Use of the term "denomination"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Reformed_Rob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Reformed_Rob

Guest
Hi,

I’m back again, good to be back, just been away from the forums is all! Not away from Mother Church 🙂

So lots of times, people (Catholic people) use the term “denomination” in the context of “the Catholic denomination believes differently than other Christian denominations” and such as that.

That sort of bothers me, because I remember reading that the term “Church” should only properly be applied to the RC Church, not even to Eastern Churches, except in certain context. The CDF had a document about that.

And also, we say time and time again that we, as Roman Catholics, are NOT a denomination. So, if not, then why do people keep speaking as though we are?

I can understand non-Catholics using the term to describe us, because they just don’t get it. But if it’s wrong, why do we used the term to describe ourselves??

Is there a certain context where we ARE a denomination among Christian denominations? And what does this do to our intended “Oneness”?
 
I wouldn’t call the Catholic Church a “denomination” of Christianity either because ‘denomination’ implies parallel, equally sufficient units of Christianity, which is not the case with the Catholic Church.

A better way to describe reality is with a model of concentric circles: the Catholic Church is the center, other churches (orthodox, etc.) who have valid apostolic succession and the Eucharist are in the second concentric circle, and other Christian ecclesial communities (Protestants, etc.) are in the last concentric circle.

This model can be seen in the way Lumen Gentium is structured.

Thus, the Church Christ founded subsists in the Catholic Church, but elements of truth and sanctification can be found in other churches and ecclesial communities. All people, however, are called to the fullness of Catholic unity, that is, every grace from God flows from the center outward and draws everyone to the center (the Catholic Church).
 
I use the term “denomination” only when talking to non-catholic protestants that have no exposure to RC beliefs, and even some of them not counting RCs as “christian”. Basically I do it to help communication, rather than getting hung up on semantics. Usually the conversation comes around to “is RC a denomination” to which I always answer that “denomination” is a word used to describe divisions in protestant christianity to denote that they are all christians, just different kinds, but since RC is not a protentant fold, “denomination” is not an accurate word to use.
 
Delphinus85 said:
Usually the conversation comes around to “is RC a denomination” to which I always answer that “denomination” is a word used to describe divisions in protestant christianity to denote that they are all christians, just different kinds, but since RC is not a protentant fold, “denomination” is not an accurate word to use.
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s helpful. No need to get hung up on it, I agree.

So you may begin using the term, and then tell them later that the term does not accurately describe our situation if the conversation goes there?

That’s sort of what I would rather avoid. I’m afraid that many of us parishioners honestly think of ourselves as part of the Catholic denomination, and the baptists, lutherans, methodists, etc. we are all just different denominations. And that comes through in the words we hear used in conversation.

“Denominations of Christianity?” Is that proper way to use it?? I mean, they are Christian, we are Christian, so we are different but similar in that respect.
 
Reformed_Rob said:
So lots of times, people (Catholic people) use the term “denomination” in the context of “the Catholic denomination believes differently than other Christian denominations” and such as that.

That sort of bothers me, because I remember reading that the term “Church” should only properly be applied to the RC Church, not even to Eastern Churches, except in certain context. The CDF had a document about that.

And also, we say time and time again that we, as Roman Catholics, are NOT a denomination. So, if not, then why do people keep speaking as though we are?
Click to expand...
There is a need for a neutral term to describe Christians from different organisations or theological strands.
If we insist on “church” for Catholics and “sect” for everyone else, then the others will start insisting on “Christian” for them and some terribly offensive word for us, and it is not helpful.

There is only one Church. Jesus founded an organisation with a hierachy, not a philosophical or cultural movement. However some followers of Jesus are either outside the Church by their own admission, or their claim to be part of it is not accepted by the Catholic hierarchy. So “denomination” is a sensible term to describe this situation.
 
Reformed_Rob said:
Hi,

I’m back again, good to be back, just been away from the forums is all! Not away from Mother Church 🙂

So lots of times, people (Catholic people) use the term “denomination” in the context of “the Catholic denomination believes differently than other Christian denominations” and such as that.

That sort of bothers me, because I remember reading that the term “Church” should only properly be applied to the RC Church, not even to Eastern Churches, except in certain context. The CDF had a document about that.

And also, we say time and time again that we, as Roman Catholics, are NOT a denomination. So, if not, then why do people keep speaking as though we are?

I can understand non-Catholics using the term to describe us, because they just don’t get it. But if it’s wrong, why do we used the term to describe ourselves??

Is there a certain context where we ARE a denomination among Christian denominations? And what does this do to our intended “Oneness”?
Click to expand...
In case, while you were away you did not notice, and in case no one pointed it out to you, we have just been through a huge long discussion on a thread 'The Catholic Church is [just - we agreed that should not have been there] another denomination. You might want to refer to that before starting over again along the identical path.
 
I had always heard that a denomination was a part of a larger entity. Since we are the whole we are not a denomination. Does that go along with what you were thinking?
 
Dirk_Skene said:
I had always heard that a denomination was a part of a larger entity. Since we are the whole we are not a denomination. Does that go along with what you were thinking?
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s along the same lines…but what if it’s not entirely accurate to say that “we are the whole” ? Because if we aren’t the only Christians, then we are a subset of Christians. Meaning there are others besides us.

Maybe I should just study ecclesiology. This is all very confusing! Of course, studying it would probably make it even more confusing :whacky:
 
nerfherder said:
In case, while you were away you did not notice, and in case no one pointed it out to you, we have just been through a huge long discussion on a thread 'The Catholic Church is [just - we agreed that should not have been there] another denomination. You might want to refer to that before starting over again along the identical path.
Click to expand...
OK< thanks, I’ll look for that thread !
 
Malcolm_McLean said:
There is a need for a neutral term to describe Christians from different organisations or theological strands.
If we insist on “church” for Catholics and “sect” for everyone else, then the others will start insisting on “Christian” for them and some terribly offensive word for us, and it is not helpful.
Click to expand...
“Ecclesial Communion” is a nice term, and entirely accurate. I love it, but it’s hard to keep saying over and over again.

Not to mention, people look at you strange if you use that term. Normal people (ie. non-Catholics) just don’t talk like that.
 
Reformed_Rob said:
That sort of bothers me, because I remember reading that the term “Church” should only properly be applied to the RC Church, not even to Eastern Churches, except in certain context. The CDF had a document about that.
Click to expand...
It’s my understanding that the term can be applied to any group that has preserved authentic apostolic succession: the Catholic Church (in all its rights), the Orthodox, and the Oriental Orthodox for sure; I’m fairly sure we could also properly apply the term to the Nestorians (Assyrian Church of the East, I think is the full term) and the Swedish Lutheran Church.

I could be wrong, of course, but that’s my understanding. The catechism uses the term “Church” to refer to the Orthodox, but “ecclesial community” to refer to Protesants who have not preserved the Holy Orders.

Jeremy
 
jemfinch said:
It’s my understanding that the term can be applied to any group that has preserved authentic apostolic succession: the Catholic Church (in all its rights),

Jeremy
Click to expand...
In all rights and also in all rites.
 
Reformed_Rob said:
That sort of bothers me, because I remember reading that the term “Church” should only properly be applied to the RC Church, not even to Eastern Churches, except in certain context. The CDF had a document about that.
Click to expand...
Ok, I looked up and reviewed the document that I had read a while back. It was a notification from the CDF to Pope John Paul II regarding the proper and improper use(s) of the term “sister churches.”

I will refrain from quoting much of it, and leave it to interested individuals to read it if they care to. Here’s the link.

However, here is the latter part of the letter:
  1. In fact, in the proper sense, sister Churches are exclusively particular Churches (or groupings of particular Churches; for example, the Patriarchates or Metropolitan provinces) among themselves.[7]
Click to expand...
  1. One may also speak of sister Churches, in a proper sense, in reference to particular Catholic and non-catholic Churches; thus the particular Church of Rome can also be called the *sister *of all other particular Churches. However, as recalled above, one cannot properly say that the Catholic Church is the sister of a particular Church or group of Churches. This is not merely a question of terminology, but above all of respecting a basic truth of the Catholic faith: that of the unicity of the Church of Jesus Christ. In fact, there is but a single Church,[9] and therefore the plural term Churches can refer only to particular Churches.
Click to expand...
Consequently, one should avoid, as a source of misunderstanding and theological confusion, the use of formulations such as «our two Churches,» which, if applied to the Catholic Church and the totality of Orthodox Churches (or a single Orthodox Church), imply a plurality not merely on the level of particular Churches, but also on the level of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church confessed in the Creed, whose real existence is thus obscured.
Click to expand...
  1. Finally, it must also be borne in mind that the expression sister Churches in the proper sense, as attested by the common Tradition of East and West, may only be used for those ecclesial communities that have preserved a valid Episcopate and Eucharist.
Click to expand...
 
jemfinch said:
Hah, I can’t believe I did that. And I’m usually so careful!

Jeremy
Click to expand...
Hey, we swam the same year!! 2006 Took a little working up to actually cross over, but it’s been worth it totally ever since

I bet you got the shirt too 🙂
 
“Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church … Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church …” CCC 819.
 
Reformed_Rob said:
And also, we say time and time again that we, as Roman Catholics, are NOT a denomination. So, if not, then why do people keep speaking as though we are?
As you suggest, it is incorrect to call the Catholic Church a “denomination.” However, please note that it is also wrong to call her “Roman Catholic.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Gamera said:
“Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church … Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church …” CCC 819.
Click to expand...
So according to the CCC, there is more than one Church? NO!!

Notice, it says “Churches and ecclesial communities.”

“Churches” being those non-Catholics who have retained valid apostolic succession and the Eucharist. I don’t know who else that would be other than various denominaions of the Eastern Orthodox.

And the “ecclesial communions” are those that have not.

They are NOT Churches, according to the CCC. They are “ecclesial communions.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top