Non-Catholic denominations

  • Thread starter Thread starter Colin_Robens
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
judechild said:
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.
Click to expand...
Most catholics think that Roman Catholic bishops hijacked the church and now it isn’t catholic.
 
The MNCC formed a friendship with Roman Catholic bishop Carlos Duarte Costa of Brazil who had separated from Rome due to Pope Pius XIII signing a concordat with Adolf Hitler in 1943. Intercommunion was signed between the two Catholic Archdioceses. We have worked together for many years in many areas of the Americas. The MNCC is a founding member of the Worldwide Communion of Catholic and Apostolic Churches that was founded by the successor of Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa, Bishop Luis Mendez Castillo. There are two Communions founded by Bishop Luis Mendez Castillo. Our Communion is very Catholic and holds fast to the True teaching of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic churches and believes in the fullness of God’s authority as spoken through his Holy and infallible Word that came to us from the Apostles of Jesus Christ. We literally can trace our church all the way back to Jesus Christ and His Apostles through our unbroken Apostolic lines of succession.
Click to expand...
mncc.net/
Bishop Mosley said there is great ignorance among Roman Catholics about Old Catholics and said his church possesses valid sacraments and valid orders, and strongly said the church should not be called “non-Catholic, because we are a Catholic church. You cannot list us as a non-Catholic church; you can only say that we are not in perfect union. That is the language of the Vatican.”
Click to expand...
catholic.org/diocese/diocese_story.php?id=21715

Once again, I understand your perspective but as a non-Catholic but someone who likes to read about other denominations, I could post links to several Catholic groups that you would not consider Catholic.
I understand how important the distinction is to you but outside of your deeply, obviously deeply, held beliefs, you don’t really have a strong argument outside of…“we don’t believe they are Catholics”. Well this could apply to any group. There is no basis to reject their use of the word under the way that we categorize and identify religious groups whether they be Baptist, Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox, etc. The original people who use the name and have a set doctrine try to hold back the use of their name…but it does not work that way for anyone else and likewise it does not work that way for you…despite your deeply held views…that really is the only argument present.
  1. We dont think they are real Catholics because they do not believe like us. Well you can change Catholic with any other group and hear the same argument. No special treatment allowed…no dice
 
It will not change your mind IF it is already made up but it understandably feels pretty darn good when the dictionary agrees with you…just saying:D

dictionary.reference.com/browse/Catholic

Catholic
Of or involving the Roman Catholic Church.
Of or relating to the universal Christian church.
Of or relating to the ancient undivided Christian church.
Of or relating to those churches that have claimed to be representatives of the ancient undivided church.

Cath⋅o⋅lic  /ˈkæθəlɪk, ˈkæθlɪk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kath-uh-lik, kath-lik] Show IPA
–adjective 1. of or pertaining to a Catholic church, esp. the Roman Catholic Church.
2. Theology. a. (among Roman Catholics) claiming to possess exclusively the notes or characteristics of the one, only, true, and universal church having unity, visibility, indefectibility, apostolic succession, universality, and sanctity: used in this sense, with these qualifications, only by the Church of Rome, as applicable only to itself and its adherents and to their faith and organization; often qualified, especially by those not acknowledging these claims, by prefixing the word Roman.
b. (among Anglo-Catholics) noting or pertaining to the conception of the church as the body representing the ancient undivided Christian witness, comprising all the orthodox churches that have kept the apostolic succession of bishops, and including the Anglican Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Church of Sweden, the Old Catholic Church (in the Netherlands and elsewhere), etc.
 
Bishop Mosley said there is great ignorance among Roman Catholics about Old Catholics and said his church possesses valid sacraments and valid orders, and strongly said the church should not be called “non-Catholic, because we are a Catholic church. You cannot list us as a non-Catholic church; you can only say that we are not in perfect union. That is the language of the Vatican.”
Click to expand...
He’s entitled to express his opinion, just as I am (or should be) entitled to express mine. Don’t you agree?
 
BTW, BrianH, I’m curious whether you have any opinion regarding the fact that a lot of Eastern Catholics call themselves “Orthodox in communion with Rome”. (Possibly you haven’t formed an opinion on the subject, which is fine too.)

As they say, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
 
BrianH said:
mncc.net/
Click to expand...
Error 1. There is no Pope Pius the thirteenth. Unless you are referring to the gentleman who now leads the “True Catholic Church” or the “Remnant Catholic Church”, who ascended his throne in 1998.
Once again, I understand your perspective but as a non-Catholic but someone who likes to read about other denominations, I could post links to several Catholic groups that you would not consider Catholic.
I understand how important the distinction is to you but outside of your deeply, obviously deeply, held beliefs, you don’t really have a strong argument outside of…“we don’t believe they are Catholics”.
Click to expand...
I’ve told you the reason: They are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome. This is a defining characteristic.
Well this could apply to any group. There is no basis to reject their use of the word under the way that we categorize and identify religious groups whether they be Baptist, Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox, etc. The original people who use the name and have a set doctrine try to hold back the use of their name…but it does not work that way for anyone else and likewise it does not work that way for you…despite your deeply held views…that really is the only argument present.
Click to expand...
If they want to use the word catholic, I don’t have the power to stop them. What I want, however, is for you to recognize that those congregations are not of the same Church that the Bishop of Rome is.
 
Brainwave!
Brian, are saying that since there are other groups that use the name “Catholic”, it is not possible to verify which one is “deserving” of using the name?

But anyways, I want to reiterate that even if they use the name Catholic, they are not a denomination of the Church I belong to. They are missing one or more defining characteristics of the Catholic Church.

And you know what? We can extend this principle. I am going to go out and say that there are no “Methodist denominations” or “Baptist denominations” or “Calvinist denominations”. They are all Protestant denominations. Which is what those other “Catholics” are dangerously close to becoming, if not already.
 
Spirithound,

I think you and I are on the same side in this argument, but I’m rather puzzled by your recent statements, in particular:
Spirithound said:
What I want, however, is for you to recognize that those congregations are not of the same Church that the Bishop of Rome is.
Click to expand...
Is BrianH claiming that that those other congregations are of the same Church that the Bishop of Rome is? If that’s what he’s saying, then he hasn’t made it very clear – or alternatively, I’ve been rather slow in picking up on it. But in any case, I never would have even guessed that he thought that.

:confused:
 
Peter_J said:
BTW, BrianH, I’m curious whether you have any opinion regarding the fact that a lot of Eastern Catholics call themselves “Orthodox in communion with Rome”. (Possibly you haven’t formed an opinion on the subject, which is fine too.)

As they say, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Click to expand...
I was not familiar with that. I think the whole key to that would be “in communion with Rome”. …although to be sure there are bound to be people who are not familiar with the history and would be confused. But it would make sense to me.
 
Spirithound said:
Error 1. There is no Pope Pius the thirteenth. Unless you are referring to the gentleman who now leads the “True Catholic Church” or the “Remnant Catholic Church”, who ascended his throne in 1998.

I’ve told you the reason: They are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome. This is a defining characteristic.

If they want to use the word catholic, I don’t have the power to stop them. What I want, however, is for you to recognize that those congregations are not of the same Church that the Bishop of Rome is.
Click to expand...
They are not part of the same group as the Bishop of Rome…the word church is very loaded as you are probably aware…
 
Spirithound said:
Brainwave!
Brian, are saying that since there are other groups that use the name “Catholic”, it is not possible to verify which one is “deserving” of using the name?.
Click to expand...
Sure. If two groups come up to me, and this is actually a good example, and states we are the only group that is The Church of Christ (understanding the early restoration groups and those associated with Joseph Smith both used the term), how would I ascertain how to refer to them? In other words, I would **tend **to go with self-identification. Look at Wikipedia sometime, you get Church of Christ (Temple Lot) or Church of Christ (non-instrumental).
 
BrianH said:
They are not part of the same group as the Bishop of Rome…the word church is very loaded as you are probably aware…
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church is that which is headed by the Bishop of Rome, successor of St. Peter.

If one is not in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, then one is not in union with the Catholic Church. (One may have a more or less imperfect connection - one may even have Apostolic Succession - but full union does not exist without full communion with the Bishop of Rome.)

The defining marks of the Catholic Church are: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
 
BrianH said:
Sure. If two groups come up to me, and this is actually a good example, and states we are the only group that is The Church of Christ (understanding the early restoration groups and those associated with Joseph Smith both used the term), how would I ascertain how to refer to them? In other words, I would **tend **to go with self-identification. Look at Wikipedia sometime, you get Church of Christ (Temple Lot) or Church of Christ (non-instrumental).
Click to expand...
You would look at their history. Who founded this organization? If it wasn’t Jesus, then keep looking. 🙂
 
BrianH said:
I was not familiar with that.
Click to expand...
No problem. My point was simply that if it’s legitimate for other groups to call themselves “Catholic”, then it’s equally legitimate for Catholics to call themselves “Orthodox”, correct?
BrianH said:
I think the whole key to that would be “in communion with Rome”. …although to be sure there are bound to be people who are not familiar with the history and would be confused. But it would make sense to me.
Click to expand...
 
BrianH said:
Sure. If two groups come up to me, and this is actually a good example, and states we are the only group that is The Church of Christ (understanding the early restoration groups and those associated with Joseph Smith both used the term), how would I ascertain how to refer to them? In other words, I would **tend **to go with self-identification. Look at Wikipedia sometime, you get Church of Christ (Temple Lot) or Church of Christ (non-instrumental).
Click to expand...
Brian, have you read the recent thread Non-Catholic Relgions?

It’s really striking, the similarity between what you’ve said here about not being able to say who’s “Catholic” and who isn’t, and what’s been said on the other thread about not being able to say who’s “Christian” and who isn’t.

Interesting, eh?
 
Peter_J said:
Is BrianH claiming that that those other congregations are of the same Church that the Bishop of Rome is? If that’s what he’s saying, then he hasn’t made it very clear – or alternatively, I’ve been rather slow in picking up on it. But in any case, I never would have even guessed that he thought that.
Click to expand...
BrianH said:
They are not part of the same group as the Bishop of Rome…the word church is very loaded as you are probably aware…
Click to expand...
Peter…I’m not sure I’m sure anymore…but Brian has cleared it up a bit. “Church” and “denomination” are both tricky terms, indeed. How are we defining “denomination” again?
 
Peter_J said:
No problem. My point was simply that if it’s legitimate for other groups to call themselves “Catholic”, then it’s equally legitimate for Catholics to call themselves “Orthodox”, correct?
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top