different “flavors” certainly exist in the Roman Communion. So you still haven’t explained what a “denomination” is and why the existence of separate denominations means that separate churches exist.

Again, I am not disputing that Protestants are divided. I am questioning the use of the term “denomination” to describe those divisions, unless you are willing to criticize all reduplication of organizational structures, which would condemn your own Communion.

Edwin

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
You simply said Byzantine,Maronite,etc which are considered eastern rites in communion with Rome. Now if you are stating the Byzantine Church is off all on its own doing whatever it pleases,then it is a renegade church no longer in communion with Rome. And?

That is not what I am saying. If you aren’t familiar with the concept of “sui juris” churches, you can read about it here. Again, while these churches are certainly linked to specific rites, they are more than just rites–they have parallel organizations.

.
Parallel organizations? And care to explain how affects their communion with Rome?

Quote:
I waved no magic wand,because that is what Jesus founded…ONE church which should be universal,not fragmented into thousands different ones.

But define what it means to be a “different church.” When the Germans in my town said that they didn’t want any stinking Irish in their parish, were they really part of the same church? Is that really what St. Paul called for in 1 Corinthians? When the folks at St. Cyril and Methodius complained about the modernism and liturgical laxity at local Roman-Rite parishes, weren’t they in some sense dividing the Church? When a group of the faithful in a Roman-Rite parish requests the use of the Extraordinary Form, and proceeds to worship only at those Masses, criticizing the bulk of the parish who attend the Ordinary Form, are they fully part of one Church?

Complaints,rants,raves,opinions,prejudices,perversions,etc are exactly that and nothing more. Precisely why there exists so many divisions in Christianity. Again,Christ founded ONE church and did not ask for our opinions as to what we think His church should be or consist of in matters of faith. It is all about the truth.

I have no interest in defending Protestantism. Of course Protestantism is hopelessly divided. But we need to speak about those divisions accurately and make proper comparisons to the similar (not identical) problems that exist even within Catholicism and Orthodoxy

.

Well with all due respect,but unity between the RCC & Orthodox is a lot more plausible,then the many ranks of Protestanism.

Quote:
Come again? I do not assume anything,but moreover what Christ established and it certainly is not Protestanism.And why? Because it is called history and anyone will easily acknowledge it as a fact of life. Protestanism was founded by individuals,not Christ or the Apostles.

Catholic religious orders were also founded by individuals.

Exactly…orders founded under the same CHURCH,not entire new churches,big difference there.

Quote:

What difference does it make? You think it would make a difference to Jesus or His Apostles? Again,I do not see any of them advocating denominations each with its own twist and flavor.

The best definition of “denomination” I’ve gotten out of you is this one–different “twists and flavors.” These different “flavors” certainly exist in the Roman Communion. So you still haven’t explained what a “denomination” is and why the existence of separate denominations means that separate churches exist.

Circular agrument with no beginning or end. Yes and those twists and flavors are called rites for the 10th billion time. Is the Chaldean Rite all independent of Rome? If it is,then it no longer is in communion. Explain a denomination? The Methodist? The First Baptist? Southern Baptist? Calvary Chapel? Assemblies of God? Evidently they all differ since each is independent of the other. Isn’t it obvious they are separate entities,churches,denominations,sects,etc whatever term one chooses to use?

Again, I am not disputing that Protestants are divided. I am questioning the use of the term “denomination” to describe those divisions, unless you are willing to criticize all reduplication of organizational structures, which would condemn your own Communion.

Well that is okay,if you want to question the term denominations. I am not so concerned with the term;moreover, I am a lot more concerned with the massive divisions which continue to this day. Sorry,but that is not what Christ left as His Church,there simply is no way around it.

Edwin

 

[Harpazo]

Really? So the Orthodox are the True Church then?

It’s true.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Wesley7]

Looks like the Russian Orthodox Church was independent of the Church of Rome for 1,000 years in the history of Christianity.

 

[Nicea325]

It’s true.

In Christ,
Andrew

No, they are one part of the ONE true church: RCC/Orthodox as other ancient liturgical churches.

I have never considered the Orthodox as outsiders of the one true church.

I really,really find it sad that the RCC/Orthodox are not ONE as before. Blame falls on both sides,not just one.

 

[Texasgringo70]

The question was “Do denominations think they’re the one true church?” Obviously, they do not and never have (except for a few cults which are hardly recognizable denominations). When I say that there are many Protestants out there who think that only Protestants “get it right” and that Protestantism is the “real” Christianity, I’m rather surprised that you would even question that. Of course they’re out there. And of course it’s not an official or a universally-held position. It’s an attitude of suspicion of non-Protestants. Not all Protestants are ecumenically-minded. Some just believe they’re right and don’t give it a second though. Yes, I’ve seen it among Methodists. Not yet among Northern Baptists.

I think you pretty much nailed it. I would add this to help our Catholic friends understand how a very large percentage of protestants believe:

When Jesus was asked by Pilot if He was King of the Jews, the Gospel of John version has Jesus responding that His Kingdom is not of this world. The protestants who are not ecumenically minded as you put it are of the thought that the Church is the sum of those who worship God in Spirit and in truth (John 4), are citizens of Christ’s Kingdom, and that neither the Kingdom (church) nor the the Kingdom’s government are of this world. Those who believe this completely are very open to the possibility that true Christians can and do exist in any denomination. This belief is also why the arguments of apostolic succession ring hollow with most protestants.

To back up what you said about cults, I took a course once in pseudo-christian cults. In it they taught that an organization’s belief that only their members will be saved, or that they are the only true church is typically a sign that the opposite is actually true. They didn’t say it was a definitive sign, but that it is a strong indicator that you should take a closer look at that organization’s doctrines. I think this also might be why so many protestants are so leery about the Catholic Church. Catholics are many times very quick to point out that they believe the Catholic Church is the only true church and when that happens alarm bells go off in the heads of most protestants. I would not be surprised if most Catholics do not know that this is a common teaching in protestant churches. It is referred to as a Noah’s Ark view of the church (ie. if you are not in the Ark, you won’t be saved).

I hope this helps.

 

[Texasgringo70]

INC (Iglesia ni Cristo) believes that they are the restoration of the apostasized church of Christ. In line with this, they claim salvation is exclusively available to them and cannot be found elsewhere.

Most main stream protestants would consider INC and other restoration churches a cult because they deny the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Some of the 7th day churches have the same problem, but not so many any more. A good example of that is the Worldwide Church of God which is now called Grace Communion International. They were a 7th day church and held to a variation of British Israelism. Now they have totally changed their doctrinal beliefs to those of evangelical protestants and accept the Nicene Creed.

 

[Publisher]

Do they? Do Lutherans believe their church was founded by Jesus Christ and to be infallible in matters of doctinre (sacremnts, etc). The same goes for Baptist, Anglicans, etc? I was baptized Lutheran in high school by converted to Catholicism towards the end. I don’t mean to be rude, I just want to know what other Christians really think about their denominations.

If it is not official doctrine that your denomination is the One True Church, how do you justify remaining in it?

Thanks

Friends believe the True Church of Jesus Christ is made of of those who are redeemed in Him through the work of the Holy Spirit in a believers life. The Church meets for worship corporately each First Day. The Church is unified through the salvic work of the Holy Spirit…we are One Faith, One Baptism and One Lord…faith in Christ, baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ.

The Church is both “invisible” in that it is comprised of all who’s faith is in Christ in His Mytical Body made up of various members of the various religious instituions. It is “visible” in that the Body of Christ meets each First Day for corporate worship as those led by the Spirit join together worship.

Is the Society of Friends the “True Chruch”? Members of the Society are part of the True Church…but the man made organization is the vehicle of which those who follow Christ make their influence and message know in the world. Is the Methodist church…or Nazarene church…or Catholic church…or Orthodox church…or Episcopal church are simply the man made organizations whose members if “living in Christ” are members too of the Body of Christ.

I understand the claims some of the various organizations make for their own tradition.

 

[Metamorphoo]

I waved no magic wand,because that is what Jesus founded…ONE church which should be universal,not fragmented into thousands different ones. Well I hate to rain on your parade but Protestants can make the claim “all one church” or 'invisible unity" which is not what Christ founded. An invisble church yet divided into thousands of different churches? I am still waiting for one Protestant to show me where Christ or the Apostles praised,advocated or promoted an ‘invisible’ church fragmented into chopped liver?

People can be in the same church, yet not be in unity. I was taught in Church history class (in a Catholic school) that Christendom was united until the Great Schism. But there had been problems between East and West ***for centuries ***prior to 1054. Was there unity prior to 1054? I think not. But things came to a head in 1054, and that’s when the split became official.

I know that within the Catholic Church, its members are divided as well. One example: Traditionalists don’t like the post-Vatican II changes within the RCC and think that it has gone astray. My Traditionalist Catholic brother thinks the Novus Ordo (sp?) Mass needs to be jettisoned and avoids going to an N.O. Mass whenever possible. He has nothing but disdain for “Spirit of Vatican II” churches. Other Catholics think the RCC hasn’t gone far enough. It wants the pope to allow priests to marry and women to be ordained. Where’s the unity?

Although I don’t care for all the splits within Protestantism, I also know that I can enjoy wonderful fellowship with many Protestants whose doctrinal beliefs differ in certain respects from mine. So in spite of all the different Protestant denominations, we aren’t as divided as you might suppose.

Eusebius records a meeting that Polycarp had with the Bishop of Rome to discuss the manner in which Christ’s resurrection should be observed. Polycarp–who had been a disciple of John and acquainted with some of the other apostles as well–was a Quartodeciman and felt strongly that the Church should celebrate Christ’s passion/resurrection within the context of its historic setting: the Jewish Passover. Why did he think so? *Because that was how John and the other apostles he knew had done it!!! * The Bishop of Rome wouldn’t budge, stating that it was not the tradition that he had received. Both men felt strongly about their position, and couldn’t agree. So essentially, they agreed to disagree and parted in peace. Later on in Church history, however, the difference in practice over the celebration of Christ’s passion/resurrection became a bigger issue to Constantine and some church leaders–and the Council of Nicea forced a “unity” of practice (primarily because it didn’t want Christians to have anything in common with the Jews) … and in so doing, created a rift among Christians that lasted for centuries!

External unity is not necessarily the same as true unity.

 

[Contarini]

.
Parallel organizations?

Yes. In any one place, there may be parishes under the jurisdiction of several bishops, all of whom are in communion with Rome. And that’s before you add in the religious orders, the “personal prelature” of Opus Dei, the newly proposed Anglican-use ordinariates, etc.

And care to explain how affects their communion with Rome?

It doesn’t. If you boil everything down to communion with Rome, so that parallel organizations all in communion with Rome are obviously one Church and parallel organizations not in communion with Rome are obviously different churches, then you are committing the fallacy called “begging the question.” Churches not in communion with Rome can’t be unified, you are claiming, because they aren’t in communion with Rome. This may be very satisfactory to you, but it’s useless as a basis for dialogue with other Christians.

If parallel ecclesiastical organizations all in communion with Rome can be one Church, then it should follow that parallel ecclesiastical organizations which have similar expressions of unity not focused on Rome can also be one Church. And your automatic identification of “denominations” with separate churches falls by the wayside. Two “denominations” which recognize each other as orthodox, allow each other’s members to receive communion in churches of either denomination, allow pastors ordained in one denomination to minister in a church of the other, etc., would appear to be part of one Church. This isn’t just “invisible unity”–it’s very real and practical unity.

Of course not all Protestant denominations are united with each other in this way, and indeed it’s hard to determine at times just which denominations are in communion with which. Again, I’m not trying to clear Protestants of the charge of disunity, only to point out that simply pointing to parallel ecclesiastical organizations (i.e., “denominations”) won’t do the trick all by itself unless you are willing to condemn parallel organizations within your own Communion. (I am, but you may not be.)

Exactly…orders founded under the same CHURCH,not entire new churches,big difference there.

But you haven’t defined what makes something a “new church” rather than an order within the same church.

Circular agrument with no beginning or end. Yes and those twists and flavors are called rites for the 10th billion time. Is the Chaldean Rite all independent of Rome? If it is,then it no longer is in communion.

No, the technical term really is “sui juris church.” Don’t believe me–check with your fellow Catholics.

If Rome is the magic formula and you aren’t willing to go beyond that, then as I said above we can’t communicate meaningfully. You can’t make a case to people not already convinced that union with Rome is the necessary and sufficient cause of unity.

Explain a denomination? The Methodist? The First Baptist? Southern Baptist? Calvary Chapel? Assemblies of God?

I asked for a definition, not examples. Furthermore, Methodists in the United States at least are not one denomination–there are at least four (three of them African-American), and more if you count some of the conservative groups.

Evidently they all differ since each is independent of the other.

So you’re incapable of recognizing any unity that doesn’t involve control of one by another? In that case, there isn’t much possibility of communication.

Isn’t it obvious they are separate entities,churches,denominations,sects,etc whatever term one chooses to use?

United Methodists, Southern Baptists, and Assemblies of God clearly differ from each other doctrinally. And Southern Baptists do not generally recognize UM baptism (since it rarely involves immersion). So I think these three are good examples of separate churches in some sense, even though UM’s would say that the other two are fully part of the one Catholic Church. (The others might not reciprocate, at least not entirely.)

I don’t know enough about Calvary Chapel to comment.

There is no such thing as a “First Baptist” denomination. A “First Baptist Church” is simply the oldest/principal Baptist church in a given town. This is a good example of the way you can misunderstand and misapply the concept of “denomination.”

Well that is okay,if you want to question the term denominations. I am not so concerned with the term;moreover, I am a lot more concerned with the massive divisions which continue to this day.

I am too. That’s why I want us to speak precisely and accurately about them.

The problem is that the ways Protestants differ from each other are hopelessly complicated. With the exception of certain very conservative, closed groups, it’s not as simple as a bunch of “denominations” each claiming to be the true Church. The UMs, for instance, have a very broad definition of the Church. Many Baptists have a much narrower one. And so on.

Edwin

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
.
Parallel organizations?

Yes. In any one place, there may be parishes under the jurisdiction of several bishops, all of whom are in communion with Rome. And that’s before you add in the religious orders, the “personal prelature” of Opus Dei, the newly proposed Anglican-use ordinariates, etc.

Okay…and? The diocese I belong to has two bishops.Case in point, the diocese here contains two counties,thus one bishop handles one county with its parishes and the other auxiliary bishops handles the other county with its parishes,but ALL under one church.Larger dioceses have more than two? I do not see where this leading to or what it proves?

Quote:
And care to explain how affects their communion with Rome?

It doesn’t. If you boil everything down to communion with Rome, so that parallel organizations all in communion with Rome are obviously one Church and parallel organizations not in communion with Rome are obviously different churches, then you are committing the fallacy called “begging the question.” Churches not in communion with Rome can’t be unified, you are claiming, because they aren’t in communion with Rome. This may be very satisfactory to you, but it’s useless as a basis for dialogue with other Christians.

If parallel ecclesiastical organizations all in communion with Rome can be one Church, then it should follow that parallel ecclesiastical organizations which have similar expressions of unity not focused on Rome can also be one Church. And your automatic identification of “denominations” with separate churches falls by the wayside. Two “denominations” which recognize each other as orthodox, allow each other’s members to receive communion in churches of either denomination, allow pastors ordained in one denomination to minister in a church of the other, etc., would appear to be part of one Church. This isn’t just “invisible unity”–it’s very real and practical unity.

QUOTE]

Committing a fallacy? Hardly. It is very simple,either they are in communion with Rome or not. Parallel,lateral,etc whatever you choose does not change the fact,if one is in communion with Rome. If those parallel organizations are not in communion with Rome,then there are not.

Quote:
Exactly…orders founded under the same CHURCH,not entire new churches,big difference there.

But you haven’t defined what makes something a “new church” rather than an order within the same church.

Define? You cannot be serious not to know what makes a ‘new church’ with your intelligence? If I worked at McDonalds and left to open up my own burger joint with a different taste,menus,etc…is that a “new” hamburger joint to you? An order and ‘new’ church are not the same.

Quote:
Circular agrument with no beginning or end. Yes and those twists and flavors are called rites for the 10th billion time. Is the Chaldean Rite all independent of Rome? If it is,then it no longer is in communion.

No, the technical term really is “sui juris church.” Don’t believe me–check with your fellow Catholics.

Okay,but does the term negate communion with Rome? Yes or No? If it does not,what difference the technical term make? Fellow Catholics also call them our Eastern brothers and sisters so does it affect their communion with Rome?

Quote:
Explain a denomination? The Methodist? The First Baptist? Southern Baptist? Calvary Chapel? Assemblies of God?

I asked for a definition, not examples. Furthermore, Methodists in the United States at least are not one denomination–there are at least four (three of them African-American), and more if you count some of the conservative groups.

And those examples should be ample enough to define ‘denominations’ if not,then tell me what does in your perspective?

Quote:
Evidently they all differ since each is independent of the other.

So you’re incapable of recognizing any unity that doesn’t involve control of one by another? In that case, there isn’t much possibility of communication

.

Unity? Who said unity has to revolve solely on control? Again,Christ left ONE church and I am pretty sure He wanted His Church to be universal and ONE. What I cannot comprehend how you are incapable of accepting Christ wishes: May they ALL be ONE.

Quote:
Isn’t it obvious they are separate entities,churches,denominations,sects,et c whatever term one chooses to use?

United Methodists, Southern Baptists, and Assemblies of God clearly differ from each other doctrinally. And Southern Baptists do not generally recognize UM baptism (since it rarely involves immersion). So I think these three are good examples of separate churches in some sense, even though UM’s would say that the other two are fully part of the one Catholic Church. (The others might not reciprocate, at least not entirely.)

The above all differ doctrinally,so how can they be ‘united’ if they are still separated? United in what sense?

There is no such thing as a “First Baptist” denomination. A “First Baptist Church” is simply the oldest/principal Baptist church in a given town. This is a good example of the way you can misunderstand and misapply the concept of “denomination.”

My misunderstanding? The First Baptist Church is one of many American Baptist churches,which is independent and self-governening. You do not consider it an entire separate church,sect,deomination? Bottomline is that they exist regardless of definition.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

It’s true.

In Christ,
Andrew

Thanks for the reply Andrew. I know you believe it, and I believe it, but I really wanted confirmation from someone in the Roman church. I think there might be some division in their own ranks about this.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

No, they are one part of the ONE true church: RCC/Orthodox as other ancient liturgical churches.

I have never considered the Orthodox as outsiders of the one true church.

I really,really find it sad that the RCC/Orthodox are not ONE as before. Blame falls on both sides,not just one.

Oh so the ONE TRUE CHURCH has many parts that are not in communion with Rome, even though it seems from your own post here and the post of others that communion with Rome is absolutely necessary to be part of the ONE TRUE CHURCH.

Okay but the above are rites all in communion with Rome. Different rites…ALL one universal church.

Unbroken continuity would mean in the line of apostolic succession of Peter appointed by Jesus as the head of the Church. If not in communion with Rome - the chair of Peter- then cannot claim any such thing. sorry! But back to the main point of this thread, how can other churches such as your own justify not belonging to the Chuch that Jesus started?

 

[AmateurPianist]

Do they? Do Lutherans believe their church was founded by Jesus Christ and to be infallible in matters of doctinre (sacremnts, etc). The same goes for Baptist, Anglicans, etc? I was baptized Lutheran in high school by converted to Catholicism towards the end. I don’t mean to be rude, I just want to know what other Christians really think about their denominations.

I would never, ever claim that my denomination and my organization alone is the one true church and that God gives special graces and benefits that God can not and will not provide to other organizations. This suggests that God shows partiality on the basis of organization, and I have absolutely no reason to believe this.

If it is not official doctrine that your denomination is the One True Church, how do you justify remaining in it?

Thanks

As said above, I have no reason to believe that God exhibits partiality on the basis of which organization you choose to associate with.

 

[Contarini]

I do not see where this leading to or what it proves?

I’m not talking about suffragan/auxiliary/coadjutor bishops or whatever you want to call them, who act together and have joint jurisdiction. Nor am I talking about the size of dioceses. I’m talking about two bishops having completely independent jurisdiction over the same place, as is the case with Latin and Byzantine bishops. I’m pointing out that this is the sort of thing that makes you say “two denominations” when it occurs in Protestantism.

either they are in communion with Rome or not.

Sure. but we aren’t discussing whether they are in communion with Rome. We are discussing whether they are one church. My point is this:

1. Parallel ecclesiastical organizations exist all in communion with Rome.
2. These parallel organizations are clearly all one Church by your definition.
3. Therefore, mere parallel organization cannot be taken as proving, all by itself, that two groups not in communion with Rome form separate churches from *each other. *In other words, if the Latin and Byzantine Catholics are one Church, then the OPC and the PCA, or the Wesleyans and the Free Methodists, may be one Church as well. You have to do more than just point out that they are separate “denominations” (i.e., parallel organizations). You have to show how they differ in ways that go beyond the differences that clearly exist within your own Church.

Define? You cannot be serious not to know what makes a ‘new church’ with your intelligence?

It’s not entirely obvious, no. (I certainly have criteria that *I *think make one church separate from another, but they are sometimes difficult to apply to Protestantism, and they may be different from yours.) If you think I am so intelligent, why not treat me with a little more respect and actually take what I’m saying seriously? If you think I am not so intelligent after all, then perform that spiritual work of mercy called instructing the ignorant. But either way, please believe that I’m perfectly serious.

If I worked at McDonalds and left to open up my own burger joint with a different taste,menus,etc…is that a “new” hamburger joint to you?

In other words, you either can’t or won’t explain what makes one organization a separate “church” from another (since it’s clear that the existence of parallel structures in one place does not).

What corresponds to “taste, menus, etc.” in your MacDonald’s analogy? How different do two churches have to be? Different Catholic “particular churches” differ quite a bit from each other, after all.

One criterion I would suggest is doctrinal difference of a kind that would present an obstacle to a minister of one denomination functioning as a minister in another.

And those examples should be ample enough to define ‘denominations’

They’re obviously not the same kind of thing–as your citation of “First Baptist Church” shows.

if not,then tell me what does in your perspective?

I’m not the one putting ecclesiological weight on the term. I would tend to define a denomination quite narrowly, as a group of local churches with a common organizational structure, not dominated by the State and not claiming to be the One True Church. But if you want to drop of the latter two qualifications, that’s fine. Note that by this standard your “sui juris” churches are actually denominations.

Again, I’m fine if you don’t like this description. “Denomination” is a handy term to use for a certain kind of (mostly American) ecclesiastical organization. But the term seems a lot more important to you than it is to me.

Unity? Who said unity has to revolve solely on control?

Well, so far that’s the only definition you’ve given. You’ve only given that implicitly, so no doubt I’m misunderstanding you. But it’s your fault, because you persistently refuse to define your terms. You don’t tell me what counts as “one” (among churches not in communion with Rome); you don’t tell me what a “denomination” is, or when one group is a “separate” church from another. You treat all these questions with great impatience, and yet you want to build some grand argument on the terms that you refuse to define. This isn’t going to work.

The above all differ doctrinally,so how can they be ‘united’ if they are still separated? United in what sense?

They would all agree that members of the other two can be true believers in Jesus, for instance.

However, I admitted that these three are good examples of separate churches.

How about you discuss how the four mainline Methodist churches in the United States are separate churches, or how the Wesleyans, Free Methodists, and Nazarenes are separate churches.

The First Baptist Church is one of many American Baptist churches,which is independent and self-governening. You do not consider it an entire separate church,sect,deomination? Bottomline is that they exist regardless of definition.

Sure they exist. St. Peter and Paul Catholic church exists. And there are many churches with that name throughout the country–but they don’t constitute a denomination.

Are you suggesting that each Baptist church is a separate church/denomination from all the others? Again, this shows that you confuse unity with organizational control. If your argument is that organizational independence equals division, then you aren’t going to get very far. That’s not self-evident at all.

Why not focus on the many *real *divisions among Protestants (like the divisions that separate the three denominations listed above–SBC, UMC and AoG?). Why insist on definitions that simply reveal how little you understand Protestantism?

Edwin