Use of term "denomination"

[Digitonomy]

I have heard people claim from time to time that the Catholic Church is not a denomination. This struck me as an odd claim, since it seems to fit squarely within the definition provided by Merriam-Webster:

:a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices

This seems like basic English vocabulary, and I’d have to see a good reason to reject it. I haven’t searched in much depth in Church documents, since I would expect the Church is going to refer to itself as the Church. For that matter, I wouldn’t generally refer to the Church as a denomination, since within Catholic circles there are more commonly-used terms. I also wouldn’t expect the Church to refer to itself as a religious group or faith organization or what-have-you, even though those phrases are undeniably accurate.

I also recently came upon someone stating that denominationalism is a heresy. Certainly that would depend on what exactly one means by the term, but if it’s a commonly recognized heresy, I figured the Catholic Encyclopedia or Church documents would give some insight. No luck from the old Catholic Encyclopedia. A search for the term at the Vatican website turned up three hits. While they all bemoan or condemn denominationalism, from the context it sounds like the pattern of groups splitting from the Church and from each other is what is meant, and this seems to be more a result of other heresies and general disobedience, rather than a heresy in and of itself.

1. Does the Church discourage or denounce use of the term “denomination” in reference to itself?
2. Is “denominationalism” a recognized heresy, and if so how is it defined?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Wikipedia defines Religious Denomination as such:

A religious denomination is a subgroup within a religion that operates under a common name, tradition, and identity.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_denomination

We are not a subgroup. We have been given the fulness of the faith through the teaching of Christ and the witnessing of the believers. We have not deviated from the faith handed down to us (in a general sense. I know many do as personal opinions).

 

[Apryl]

I have heard people claim from time to time that the Catholic Church is not a denomination. This struck me as an odd claim, since it seems to fit squarely within the definition provided by Merriam-Webster. This seems like basic English vocabulary, and I’d have to see a good reason to reject it.

Good point… but I happen to be of the camp of ‘The Catholic Church is NOT a denomination’. Just because Webster, or Oxford American, publish words in their dictionary… that just isn’t enough for me to say, ‘well, they said it, so that makes it so’

One would never call the trunk of a tree a ‘branch’, and by the same token, the Catholic Church is not a branch. The Catholic Church is not a subgroup, but is the GROUP.

Sure, in a very liberal sense, one could say, ‘denomination’, but that’s an abuse (imo) of the word.

I also recently came upon someone stating that denominationalism is a heresy.

I’m not sure why one would call it a ‘heresy’, as the use of the word isn’t wrong because of theology, but because of logic and entymology. That is… there are those who think that the Catholic Church is ‘just like any other Christian church’, which it is not… but those who say it’s the same, isn’t that because they don’t know any better? not because they don’t agree with the teachings of the church?

 

[Digitonomy]

We have been given the fulness of the faith through the teaching of Christ and the witnessing of the believers. We have not deviated from the faith handed down to us

Not sure how any of that is related to the issue. If Christ had decided that only a tiny minority - say 15 or 20 - would retain the fullness of the faith, and that the other millions of Christians would disperse to Presbyterianism, or Holiness, or Joel Osteen style churches, it’s pretty clear that the true Catholics would be a tiny subgroup of all Christians.

ConstantineTG:

Wikipedia defines Religious Denomination as such: A religious denomination is a subgroup within a religion that operates under a common name, tradition, and identity.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_denomination
We are not a subgroup.

Ok, if you don’t like my reference source, let’s go with Wiki… We have to define “subgroup.” If we look at the Wiktionary entry, we see

A group within a larger group; a group whose members are some, but not all, of the members of a larger group.

If we look at a set comprised of all Christians, it’s pretty clear that Catholics make up some, but not all, of the members of that larger group. In other words, Catholics are a subgroup of the set of all Christians. We may feel that we are a better group in a lot of ways, being blessed with Apostolic succession, the sacraments, the magisterium, etc. But we are a subgroup, and thus a denomination.

 

[Watchman]

If we look at a set comprised of all Christians, it’s pretty clear that Catholics make up some, but not all, of the members of that larger group. In other words, Catholics are a subgroup of the set of all Christians. We may feel that we are a better group in a lot of ways, being blessed with Apostolic succession, the sacraments, the magisterium, etc. But we are a subgroup, and thus a denomination.

You are selectively and arbitrarily increasing the pool of possible members in order to justify the use of the word “denomination” in reference to Catholics. Saying they are a “subgroup” of the class “Christianity” begs the question.

If we set the class to be “All churches founded by Christ maintaining valid apostolic succession” your mileage may vary.

 

[Barbkw]

The Catholic Church’s origins are Apostolic.

Protestant denominations were created after the Reformation in the 1500s.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Not sure how any of that is related to the issue. If Christ had decided that only a tiny minority - say 15 or 20 - would retain the fullness of the faith, and that the other millions of Christians would disperse to Presbyterianism, or Holiness, or Joel Osteen style churches, it’s pretty clear that the true Catholics would be a tiny subgroup of all Christians.

Christ didn’t decide it. He wants everyone to become part of the Church, that is why He instructed the Apostles to make disciples of all nations. But Jesus also knows that many would hear His words but not accept it, fully or partially. Its part of our free will to accept Christ’s messengers or not.

Ok, if you don’t like my reference source,

Its not about personal preferences. We have to take into account that the same word may have different meanings in a different context. Such as the word “run” would mean different to an athlete, a car, and a CEO.

let’s go with Wiki… We have to define “subgroup.” If we look at the Wiktionary entry, we seeIf we look at a set comprised of all Christians, it’s pretty clear that Catholics make up some, but not all, of the members of that larger group. In other words, Catholics are a subgroup of the set of all Christians. We may feel that we are a better group in a lot of ways, being blessed with Apostolic succession, the sacraments, the magisterium, etc. But we are a subgroup, and thus a denomination.

On the other hand, all other groups are born out of the Catholic faith. In the beginning it was only the Catholic Church, and many other subgroups are born out of this main group, mostly through schism or heresy. For Catholicism to be a subgroup, the larger group would have existed prior to Catholicism, or from the beginning Catholicism is a small part of the larger group. But in the beginning of Church, its just one group and that is the same group that is the Catholic Church today.

 

[WorkerPriest]

Doesn’t the Catechism of the Catholic Church identify Christians (other Churches, and other “ecclesial communities”) outside full unity with the Roman Catholic Church?

Frankly, I’m not fond of the term “denomination” either… but in terms of trying to understand the distinctions of Christians of various Confessions and Creeds, it might be a necessary linguistic tool. The Christians who accept the Council of Trent as valid confessional standard, differ from the Christians who do not… which includes the Eastern Orthodox Churchs, Lutherans, Anglicans, etc, all of which are understood as Christians.

Pax.

You are selectively and arbitrarily increasing the pool of possible members in order to justify the use of the word “denomination” in reference to Catholics. Saying they are a “subgroup” of the class “Christianity” begs the question.

If we set the class to be “All churches founded by Christ maintaining valid apostolic succession” your mileage may vary.

 

[Penitant]

If we break the word “denomination” down into it’s roots, we have:

de- :signifying separation, cessation, intensification, or contraction
nominate: “to name, entitle, or designate”
-ion: “Result of an action or process”

Thus, claiming something is a denomination could be understood as stating that it has broken from the original, thus requiring a new name. This is why some people reject that the Catholic Church is a denomination. It is the same Church that Christ founded. It has not needed to find a new name.

Really though, it’s all arguing semantics.

Pax Vobiscum

 

[Digitonomy]

You are selectively and arbitrarily increasing the pool of possible members in order to justify the use of the word “denomination” in reference to Catholics. Saying they are a “subgroup” of the class “Christianity” begs the question.

I would echo what WorkerPriest said on this matter. And in most cases, when we are talking about denominations, we are referring to the vast group that claim to follow Christ - all Christians. Occasionally we may be referring to all religious groups: "The denominations represented in this town are Lutheran, Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, and Reform and Conservative Judaism.

Watchman:

If we set the class to be “All churches founded by Christ maintaining valid apostolic succession” your mileage may vary.

I don’t think so. Within that class that you’ve defined, there are a number of subgroups - the Assyrian Church of the East, the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, the Greek Orthodox Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I would echo what WorkerPriest said on this matter. And in most cases, when we are talking about denominations, we are referring to the vast group that claim to follow Christ - all Christians. Occasionally we may be referring to all religious groups: "The denominations represented in this town are Lutheran, Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, and Reform and Conservative Judaism.I don’t think so. Within that class that you’ve defined, there are a number of subgroups - the Assyrian Church of the East, the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, the Greek Orthodox Church.

The Apostolic Churches carry the same basic Doctrines of the faith from Day 1. The Great Schism is brough about by disagreement on futher developed Doctrine, but not the Deposit of Faith. Those that would fall into Denominations have disagreements on thing contained in the Deposit of Faith itself. One substansial is the Eucharist. Another would be the importantce of the Church in salvation.

 

[JHow]

…Frankly, I’m not fond of the term “denomination” either… but in terms of trying to understand the distinctions of Christians of various Confessions and Creeds, it might be a necessary linguistic tool…

I think WorkerPriest is correct. I think this term is mostly taxonomical in nature: “What denomination are you?” “General Association of Regular Baptists”

Coming from a church that used to describe itself as “non-denominational”, it also carried some meaning about the ecclesiology of the church, i.e., the “non-denominational” church was independent of a larger structure or movement, just a single local congregation.

 

[Digitonomy]

Its not about personal preferences. We have to take into account that the same word may have different meanings in a different context. Such as the word “run” would mean different to an athlete, a car, and a CEO.

Obviously it is about personal preferences. We’ve now examined two definitions that are perfectly applicable to the words and situations at hand, and you’re essentially saying “I prefer my own definition, and that’s why I reject that word.” There is nothing wrong with that, but neither is it a very strong case that I or others should reject the commonly accepted meaning of a word.

On the other hand, all other groups are born out of the Catholic faith. In the beginning it was only the Catholic Church, and many other subgroups are born out of this main group, mostly through schism or heresy. For Catholicism to be a subgroup, the larger group would have existed prior to Catholicism, or from the beginning Catholicism is a small part of the larger group. But in the beginning of Church, its just one group and that is the same group that is the Catholic Church today.

So suppose we knew that say all dolphins descended from a single dolphin species. The professor says, “Within the larger group of all dolphins, let’s list all the subgroups.” I take it you would omit the original species from the list?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Obviously it is about personal preferences. We’ve now examined two definitions that are perfectly applicable to the words and situations at hand, and you’re essentially saying “I prefer my own definition, and that’s why I reject that word.”

The context of denomination in religion is different. You can’t just lift different meanings meant for a different context and apply it directly to the context of religion. Like my example, a running car is different from a running athlete from a CEO running his company. Its the same word but you cannot interchange the meanings. Its not a matter of opinion.

There is nothing wrong with that, but neither is it a very strong case that I or others should reject the commonly accepted meaning of a word.So suppose we knew that say all dolphins descended from a single dolphin species. The professor says, “Within the larger group of all dolphins, let’s list all the subgroups.” I take it you would omit the original species from the list?

Sorry, species to language analogy isn’t a good one. Again, reference my example on the use of the word “run”. The Free Dictionary has 28 definitions for “run”. You cannot use the meaning “28. To leave; depart” and apply it to an CEO running his company or “15. To extend, spread, or climb as a result of growing” would definitely not apply to an athlete running a marathon.

 

[Digitonomy]

One would never call the trunk of a tree a ‘branch’, and by the same token, the Catholic Church is not a branch. The Catholic Church is not a subgroup, but is the GROUP.

So you’re saying that the Seventh Day Adventists, the Church of God in Christ, the Russian Orthodox, the Primitive Baptists, the Church of Christ, Scientist, the Evangelical Lutherans, and the Imani Temple are all subgroups within the Catholic Church?

I think the proper analogy here would be the entire tree. The Church may be the trunk, but it isn’t the entire tree. Which makes it a subgroup.

 

[Digitonomy]

The Catholic Church’s origins are Apostolic.

Protestant denominations were created after the Reformation in the 1500s.

I see that we are in agreement.

 

[Bluegoat]

The way most people use the word in everyday language, they simply mean “one sort of Christian Church”.

Denominationalism is another thing which is clearly not compatible with a Catholic viewpoint. However, I think that the term denomination has become pretty much divorced from the denominationalism, unless you are speaking to someone who has an interest in that area of theology.

Usually when Catholics insist to others, especially non-Christians, that they are not a denomination, it just confuses the issue.

 

[Aramis]

So you’re saying that the Seventh Day Adventists, the Church of God in Christ, the Russian Orthodox, the Primitive Baptists, the Church of Christ, Scientist, the Evangelical Lutherans, and the Imani Temple are all subgroups within the Catholic Church?

I think the proper analogy here would be the entire tree. The Church may be the trunk, but it isn’t the entire tree. Which makes it a subgroup.

Pope John Paul II declared that the Church is NOT a denomination.

When one claims the Church is a denomination, one claims it’s not the source of Truth, but only a branch of truth; to claim that other Christian sects are equal to the Apostolic Churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Assyrian) is like claiming Vodka is a subset of whiskey… it just is not true, despite the similarities of origin.

It is to deny the apostolic nature, and that is heresy.

 

[Digitonomy]

"ConstantineTG:

Sorry, species to language analogy isn’t a good one.

Actually, species to denomination analogy.

The Apostolic Churches carry the same basic Doctrines of the faith from Day 1. The Great Schism is brough about by disagreement on futher developed Doctrine, but not the Deposit of Faith. Those that would fall into Denominations have disagreements on thing contained in the Deposit of Faith itself. One substansial is the Eucharist. Another would be the importantce of the Church in salvation.

So just to clarify, do you agree with my reply to Watchman that those four churches are subgroups of the class he described, “All churches founded by Christ maintaining valid apostolic succession”?

And now getting to your point, this is an interesting segregation. Obviously there are weaknesses in your scheme - e.g. which books constitute scripture would seem to be part of the Deposit of Faith. But overall, it seems like a generally workable system. The question is, (and this gets back to the OP, and the reason this is in Liturgy & Sacraments): Does the Church have rules (even if only semantic) that suggest or mandate that members of the one group should be called denominations, and the members of the other not? And if so, are the Church’s rules the same as what you’ve proposed?

ConstantineTG:

The context of denomination in religion is different. You can’t just lift different meanings meant for a different context and apply it directly to the context of religion. Like my example, a running car is different from a running athlete from a CEO running his company. Its the same word but you cannot interchange the meanings. Its not a matter of opinion.

I understand that there will be various definitions for a word. But I notice that all three of your suggested uses of “run” from post #7 were defined at the FreeDictionary. Where’s your definition of denomination? Here’s some more from FreeDictionary:

1. A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.
2. [coins, etc]
3. A name or designation, especially for a class or group.

As for your claim that the definitions provided so far for “denomination” can’t be believed because we are using the word in the context of religion - that’s exactly the context of those definitions.

 

[Digitonomy]

Denominationalism is another thing which is clearly not compatible with a Catholic viewpoint. However, I think that the term denomination has become pretty much divorced from the denominationalism, unless you are speaking to someone who has an interest in that area of theology.

So how exactly is denominationalism defined?