Very Confused

[friendster324]

If an expression of Christianity has authentic apostolicity, even in schism, it is a Church (though not fully Catholic because of its separation from the See of Peter). All others are ecclesial communities or “denominations” since they have separated themselves from the Church and its apostolicity and its apostolic faith in varying degrees.

I am aptly versed in Lumen Gentium and know the difference between a Church (Catholic, Orthodox) and an ecclesiastical community (protestants because they don’t have valid apostolic succession).

I wasn’t discussing the term “Church” but “religion” and “denomination.” And I am still unsure as to why the latter term is not correct. Maybe I never will. Is the objection because it simplifies the distinction stated in the previous paragraph and puts the Catholic Church on apparently equal standing as Protestantism (not that that is my intention but could possibly be construed in that way)?

 

[joanofarc2008]

It is simple a Church bases its cornerstone on the Eucharist - and ecclesiastical community does not (Pope Benedict says it finds its focus on the Word of God but does not have a Eucharist.)

The only exception to this which seems to be the exception - and they are a CHURCH would be the Orthodox. I guess that would be why we are working so hard to close the schism by 2054 before it reaches 1000 years.

 

[friendster324]

It is simple a Church bases its cornerstone on the Eucharist - and ecclesiastical community does not.

Again, I wasn’t debating the use of those terms. I fully understand and agree with them. It’s all about valid apostolic succession.

But what I DON’T understand is how using the term “denomination” is incorrect in differentiating between various forms of the same “religion.”

 

[FCEGM]

So due to paragraph 15 we call them Christian but we do not use the word denomination - what other word would you propose - because I know Pope Benedict has a few that I kind of liked from Light of the World but I would like to hear your opinion.

Joan, “Christian community” might be an option or “ecclesial community” a la Lumen gentium. I haven’t yet read Light of the World, so what did you like of the Holy Father’s manner of addressing these Christians? I don’t have any problem with “denomination” to denote those not of apostolic origin in our discussions on CAF, but more formal and official addresses will no doubt prefer other language.

 

[FCEGM]

Again, I wasn’t debating the use of those terms. I fully understand and agree with them. It’s all about valid apostolic succession.

But what I DON’T understand is how using the term “denomination” is incorrect in differentiating between various forms of the same “religion.”

“Denomination” indicates more than one among equals within Christianity. Christ, however, founded one Church and thus to speak of that Church as a denomination is a diminution of its nature and identity (how’s that for alliteration?).

 

[friendster324]

“Denomination” indicates more than one among equals within Christianity. Christ, however, founded one Church and thus to speak of that Church as a denomination is a diminution of its nature and identity (how’s that for alliteration?).

See, I disagree. “Denomination”, IMHO, has a neutral connotation and doesn’t infer rightness or wrongness. “Church”, as stated earlier, does mean something specific that should be used correctly but I don’t think denomination has the same weight.

But at least now I know what the hang-up was in earlier posts. Thanks for the dialogue.

 

[joanofarc2008]

Joan, “Christian community” might be an option or “ecclesial community” a la Lumen gentium. I haven’t yet read Light of the World, so what did you like of the Holy Father’s manner of addressing these Christians? I don’t have any problem with “denomination” to denote those not of apostolic origin in our discussions on CAF, but more formal and official addresses will no doubt prefer other language.

Here is a copy of the comments made in Light of the World(pgs 94-95) - I am typing them from the book so please excuse any typos:

The word “ecclesial community” is a term employed by the Second Vatican Council. The Council applied a very simple rule in these matters: A Church in the proper sense, as we understand it, exists where the episcopal office, as the sacramental expression of the apostolic succession, is present-which also implies the existence of the Eucharist as a sacrament that is dispensed by the bishop and the priest. If this is not the case, then we are dealing with the emergence of another model, a new way of understanding what a church is, which at Vatican II we designated by the term “eccleisal community.” The word was intended to indicate that such communities embody a different mode of being a church. As they themselves insist, it is precisely not the same mode in which the Churches of the great tradition of antiquity are Churches, but is based on a new understanding, according to which a church consists, not in the institution, but in the dynanism of the Word that gathers people into a congregation.

This term, then , is an attempt to capture what is distinctive about Protestant Christianity and to give it a positive expression. We can always keep trying to find better terms, but the basic distinction is legitimate, indeed, it is a fact even from a purely historical point of view.

Apart from that, it is worth stressing again that the ecclesial situation differs greatly from one Protestant community to another. They define themselves differently even among themselves, so that we cannot speak of the Protestant Church. The key point is that Protestantism has, as it were, shifted the accent of Christianityand that we are trying to understand this, to acknowledge on another as Christians, and to join in service as Christians.

I hope that helps as I felt his remarks were absolutely beautiful.

 

[FCEGM]

Here is a copy of the comments made in Light of the World(pgs 94-95) - I am typing them from the book so please excuse any typos:

I hope that helps as I felt his remarks were absolutely beautiful.

:yup: Yes, they were; thank you very much, Joan. You can sense his unwavering desire and prayer for true Christian unity.

 

[FCEGM]

See, I disagree. “Denomination”, IMHO, has a neutral connotation and doesn’t infer rightness or wrongness. “Church”, as stated earlier, does mean something specific that should be used correctly but I don’t think denomination has the same weight.

But at least now I know what the hang-up was in earlier posts. Thanks for the dialogue.

 

[joanofarc2008]

:yup: Yes, they were; thank you very much, Joan. You can sense his unwavering desire and prayer for true Christian unity.

He really says many beautiful things - I find him very easy to read. God bless Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[Ignatius]

“Denomination” indicates more than one among equals within Christianity. Christ, however, founded one Church and thus to speak of that Church as a denomination is a diminution of its nature and identity (how’s that for alliteration?).

Exactly. All of the denominations began in the 16th century, The Church is not one of the denominations.