The Roman Catholic Church IS a denomination

  • Thread starter Thread starter With_Questions
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
elvisman said:
**I don’t think that this debate can ever **be resolved if you remain steadfast in your belief that Jesus started a denomination.
Did he?
Not according to the Scriptures. According to Scripture, he started a Church. Rebellious MEN started denominations that broke off from that Church.
Click to expand...
As I said, I have encountered two definitions of the word denomination.

One definition can be applied to the original church, the other can not. I will work with the more restrictive definition and assume that denominations only appeared the first time there were multiple organizations (which might have been as early as 52 AD but definitely in the 400s).
 
Sean_Boyle said:
…for the record

Using the phase for the last nine pages “in the language that I speak” is arrogant and smacks of superiority because of some supposed understanding that only you have and no one else can understand. You know very well that we speak the same language.

There appears to be a contradiction in what you are trying to get across and what you do.

Your tag line says “I am coming to despise denominationalism”, no quotes, it seems to be your quote not someone else’s. You speak of superiority as something that needs to be undone, but then you signature line says that you are coming to despise the very thing that you claim the Church is.

Your words do carry meaning.👍
Click to expand...
I am not going to waste time attempting to defend my motives here.
 
dkdempsey said:
It’s not a denomination at all. It’s a cult.
Click to expand...
Now I know some folks who believe this, that Catholicism is a nonChristian religion.

Now I don’t, but I would love sometime to see somebody try to intelligently defend that assertion. That would be very interesting.

Regurgitating Chick tracts and the “Jesus-is-Savior.com” does not qualify as intelligently.

But to avoid throwing a monkey wrench in this thread, I think this debate would be another thread.
 
With_Questions said:
I am not going to waste time attempting to defend my motives here.
Click to expand...
obviously that is not true, what post are we on now.

Our own arrogance gets in the way of Truth sometimes. It’s difficult to see your own arrogance while pointing out someone else’s arrogance and superority, in general.
 
Sean_Boyle said:
obviously that is not true, what post are we on now.
Click to expand...
Maybe he’s been trying to explain for all these posts, but not getting his point through.
Our own arrogance gets in the way of Truth sometimes. It’s difficult to see your own arrogance while pointing out someone else’s arrogance and superority, in general.
Click to expand...
At least he is willing to listen and read and acknowledge posts by folks like Marsha Adams. Which is way more than the Catholics are doing.
They are just digging in their heels saying things like “You are wrong.” "That’s incorrect, “No, it’s not true.” “Everyone is wrong, we are right”…etc

Love the Ecumenism.
 
Bear_Claw said:
Maybe he’s been trying to explain for all these posts, but not getting his point through.

At least he is willing to listen and read and acknowledge posts by folks like Marsha Adams. Which is way more than the Catholics are doing.
They are just digging in their heels saying things like “You are wrong.” "That’s incorrect, “No, it’s not true.” “Everyone is wrong, we are right”…etc

Love the Ecumenism.
Click to expand...
His question was answered within the first two pages, very clearly in several different ways with the same outcome in case there was any confusion.👍
 
Sean_Boyle said:
His question was answered within the first two pages, very clearly in several different ways with the same outcome in case there was any confusion.👍
Click to expand...
It wasn’t a question, it was a statement, and no one gave him any benefit of the doubt. they came down on him like a ton of bricks every time.

There may have been the odd person, and it there was I apologize for the generalization, but from what I followed, it was not even a discussion.
More like a very strict teacher.

It’s not even like he posted it on the Catholic forums, it’s the Non-Catholic sub forum.

Can you not even concede that by the dictionary definition it’s a
denomination?
Not even concede that it’s a recognized definition that can also include Catholicism in it?
Nope.
 
Sean_Boyle said:
His question was answered within the first two pages, very clearly in several different ways with the same outcome in case there was any confusion.👍
Click to expand...
Actually in the first couple of pages I got responses that were at least intelligent. I sort of enjoyed that discourse. It was sort of on the lines that “yeah the dictionary says we are a denomination but this is what we really are”.

And then this degraded to we are not a denomination because we say so.

And it has been that way for the last gazillion pages (save one very good post by Marsha Adams. And it has been very tiring responding to the same old, same old.

Maybe what I will do from here on in is to ignore responses unless they show some intelligence and thought.
 
With_Questions said:
Maybe what I will do from here on in is to ignore responses unless they show some intelligence and thought.

What I dislike is Christians arrogantly assuming that they are superior because of their denomination.
Click to expand...
Seriously how can these two comments come from the same person without the contradiction of both statements together slap them in the face.

Your telling Catholics that there is a splinter in our eye while ignoring the plank in your own.

amazing…
 
With_Questions said:
As I said, I have encountered two definitions of the word denomination.

One definition can be applied to the original church, the other can not. I will work with the more restrictive definition and assume that denominations only appeared the first time there were multiple organizations (which might have been as early as 52 AD but definitely in the 400s).
Click to expand...
That’s just inaccurate.

What you had in the first few centuries were heretical sects - not Christian denominations. You’re wielding this word like a broad paintbrush and slapping everybody with it.

Whereas, I find the Protestant “Reformers” heretics, at least they were in agreement with the church about the nature of God.

Just about every early heresy began with a misconception about the nature of God.
 
elvisman said:
That’s just inaccurate.

What you had in the first few centuries were heretical sects - not Christian denominations. You’re wielding this word like a broad paintbrush and slapping everybody with it.

Whereas, I find the Protestant "Reformers" heretics, at least they were in agreement with the church about the nature of God.

**Just about every **early heresy began with a misconception about the nature of God.
Click to expand...
So the Oriental Orthodox and the church that St. Thomas founded in India are heretical sects. Interesting.
 
With_Questions said:
So the Oriental Orthodox and the church that St. Thomas founded in India are heretical sects. Interesting.
Click to expand...
Any Christian Church (not heretical sect) at the time was part of the Universal Christian Church (Catholic).

To say that St. Thomas founded a different Church is false.
 
elvisman said:
Any Christian Church (not heretical sect) at the time was part of the Universal Christian Church.
To say that St. Thomas founded a different Church is false.
Click to expand...
As you recall I said definitely in the 400s with the Oriental Orthodox (which you believe to be a heretical sect in opposition to your pope) and maybe 52 AD with the church in Kerala.

Read this link.

Apparantly the Kerala church in India was never plugged into the Roman hierarchy. I say that by virtue of this sentence:
The Portuguese who arrived by sea in 1498, gradually established their power base and were eager to bring all Christians in the fold of the Church of Rome.
Click to expand...
Also wasn’t St Thomas martyred in India? So was he even able to return back to the homeland in order to somehow plug this church in.

Anyway, this would be truly understandable given travel limitations of the time.

In fact I don’t know how a centrally organized church that was wordwide in scope would have operated in 600AD. But that is a separate issue.

Anyway if this is truly the case, we have a second ecclesiastical organization that began in 52AD. And according to the English dictionary this would be a “denomination”.

Now I am sure that you will respond that this is blatantly false. But unless you have studied the church in Kerala and the history of this time period, I doubt that you have the knowledge basis to back up your assertion.

Anyway, I have just learned about this myself and have many more questions than answers at this point. So at this point I am in learning mode. Anybody that can provide any informed information about this church would be helpful. I must say I do find this information fascinating.

However statements like “This is how it is because I say so” are not helpful.
 
With_Questions said:
As you recall I said definitely in the 400s with the Oriental Orthodox (which you believe to be a heretical sect in opposition to your pope) and maybe 52 AD with the church in Kerala.

Read this link.

Apparantly the Kerala church in India was never plugged into the Roman hierarchy. I say that by virtue of this sentence:

Also wasn’t St Thomas martyred in India? So was he even able to return back to the homeland in order to somehow plug this church in.

Anyway, this would be truly understandable given travel limitations of the time.

In fact I don’t know how a centrally organized church that was wordwide in scope would have operated in 600AD. But that is a separate issue.

Anyway if this is truly the case, we have a second ecclesiastical organization that began in 52AD. And according to the English dictionary this would be a “denomination”.

Now I am sure that you will respond that this is blatantly false. But unless you have studied the church in Kerala and the history of this time period, I doubt that you have the knowledge basis to back up your assertion.

Anyway, I have just learned about this myself and have many more questions than answers at this point. So at this point I am in learning mode. Anybody that can provide any informed information about this church would be helpful. I must say I do find this information fascinating.

However statements like “This is how it is because I say so” are not helpful.
Click to expand...
You’re either really confused or you just don’t understand how the early Church worked. A rudimentary study of the New Testament would illustrate this to you.

**You make it seem like St. Thomas was the only one in the east and that he never appointed any bishops or anybody else to take his place. That is simply nonsense. One man - except for Jesus, of course - couldn’t evangelize the entire eastern region of the world without some help. **

Just as Peter and Paul appointed bishops and deacons, so did Thomas. Those successors were the ones who kept the Church in the East in check after Thomas’s death.
**The Church was ONE until the Great Schism in the 11th century. **
You’re fantasies about other denominations before this happened are just that - fantasies. :rolleyes:
 
elvisman said:
You’re either really confused or you just don’t understand how the early Church worked. A rudimentary study of the New Testament would illustrate this to you.

You make it seem like St. Thomas was the only one in the east and that he never appointed any bishops or anybody else to take his place. That is simply nonsense. One man - except for Jesus, of course - couldn’t evangelize the entire eastern region of the world without some help.

Just as Peter and Paul appointed bishops and deacons, so did Thomas. Those successors were the ones who kept the Church in the East in check after Thomas’s death.
Click to expand...
Did any other apostle go to India. I would be very curious to learn this?

Whether Thomas appointed successors or not is not my point. My only point is that this church was not plugged into the Roman hierarchy. It was never under the Bishop of Rome as it were. It seemed to function quite well as its own jurisdiction.

However I am still learning about this. And so I will not discuss it further unless somebody provides me new information for my enjoyment.
elvisman said:
**The Church was ONE **until the Great Schism in the 11th century.
You’re fantasies about other denominations before this happened are just that - fantasies. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You obviously haven’t read what I have been saying about the Oriental Orthodox who split in the 400s. :

Your fantasies about the church not dividing until the Great Schism in the 11th century are just that - fantasies. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top