The Roman Catholic Church IS a denomination

[Bill_Pick]

Yea, not to mention is was our very Church that compiled the Bible in the first place!

was the Church here befose the dictionary,IT WAS okay.hahahaha see we can learn something each day smile===================hope all had a good weekend

 

[allhers]

was the Church here befose the dictionary,IT WAS okay.hahahaha see we can learn something each day smile===================hope all had a good weekend

BEFORE the dictionary AND before the Bible was compiled, wow, we’re really going to get it now ( ). Plus, wintersdemise was right above too.

 

[With_Questions]

When it comes to definitions you’re right,

BUT

If it weren’t for reformation groups splintering off from the Church there would be no denominations. Just one United Church like God intended.

My point is that the Church did not take the initiative to become just another denomination like Lutherans and Methodists for example. It was those who broke off from the Church.

Umm…what about the Orthodox. The Oriental Orthodox broke off off in the 400s I think.

And then you have the problem of Christian churches in Asia that were never a part of the Roman Catholic denomination.

Read this article about the Kerala church established in India in 52 AD (I was recently made aware of this) and predates Rome. It was never a part of the Roman hierarchy until 1492 when the Portugese moved in.

 

[With_Questions]

Yea, not to mention is was our very Church that compiled the Bible in the first place!

Your point being.

People compiled the Bible, not an organization. But anyway…

I still wonder why you are so quick to want to take credit for the Bible and then pass the buck on the inquisition.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I don’t think you want to claim there are 242 Catholic denominations. Therefore you should not be claiming there are 30,000 Protestant denominations.

Gabriel of 12
Your point is well taken. Question? If Jesus built one Church. Wouldn’t 2 Protestant church’s be one too many? Never mind the 30, 000 other denominations, consider just 2 for now 2 different Protestant denominations? did Jesus Christ really built these two different Protestant faiths?

So to answer you truthfully, the number 30,000 does not phase me the least. What disturbes me is that there are more than One different Protestant faith’s that is one too many for the bible for it claims their is only “ONE” faith, one baptism, One Lord, and One Church, and Jesus built only One church not two.

 

[Wintersdemise]

Umm…what about the Orthodox. The Oriental Orthodox broke off off in the 400s I think.

Sure, the Reformation was not the first time groups split from Rome.

And then you have the problem of Christian churches in Asia that were never a part of the Roman Catholic denomination.

It was always acknowledged, since the days of the Pentarchy, that the Bishop of Rome held a special position and that the Roman Church as a whole carried the utmost authority. There’s a symbol used for the Pentarchy, which had a big cross in the center ( which represented Rome ) and 4 other small crosses surrounding it ( representing Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. )

Now some apostles travelled to the East, like St. Thomas went to India, but those Christian communities were so far from the center of Christendom that many local traditions were easilly mixed in with the original message the apostle brought. As for Rome, well, Peter was the Bishop of Rome, and his status amongst the apostles was well known amongst all 5 Churches of the Pentarchy.

[SIGN]My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. (St. Jerome, AD 375, p 247)[/SIGN]

[SIGN]We will that all people who are governed by our clemency should practise the same religion as the divine Apostle Peter delivered to the Romans, as the religion proclaimed by him up to this time declares it; and which it is clear the Pontiff Damasus follows, and Peter, the Bishop of Alexandria… Those who follow this law we order to take the name of Catholic Christians. (Emperor Theodosius, AD 380, p 314)[/SIGN]

[SIGN]The holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior… The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it. (Pope Damasus, AD 382, p 238)[/SIGN]

 

[alanjeddy]

I am a late comer, and so my opinion may be unwelcome. However, as a soon-to-be Catholic Christian; and loving adherent to everything the Church stands for, I find I must weigh-in and say:

This thread is arguing semantics at a dark time when all Christians should be standing together; those of us with the fullness of the Catholic faith and all of those who love Christ in their own manner. These types of arguments serve only to deepen the divide between us and not to draw our brethren to the fold.

                         Why do we CARE?

Words are simply that. They hold great power only when we allow them to do so. This argument is unimportant and divisive.

I respectfully submit that our time could be better spent discussing more substantive issues.

Your point is well taken Dori. We should always try to find common ground. By the very nature of the word apologetics we are called to defend our faith in matters of Catholic orthodoxy.

My wife is Protestant but now in RCIA, In many ways she is more Catholic than I am. 3 years ago she brought me back to my faith after being away from God for over 25 years. She did it by saying the Rosary. Now you have to realize not many Protestants would say one Hail Mary even though the Rosary is the prayer of the Gospels. The Holy Spirit works in strange ways.

 

[Wintersdemise]

Here’s a good YouTube video defending Catholicism as the original Christianity:

youtube.com/watch?v=9bHkW4xHp6c

 

[Thing]

.

As I have said, the definition of denomination as put forth by the English dictionary and your particular theology of the church (which I disagree with but is off topic) are not mutually exclusive.

Not according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word ‘denomination’ includes the quality of being a branch - something the Church is not. Christ founded One Church, not many, it is unique.

 

[With_Questions]

Not according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word ‘denomination’ includes the quality of being a branch - something the Church is not. Christ founded One Church, not many, it is unique.

Actually Catholicism is also a branch of Christianity.

Christianity is normally considered to be subdivided into four
large categories by most scholars:

Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Restorationalist

Of which you can divide all of these down further (yes Catholic has
Sedevacantist Catholic and Roman Catholic to name two)

All four of these are branches of Christianity (now you can argue that much of Restorationalist is really not Christian but that is a separate topic).

Unless you want to say that Orthodox and Protestants are not Christian, yes Catholicism is a branch of Christianity.

Even if it really is the “one true church”. The two are not mutually exclusive.

(unless you take the position that the Orthodox and Protestants are not Christian and that Catholicism represents all of Christianity)

 

[Michael_David]

Apparently, some people just don’t understand that the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC (UNIVERSAL), and APOSTOLIC CHURCH, that Jesus Himself founded, existed BEFORE the Bible was ever compiled, is that so hard to understand, really?

Did not Christ Himself quote passages from the ‘Old Testament’ during His earthly life? Something had to have been written down for Him to quote from…

Yes, Christ’s life is written in the New Testament… but the Old Testament was already in existence…

So, you are half right… half wrong.

 

[With_Questions]

Sure, the Reformation was not the first time groups split from Rome.

Then this quote is inaccurate

If it weren’t for reformation groups splintering off from the Church there would be no denominations. Just one United Church like God intended.

It was always acknowledged, since the days of the Pentarchy, that the Bishop of Rome held a special position and that the Roman Church as a whole carried the utmost authority. There’s a symbol used for the Pentarchy, which had a big cross in the center ( which represented Rome ) and 4 other small crosses surrounding it ( representing Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. )

Well this is a separate topic. But even if you are correct here, this is not mutually exclusive from the Roman Catholic church being a denomination.

Now some apostles travelled to the East, like St. Thomas went to India, but those Christian communities were so far from the center of Christendom that many local traditions were easilly mixed in with the original message the apostle brought. As for Rome, well, Peter was the Bishop of Rome, and his status amongst the apostles was well known amongst all 5 Churches of the Pentarchy.

Do we know that local traditions were mixed in? Do we know what these traditions were?

I for one would be very curious to see what sort of Christianity emerged from the East.

But I find it very interesting to learn that St. Thomas did not feel constrained to plug the Christian communities that he founded back into a central organization and that these Christian communities seemed to have survived just fine.

You know, the more I think about it, a Christianity that actually obeys Matthew 28:19-20 and expands into all of the world would have been totally incompatible with a Christianity centered in Rome for the first thousand to fifteen hundred years of the church age.

 

[Aramis]

Definition of “Denomination”
A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language

From Latin denominatus, “named”

It’s a matter of semantics, not of any derogatory or demeaning definition. No one need take exception to the word. It in no way defines which isn’t or is the true or original church.

It implies an equality which can not exist with heretics.

And, quite often, the dictionary used to prove things makes no mention of the subtext of the usages presented. In the subtext of the term Denomination, a subtext not included in the dictionary definition, is the issue of validity, and to a Catholic using the usage used by the Vatican of late, Denomination specifically means an invalid sect, for the only valid sects are the Orthodox, the Assyrians, and the PNCC and PPCoC.

It is like saying the Russian Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labour Party were only a political party in 1917… On paper, by literal definition, yes. But in truth, they were the core of the Russian Revolution, and calling that bunch of murderers and rabble-rousers a political party implies many things that were not true about them.

 

[With_Questions]

Your point is well taken. Question? If Jesus built one Church. Wouldn’t 2 Protestant church’s be one too many? Never mind the 30, 000 other denominations, consider just 2 for now 2 different Protestant denominations? did Jesus Christ really built these two different Protestant faiths?

So to answer you truthfully, the number 30,000 does not phase me the least. What disturbes me is that there are more than One different Protestant faith’s that is one too many for the bible for it claims their is only “ONE” faith, one baptism, One Lord, and One Church, and Jesus built only One church not two.

Well thank you very much.

I for one consider your point to be much stronger when you go with the more conservative yet accurate figure as opposed to the inflated figure. In fact to me the inflated figure ruins your point at least to me.

Just two observations:

You do raise a valid question that I have not seen adequately answered. When Jesus designed the church, were denominations of Christianity a part of this design? Just how did Jesus design the church?

But also.

Just because denominations may not be what Jesus designed, it does not necessarily mean that you (or any other denomination) are right.

 

[Thing]

Actually Catholicism is also a branch of Christianity.

Christianity is normally considered to be subdivided into four
large categories by most scholars:

Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Restorationalist

Of which you can divide all of these down further (yes Catholic has
Sedevacantist Catholic and Roman Catholic to name two)

All four of these are branches of Christianity (now you can argue that much of Restorationalist is really not Christian but that is a separate topic).

Unless you want to say that Orthodox and Protestants are not Christian, yes Catholicism is a branch of Christianity.

Even if it really is the “one true church”. The two are not mutually exclusive.

(unless you take the position that the Orthodox and Protestants are not Christian and that Catholicism represents all of Christianity)

Catholicism predates the others. It began in 33AD. It was established in 33AD.
It had no branches, no equals, it was unique.
It still exists to the present day simply because Christ said it will.

It is none of my business if Catholics leave their faith at any point in history and begin new churches. Can I consider any new church to be equal to the Church Christ established? - no; I personally do not have Christs authority to say that your new church or her new church is what Christ intended, I cannot honestly claim that it has His authority or His approval, when, clearly, there is no way that I can know if that is true.
The only certainty I have are the words He spoke in 33AD when He established His Church, He would establish His Church - for all time - in His own words.
Why on earth would I look for another church, and why would I be interested in the status of other churches.
There is only one Church, one religion, one God.
I’m not too proud to enter that Church and I have no desire to start my own church - I know very well that I cannot invent a way to save my soul, I must find the way He established regardless of how I feel about His decisions or directions.

 

[With_Questions]

It implies an equality which can not exist with heretics.

OK.

So if Catholicism is the only true branch of Christianity and the rest of the branches are in fact “not Christian”, then Christianity would consist of only one denomination, and the word denomination would be redundant or meaningless in this case.

I would agree with this logic.

Of course, I understand that Catholic church does not teach that the remaining branches of Christianity are not Christian. But then again, I have found Catholic web sites that do believe this.

And, quite often, the dictionary used to prove things makes no mention of the subtext of the usages presented. In the subtext of the term Denomination, a subtext not included in the dictionary definition, is the issue of validity, and to a Catholic using the usage used by the Vatican of late, Denomination specifically means an invalid sect, for the only valid sects are the Orthodox, the Assyrians, and the PNCC and PPCoC.

If Catholicism wishes to invent a new language by redefining words, that is fine by me.

However, I speak English and I communicate in the English language. And the English dictionary defines the meaning of words in the English language.

And according to the English language, the Roman Catholic church is a denomination.

I have absolutely no interest in learning the Catholic language. If you want to explain the Catholic faith to me, I would ask that you explain it in the language that I speak.

 

[With_Questions]

Catholicism predates the others. It began in 33AD. It was established in 33AD.
It had no branches, no equals, it was unique.
It still exists to the present day simply because Christ said it will.

Just one observation.

The dictionary definition of denomination does not preclude the possibility that some denominations are superior than others.

Of course to me having a superiority complex with respect to my denomination versus all others is the height of arrogance and is what I despise about denominationalism. But that is me and is not really a part of this thread.

 

[allhers]

Did not Christ Himself quote passages from the ‘Old Testament’ during His earthly life? Something had to have been written down for Him to quote from…

Yes, Christ’s life is written in the New Testament… but the Old Testament was already in existence…

So, you are half right… half wrong.

Yes He did, they were written on the Scrolls, such as the one’s He used while in the temple telling them that THIS DAY that this was fulfilled!
I’m still ALL right, because if you go back and re-read what I said, I said “compiled”.

 

[Michael_David]

You do raise a valid question that I have not seen adequately answered. When Jesus designed the church, were denominations of Christianity a part of this design? Just how did Jesus design the church?

Here is Matthew 16:13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare’a Philip’pi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli’jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

One can look at only Peter as having the Keys, but then why keep the other Apostles in the flock and later send them to ‘all the corners of the earth’ to preach the Good News? Also, since Peter is the one that vocalized it, it was that Faith that the Church will be built on that Peter did state. As well as, Christ calling him Peter, but saying upon ‘this rock’ He will build His Church… not upon Peter. Other examples of ‘rock’ are also in the New Testament, if one wants to look.

There are many questions… but one Faith.

 

[allhers]

OK.

So if Catholicism is the only true branch of Christianity and the rest of the branches are in fact “not Christian”, then Christianity would consist of only one denomination, and the word denomination would be redundant or meaningless in this case.

I would agree with this logic.

Of course, I understand that Catholic church does not teach that the remaining branches of Christianity are not Christian. But then again, I have found Catholic web sites that do believe this.

If Catholicism wishes to invent a new language by redefining words, that is fine by me.

However, I speak English and I communicate in the English language. And the English dictionary defines the meaning of words in the English language.

And according to the English language, the Roman Catholic church is a denomination.

I have absolutely no interest in learning the Catholic language. If you want to explain the Catholic faith to me, I would ask that you explain it in the language that I speak.

Apparently we are never going to agree, no matter how many times you wish to tell us that we are a denomination, we know we are the true CHURCH and will continue to speak that way no matter how many times you wish to tell us otherwise. As has been stated, we even pre-date the dictionary.
If you wish to continue to call us a denomination I am sure that you will continue to be corrected so you may as well get use to it.