Non-Catholic denominations

[rr1213]

There you have made the crucial distinction to support what I have been saying all along! There is only one United Methodist Church. There is only one Roman Catholic Church or you could even say there is only one Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
There ARE several Methodist churches and there are several Catholic churches as well.

No. The United Methodist Church will recognize that the African Methodist Episcopal Church, the free Methodists and other Methodist bodies while separate from the UMC, are still Methodist. The Catholic Church doesn’t recognize the bodies which are schismatic from her as being Catholic. Being in communion with the See of Peter is an important thing to Catholics. (Bit of an understatement there).

 

[SSTeacher]

The Roman Catholic Church does not get an exception just because they do not want anyone else using the name.

Well, it seems to me that it ought to. When I first came to this website I was checking into the Catholic Church. I was interested in the Church that claimed to be One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic and other groups claiming to be the Catholic Church would have confused and diverted me and simply gotten in the way.

The Catholic Church – the real Catholic Church – the proper Catholic Church – the Catholic Church that has been around since 33 AD – the Catholic Church wherein the majority of members embrace the Latin rite with twenty–two sui juris Churches embracing five other rites – the Catholic Church with the pope at its head – the Catholic Church that has seven sacraments – the Catholic Church that has published the Catechism of the Catholic Church outlining its doctrines and beliefs – does not contain denominations because denominations reflect differences of belief. So if denominationally–minded outsiders who are not Catholics because they do not believe what the Catholic Church teaches decide nevertheless to use the name “Catholic” to describe themselves it will lead people to think that there is little or no difference between the Catholic Church with its attendant oneness of doctrine and all the other churches in the West that have been making up doctrine as they go along ever since October 31, 1517. A seeker might start out considering the possibility of becoming a Catholic and have to endure meandering around as a confused Methodist before getting back on track.

Cordially,
Mick

 

[Peter_J]

You do not have a monopoly on the name…you might think you SHOULD…but you do not.

Well yes and no. Certainly I’m not trying to be some kind of “speech police”. If you believe that Old Catholics, etc., are “Catholic” (without qualifier) then you shouldn’t hestitate to say so. (Of course, doing so on this forum probably won’t make you very popular, but that’s beside the point.)

But, in the final analysis, the fact that you can say that doesn’t mean it’s right. The truth of the matter is that only those in the Roman Catholic Communion (or “Roman Catholic Church”, except that’s likely to start an argument) can rightly be called “Catholic” (without qualifier).

The fact remains with this line of reasoning, only one group is the true Lutherans, Methodists etc

Can you name even one group of Methodists (resp. Lutherans) who claim that nobody can be called “Methodists” (resp. “Lutherans”) unless they’re in full communion with them?

There you have made the crucial distinction to support what I have been saying all along! There is only one United Methodist Church.

Interesting point, I hadn’t considered that. However, I’m not at all sure that supports your position.

 

[Peter_J]

… the other 22 Rites of the Catholic Church.

To say that there are 22 Eastern Catholic rites is both false and offensive. There are 22 Eastern Catholic churches. (The number of rites is different from the number of churches because, for example, several different EC churches use the Byzantine Rite – the Melkite Catholic Church, the Ukrainian Catholic Church, the Romanian Catholic Church, etc.)

 

[BrianH]

No. The United Methodist Church will recognize that the African Methodist Episcopal Church, the free Methodists and other Methodist bodies while separate from the UMC, are still Methodist. The Catholic Church doesn’t recognize the bodies which are schismatic from her as being Catholic. Being in communion with the See of Peter is an important thing to Catholics. (Bit of an understatement there).

A couple of different things and this does not just apply to you rr1213 as I will respond to several things.
I know the different rites.
The central issue is that Roman Catholics, Catholics in communion with Rome all seem to want to monopolize the name. I understand their rationale but I reject it…as do the other Catholic denominations. Old Catholics are Catholic. Polish National Catholics are Catholic. Whether or not YOU recognize them as such is irrelevent even with your historical argument. One group, even if one believes they are the first, do not by definition get to determine who the name belongs to. Things simply do not work that way for other groups and I see no reason to make an exception.
What basis does a Protestant have for telling an Old Catholic they are not Catholic?
What basis as a United Methodist do I have for telling the Free Methodists they are not Methodist?
None. I have absolutely no reason to support the contention of the Catholics in communion with Rome over the Polish National Catholics or indeed any traditionalist or other group. The extra adjectives like “old” “polish” etc are helpful in understanding what group to be sure. There absolutely are Catholic denominations because they come from the Catholic Church…whether you…the first Baptist denomination, Methodist denomination , or Orthodox like it or not…When a group splits from the first they form denominations…and that is what happened here as well.

 

[SSTeacher]

A couple of different things and this does not just apply to you rr1213 as I will respond to several things.
I know the different rites.
The central issue is that Roman Catholics, Catholics in communion with Rome all seem to want to monopolize the name. I understand their rationale but I reject it…as do the other Catholic denominations. Old Catholics are Catholic. Polish National Catholics are Catholic. Whether or not YOU recognize them as such is irrelevent even with your historical argument. One group, even if one believes they are the first, do not by definition get to determine who the name belongs to. Things simply do not work that way for other groups and I see no reason to make an exception.
What basis does a Protestant have for telling an Old Catholic they are not Catholic?
What basis as a United Methodist do I have for telling the Free Methodists they are not Methodist?
None. I have absolutely no reason to support the contention of the Catholics in communion with Rome over the Polish National Catholics or indeed any traditionalist or other group. The extra adjectives like “old” “polish” etc are helpful in understanding what group to be sure. There absolutely are Catholic denominations because they come from the Catholic Church…whether you…the first Baptist denomination, Methodist denomination , or Orthodox like it or not…When a group splits from the first they form denominations…and that is what happened here as well.

Whatever you say.

Wearily,
Mick

 

[Peter_J]

A couple of different things and this does not just apply to you rr1213 as I will respond to several things.
I know the different rites.
The central issue is that Roman Catholics, Catholics in communion with Rome all seem to want to monopolize the name. I understand their rationale but I reject it…as do the other Catholic denominations. Old Catholics are Catholic. Polish National Catholics are Catholic.

And, conversely, I understand what you’re saying but I disagree with it.

Whether or not YOU recognize them as such is irrelevent even with your historical argument.

Well I would say that whether or not you consider our view to be irrelevant, is irrelevant.

One group, even if one believes they are the first, do not by definition get to determine who the name belongs to. Things simply do not work that way for other groups and I see no reason to make an exception.
What basis does a Protestant have for telling an Old Catholic they are not Catholic?
What basis as a United Methodist do I have for telling the Free Methodists they are not Methodist?
None. I have absolutely no reason to support the contention of the Catholics in communion with Rome over the Polish National Catholics or indeed any traditionalist or other group. The extra adjectives like “old” “polish” etc are helpful in understanding what group to be sure. There absolutely are Catholic denominations because they come from the Catholic Church

That’s what makes us the Catholic Church. All other Christian churches/denominations (including the Eastern Orthodox) split away from us (or split away from groups that had previously split away from us, etc.) That’s what you’re implicitly saying when you call us “the Catholic Church”. (Likewise, the Eastern Orthodox claim to be “the Catholic Church”, and say that all other Christian churches/denominations split away from them.)

…whether you…the first Baptist denomination, Methodist denomination , or Orthodox like it or not…When a group splits from the first they form denominations…and that is what happened here as well.

Yes, that is what happens.

 

[Peter_J]

P.S.

What basis as a United Methodist do I have for telling the Free Methodists they are not Methodist?

I can’t see any basis for telling Free Methodists they aren’t Methodist; but if you were to do so I would say that you’re entitled to your opinion.

 

[Spirithound]

But they are Catholic denominations. They are naturally not part of your church, that is not what I am saying. But They were part of the Roman Catholic Church at one time, certainly that is the case with the larger ones, and now they are not.

Well then Lutherans must be Catholic too.

 

[BrianH]

Well then Lutherans must be Catholic too.

Two things.

1. Actually YES. The first Lutherans had a great deal in common. That is not actually the chief point though…but yes…I am not aware that Luther ever considered himself anything but Catholic…not that familiar enough to know though.
2. That leads to the crucial distinction; self-identification. While people can and do make distinctions in groups (see previous example of JW and LDS church I alluded to), most groups self-identify and the culture at large accepts it.
   No one expects complete agreement on terms that touch the core of how people see themselves and choose to use words to explain larger TRUTH, however, if the group that self-identifies as Catholic looks, acts, and says they are Catholic; only those with a predisposed set of theological beliefs would reject that distinction.
   I am not going to tell a Baptist they are not real Baptists and I am not going to tell a Catholic (ie Old Catholic or whomever), they are not Catholic.

 

[Peter_J]

Well then Lutherans must be Catholic too.

If memory serves, the early Lutherans did want to be called “Catholics”, but eventually accepted the name “Lutherans” – which their opponents had called them from the start.

P.S. When I posted this ^^, I forgot to first reload the page to see if there had been any new posts in the last couple hours. So I didn’t see post #50.

 

[JonNC]

Well then Lutherans must be Catholic too.

“Lutheran”, not unlike “Roman Catholic” has derisive roots, names from opponents. So, properly, Lutherans are either “Evangelical Catholic”, or “Catholics of the Augsburg Confession”, and are currently (temporarily) not in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

1. That leads to the crucial distinction; self-identification. While people can and do make distinctions in groups (see previous example of JW and LDS church I alluded to), most groups self-identify and the culture at large accepts it.

If you ask me, there’s a little too much of that nowadays. For example, there are tons of Protestants who call us “the Catholic Church”, on the basis that that’s what we prefer to call ourselves (which is correct) and that we would be offended if they called us “the Roman Catholic Church” (which is silly). But the thing is, of course, that they really don’t believe that we are the Catholic Church, so what’s the point of calling us “the Catholic Church”?

 

[kalt]

A couple of different things and this does not just apply to you rr1213 as I will respond to several things.
I know the different rites.
The central issue is that Roman Catholics, Catholics in communion with Rome all seem to want to monopolize the name. I understand their rationale but I reject it…as do the other Catholic denominations. Old Catholics are Catholic. Polish National Catholics are Catholic. Whether or not YOU recognize them as such is irrelevent even with your historical argument. One group, even if one believes they are the first, do not by definition get to determine who the name belongs to. Things simply do not work that way for other groups and I see no reason to make an exception.
What basis does a Protestant have for telling an Old Catholic they are not Catholic?
What basis as a United Methodist do I have for telling the Free Methodists they are not Methodist?
None. I have absolutely no reason to support the contention of the Catholics in communion with Rome over the Polish National Catholics or indeed any traditionalist or other group. The extra adjectives like “old” “polish” etc are helpful in understanding what group to be sure. There absolutely are Catholic denominations because they come from the Catholic Church…whether you…the first Baptist denomination, Methodist denomination , or Orthodox like it or not…When a group splits from the first they form denominations…and that is what happened here as well.

Now you’re getting close. As we said earlier, there are no denominations within Catholicism, only without.

When a group of people break *away *from the Catholic Church to form their own church, that church becomes a denomination apart (away) from the Catholic Church. This is not a denomination **of **the Catholic Church, since there is no such thing.

Other Christian faiths accept that most (but I bet not all) break-away churches are still fall under the Methodist (or whatever) umbrella. Not so of the Catholic Church.

No one who is part of a group that broke away from the Catholic Church would say that they are Catholic in the sense that a Catholic would, because they are not in full communion with Rome, which is a defining trait. Catholics accept all of the teachings. A “denomination” doesn’t. That fact means that this “denomination” isn’t Catholic.

You still refuse to learn this simple fact. Instead of insisting that you are correct, why don’t you look at what several people have told you about Catholicism and learn?

 

[kalt]

Two things.

1. Actually YES. The first Lutherans had a great deal in common. That is not actually the chief point though…but yes…I am not aware that Luther ever considered himself anything but Catholic…not that familiar enough to know though.
2. That leads to the crucial distinction; self-identification. While people can and do make distinctions in groups (see previous example of JW and LDS church I alluded to), most groups self-identify and the culture at large accepts it.
   No one expects complete agreement on terms that touch the core of how people see themselves and choose to use words to explain larger TRUTH, however, if the group that self-identifies as Catholic looks, acts, and says they are Catholic; only those with a predisposed set of theological beliefs would reject that distinction.
   I am not going to tell a Baptist they are not real Baptists and I am not going to tell a Catholic (ie Old Catholic or whomever), they are not Catholic.

Now you’re getting really close!

Yes, a group of people with a predisposed set of theological beliefs woudl reject that distinction. They are called Catholics.

You see, similarity in beliefs and appreance is not enough to be Catholic. And saying you are mean nothing if you aren’t. To be Catholic, the church must be in full communion with Rome. That means that they must hold the same beliefs (all of them), not just similar beliefs. Their communion can’t merely look like the Catholic Eucharist, but must be the Catholic Eucharist. Their Masses may look quite different, one from the other, but they must be the same.

In Catholicism, it’s not about appearance it’s about substance. It may walk like Catholic (acts like a Catholic), talk like a Catholic (says it is Catholic) and appear on the surface to be Catholic (look like a Catholic), but it is not a Catholic Church unless it is a Catholic Church.

There is no such thing as a “sort of” Catholic Church. It’s Catholic or it isn’t.

There are no denominations within Catholicism, only without.

 

[kalt]

“Lutheran”, not unlike “Roman Catholic” has derisive roots, names from opponents. So, properly, Lutherans are either “Evangelical Catholic”, or “Catholics of the Augsburg Confession”, and are currently (temporarily) not in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Jon

How close, do you think, are we to reunification?

 

[jmcrae]

But they are Catholic denominations. They are naturally not part of your church, that is not what I am saying. But They were part of the Roman Catholic Church at one time, certainly that is the case with the larger ones, and now they are not. It is a defining characteristic of your church but not all Catholic denominations. You have a theological objection to this, I understand but it is not a historical one. If there had been one Baptist denomination for 1000 years and now there are several, there would be several Baptist denominations. The Roman Catholic Church does not get an exception just because they do not want anyone else using the name.

If you trace your ancestry back past the year 1517, you will find Catholic ancestors of your own, going back to 30 AD. (Unless they were pagans or Jews who converted later than 1517.)

 

[Spirithound]

Two things.

1. Actually YES. The first Lutherans had a great deal in common. That is not actually the chief point though…but yes…I am not aware that Luther ever considered himself anything but Catholic…not that familiar enough to know though.

If memory serves, the early Lutherans did want to be called “Catholics”…

…properly, Lutherans are… “Catholics of the Augsburg Confession”, and are temporarily not in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Calvinists and Anglicans are Catholics too!

 

[DD2007]

Calvinists and Anglicans are Catholics too!

We Calvinists are Reformed Catholics.

 

[judechild]

Pardon, but I’m beginning to believe this is getting ridiculous.

If a group of baptists broke off for the Southern Baptist Community, rejected every book of the Bible except Revelation, and preached the sacredness of chedder cheese, but still called itself Baptist we would say they have lost what it means to be Baptist; and, therefore, are not what they claim to be.

If the state of Hawaii broke off from the United States and called itself “the New United States of America”, we would say the same thing; they have lost what it means to be “American”, and would think that it was improper to called them that.

If a community willingly separates itself from the Catholic Church, likewise, we call that community “in schizm”. They are not Catholic, they are not “liberal Catholic”, they are schismatic; what they call themselves is irrelevant.