Is the Catholic Church considered a Denomination?

[GUANO]

To speak to the topic of the thread:

Any organization that gives itself a name, a charter, a constitution, statement of faith, and is "authorized by the state" undermines the Body of Jesus Christ and is literally practicing idolatry after the manner of the world.

We are saved by faith so anyone who professes faith in Jesus Christ should be assumed to be part of "His Body", this would even include the more controversial faiths like Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and SDA's. Jesus Christ has mercy on us and our profanities and ignorance of spiritual and ecclesiastical matters.

All the organizations and so-called "authorities" of this world will be put under the feet of Jesus Christ and that includes all these stupid organizations named after dead saints and esoteric principles. Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling and do not give your soul to be kept safe by people who work for "Vineyard", "Martin Luther", or "the Holy See" (it is all vanity and will be destroyed)... Instead, trust your soul with Jesus Christ who died for you.

 

[PanDeVida]

I do not consider the Roman Catholic church to be Christian, so it is not a Christian denomination. Rome follows after a false gospel of Synergism and denies the sufficiency of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Joe, you are contradicting yourself! You say that the Catholic Church is not Christian but you obviously read the Bible that was compiled by the Early Christian Church Fathers who were all Catholic.

The Catholic Church does not deny any of what it has compiled aka Bible, guided by the Holy Spirit. Rather, the one who subtracted 7 books from the Bible, the Bible that you read now, that is an insufficient bible and not of the Holy Spirit.

Joe, you are bitting the Hand aka Catholic Church that gave you the complete Christian Bible, and settle for an incomplete Bible edited by a mere man in the 15th century, and you have the nerve to say that the Catholic Church is not Christian.

 

[The Times]

Excuse me?? I though that Jesus was the head. After all, He is the vine, and we are the branches.

Yes, He. certainly is, Amen!
He is my High Priest and my Pope!

Is He your High Priest and Pope?

 

[The Times]

You know, of course, that you are re-writing history, don't you?

No my friend that is not true and you know it deep down in your heart.

It is said that history is written by the victors. In other words it is the act to dominate your opposition and then proceed to rewrite history to favour you as the ultimate party in control of people and of power.

Now having said that, from a historical and biblical perspective, Rome was the final kingdom on earth, that crushed other kingdoms and dominated the globe.

It goes to follow, that history was rewritten by them and as part of the control of people and power apparatus, they assumed the authority of all the Christian religion, by calling the religious component of the geo-political and religious enterprise as the mother of the Christian religion. Which is why they made Christainity a state based religion, meaning it had two horns of power, the geo-political and the Christ like religious.

So, it is a no brainer that I am not the guilty party to rewrite history, because I am not the party in control of people and of power, yet I am a very small voice revealing the truth that had been historically rewritten by the dominating party, that is Rome.

 

[The Times]

Where? Please show me, either in the Bible or in various texts of the Eastern Orthodox Church, where this teaching shows up. And please quote Church Councils about this as well.

You can't, and YOU know it. This is just smoke you're trying to blow up our behind so that we would get confused.

In the Bible, the evidence is.......

That John was authorised and not Clement 1 to write the letter to the entire Church of Jesus, which are the seven independent denominational candlesticks. It goes to follow that Jesus regarded John as the head of the church, to be responsible for writing the letter that contained the Revelation of Jesus Christ. It could be said with confidence that Clement 1 was not given authority to communicate this to the entire Church of Christ, the seven Churches in Asia Minor, therefore Jesus disregarded the man Clement 1, in vast contrast to the claims of RCC, which regarded Clement 1 and still regards him as the Vicar of Christ. It seems that Jesus didn't regard him Vicarious and this is where the history books have been rewritten by Rome, to reflect a totally different reality indeed!

As far as the Orthodox Church is concerned which was unified back then, the oral tradition passed down from parents to children was that the head of the Orthodox Church had laid hands and anointed a bishop for Rome. Obviously one thing that was hard to rewrite or to censor by Rome was oral tradition.

 

[The Times]

WRONG!

I see big red letters in front of me and I feel that I ought to be brow beaten, right?

WRONG!

 

[hedrick]

They say no, but what does the word denomination mean?

It's a term used by Protestants to describe a part of the one Church. Denomination is sometimes used rather than church, when we want to emphasize that there's only one Church. Calling the RCC a denomination is thus giving it as full recognition as possible.

Catholic theology actually has a similar concept, since there are several groups in communion with each other. (I believe there are 23 other than the Roman church, all in the East.) Wikipedia says that Catholic term is "particular church," with "rite" referring to the liturgical practice of a church or group within a church. Catholics might translate denomination as "particular church," except of course that not all denominations are in communion with each other.

I should note that the old argument "we're the only church, no, we are" is no longer universally used. The PCUSA has an agreement with the RCC on baptism where both parties refer to each other as churches, and the RCC does in fact identify itself as the RCC, since the agreement is specifically with that particular church.

 

[gordonhooker]

It does matter to a number of Catholics who post here at CF. From time to time they trot out this fact to prove their superiority.

That is probably because of rather silly topics like this one being started in the first place. In my experience every denomination believes they hold the only true doctrine of Christianity including some who belong to my Anglican tribe.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It's a term used by Protestants to describe a part of the one Church. Denomination is sometimes used rather than church, when we want to emphasize that there's only one Church. Calling the RCC a denomination is thus giving it as full recognition as possible.

Catholic theology actually has a similar concept, since there are several groups in communion with each other. (I believe there are 23 other than the Roman church, all in the East.) Wikipedia says that Catholic term is "particular church." Catholics might translate denomination as "particular church," except of course that not all denominations are in communion with each other.

I should note that the old argument "we're the only church, no, we are" is no longer universally used. The PCUSA has an agreement with the RCC on baptism where both parties refer to each other as churches, and the RCC does in fact identify itself as the RCC, since the agreement is specifically with that particular church.

From what I understand, and correct me if I am wrong, is the EOC practices closed communion to non-Orthodox Christians. But they may take communion in a RCC.
Pretty confusing to me and probably to most other Christians I assume.

1Co 1:13
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

https://oca.org/reflections/fr.-john-breck/why-not-open-communion

Especially at the feast of Pascha (Easter) non-Orthodox Christians ask why they may not receive Holy Communion in Orthodox parishes. As painful as this refusal is, it is based on our understanding of the true meaning of the sacrament as revealed in Scripture and ecclesial experience.

Another point needs to be stressed. It is true that Orthodox Christians are considered by some Catholic priests to be eligible to receive communion in their parishes; but this practice is not formally sanctioned by the Catholic Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the Holy Office or Magisterium). On the other hand, the Orthodox Churches, united above all by their Eucharistic faith and practice, accept to communion only baptized Orthodox Christians, and then, theoretically, only when they have prepared themselves by prayer, by appropriate fasting, and—in most traditions—by confession of sins. In addition, Orthodox bishops and other teachers make clear to their faithful that they can only properly receive communion from a canonically ordained priest or bishop within the context of the traditional Orthodox Divine Liturgy (which includes communion taken to the sick).........

 

[Denadii]

That is probably because of rather silly topics like this one being started in the first place. In my experience every denomination I believes they hold the only true doctrine of Christianity including some who belong to my Anglican tribe.

Ayuh. I know many born again Romanists, Muslims come to Jesus, JWs, Christian Scientists, every denomination and religion have born again people in there. And its fine for them to stay there too, until and unless they are called out.

 

[The Times]

Rome was a totally different TREE during John's letters to the seven churches/candlesticks of God's Minorah.

In fact history attests that Rome, existed as the geo-political state based religious state, that dominated the known world. It is no different today, where under Mussolini the Vatican city was declared as an independent state of its own, who continues to mingle with the kings of this world and has been instrumental in influencing global political agendas, opinions and laws. After all, Francis stood before the UN and demanded THAT WE MUST ESTABLISH JUST LAWS, which were his exact words OF DEMAND.

RCC stands out as a an independent geopolitical and religious state, with a very small population, that literally dictates to the remnant of what was left of the Roman Empire, which is the western countries, what it wants.

In fact, every US president and leader who visits the RCC pope is dressed in black, whilst the pope is in white, where even the wife of the presidents and kings of the world and their children are always without fail seen dressed in black when standing beside the pope.

@Monk Brendan our brother in Christ states that I am guilty of trying to rewrite history, whilst it is evident that the power movers and shakers of Rome aka the ellites, have successfully managed to do this for the last 1900 years, after the last of the original apostles John passed on. After all, the state based religion of Rome had total control of politics, geography and religion and it was instrumental for the better part of those centuries in censoring and banning apostolic writings. Even after the Bible was compiled from those apostolic writings, the RCC continued to have a monopoly on the accessibility to scripture. The censorship of scripture and other writings contrary to Rome were deemed illegal and as a result of infringing those laws, Rome punished anyone in possession of them as conspirators to the state of Rome. Which is why the state based religious enterprise resulted in a religion for the elite society of Rome, the movers and shakers of the world and this is no different today under the name of Vatican 2.

So who rewrote history books friends?

Who was moving and shaking the world for the last 1900 years and to this very day where the presidents and kings of the world pay homage to the head of vatican 2 by wearing black. What does black symbolise some might say?

Well take for example the hidden meaning of who is dictating and who is being dictated to. The light always floods the path towards darkness within the context of knowledge, that is Gnosis and it is the pope in white dictating to the presidents and kings of the world global policy.

So again who rewrote history?

Do I need to answer this already?

Therefore RCC is either a denomination from amongst many denominations or it is declarating itself as a geopolitical state based religious state.

I say let us forget history and to forgive and to give RCC the benefit of the doubt and call it a denomination.

 

[hedrick]

From what I understand, and correct me if I am wrong, is the EOC practices closed communion to non-Orthodox Christians. But they may take communion in a RCC.
Pretty confusing to me and probably to most other Christians I assume.

Right. There are also Protestants with closed communion, e.g. conservative Presbyterians and Lutherans, and Church of Christ. So this isn't a Catholic / EO problem, nor do I think it's related to the term "denomination."

I agree with you that lack of intercommunion is a problem. Personally I consider it blasphemous, because it hijacks a sign of Christian unity for their own community. For that reason I won't worship in a church that practices closed communion. However many Christians feel that they can't in good conscience join in communion with those with significant differences. There's not a lot we can do about that other than to recognize that there are brothers and sisters in Christ who have serious disagreements with us, and cooperate to the extent that we can.

 

[The Times]

Could someone kindly explain how communion relates to denomination. Does Jesus see communion and denominations as one in the same?

I believe that Jesus would spiritually see communion as one, though be existing a multitude of denominations. So the one communion is the Head himself, who is Jesus Christ.

To make this one communion as a closed or entirely separate communion, then I agree with @hedrick that it borders on blasphemy. In fact Jesus said.....

13“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

Closed communion is guilty of the charge above, which leads to the charge below...

15“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice a child of hell as you are. (Matthew 23:14-15)

So, closed communions are dangerous enterprises that shut the door to other Christians and secondly, those who have been conscripted within that closed communion, further the agenda to close other Christians from Jesus and by doing so, the second charge then comes into play.

It is evident that only one communion exists as far as Jesus Christ is concerned, though there may exist a multitude of denominations having different traditions, Bishopric etc. Please note, that this is not to confuse traditions with scriptural doctrine.

 

[The Times]

If RCC is to be considered as part of that one communion, who is the Head (Chief Priest) Jesus Christ, then it must be a denomination, that is one of many branches of the same Vine/Tree, that ís, it cannot be the Tree itself.

I am giving RCC the benefit of the doubt, especially when considering its historic and present day geopolitical, state based religious enterprise. I am therefore holding to the hope that RCC must acknowledge itself as just a branch/ denomination of the same TREE. If not, then my fears about such state based religious enterprise would be rightly warranted.

Surely, no RCC member wants to turn their denomination into something else, outside of the one communion and the one interceeding Head Priest (Pope) Jesus Christ.

 

[The Times]

Biblical definition of the ONE Comminion who is Jesus Christ.

5Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.

9You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. 10But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life because of righteousness. 11And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you.

12Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.

14For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. 15The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “ABBA, Father.” 16The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. 17Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. (Romans 8:5-17)

Christianity has ONE Communion and that is with the Spirit of Christ. So the Spirit has no connection to the things of the flesh and the things of this world, meaning denominations fall in the category of the things of this world, therefore denominations are not by biblical definition the ONE Communion, neither can any one branch/denomination claim to be that one communion, because it would be blasphemy beyond measure, that is, ultimate blasphemy.

So the multitude of denominations/branches of the same Vine/Tree are in communion with the ONE Holy Spirit of God, where they cry out ABBA, meaning Father. Our Father/Pope in this respect is our Chief Priest Jesus Christ. The Father made the Son in his Power and stead to lead many to God His Father.

 

[Denadii]

Could someone kindly explain how communion relates to denomination. Does Jesus see communion and denominations as one in the same?

I believe that Jesus would spiritually see communion as one, though be existing a multitude of denominations. So the one communion is the Head himself, who is Jesus Christ.

To make this one communion as a closed or entirely separate communion, then I agree with @hedrick that it borders on blasphemy. In fact Jesus said.....

13“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

Closed communion is guilty of the charge above, which leads to the charge below...

15“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice a child of hell as you are. (Matthew 23:14-15)

So, closed communions are dangerous enterprises that shut the door to other Christians and secondly, those who have been conscripted within that closed communion, further the agenda to close other Christians from Jesus and by doing so, the second charge then comes into play.

It is evident that only one communion exists as far as Jesus Christ is concerned, though there may exist a multitude of denominations having different traditions, Bishopric etc. Please note, that this is not to confuse traditions with scriptural doctrine.

The fact is, my friend, that most Christians even know what communion is or what its for.

 

[Monk Brendan]

No my friend that is not true and you know it deep down in your heart.

It is said that history is written by the victors. In other words it is the act to dominate your opposition and then proceed to rewrite history to favour you as the ultimate party in control of people and of power.

Now having said that, from a historical and biblical perspective, Rome was the final kingdom on earth, that crushed other kingdoms and dominated the globe.

Really? How about Imperial Great Britain, or Nazi Germany, or Communist USSR?

That John was authorised and not Clement 1 to write the letter to the entire Church of Jesus, which are the seven independent denominational candlesticks. It goes to follow that Jesus regarded John as the head of the church, to be responsible for writing the letter that contained the Revelation of Jesus Christ. It could be said with confidence that Clement 1 was not given authority to communicate this to the entire Church of Christ, the seven Churches in Asia Minor, therefore Jesus disregarded the man Clement 1, in vast contrast to the claims of RCC, which regarded Clement 1 and still regards him as the Vicar of Christ. It seems that Jesus didn't regard him Vicarious and this is where the history books have been rewritten by Rome, to reflect a totally different reality indeed!

And this, also is untrue. John was NOT the head of the Church at any time. Clement I has nothing to do with this discussion at all, except you keep trying to drag him in. Peter was first Bishop of Antioch (where they were first called Christian), and then he moved on to Rome, where he was the first Bishop there. Rome, for the first 300 years, was a liturgical wasteland. It ONLY became important later in history. Most of the doctrine, dogma, etc. was being written in the East, in Constantinople, and Antioch, Nicea, places like that.

 

[Monk Brendan]

I am giving RCC the benefit of the doubt, especially when considering its historic and present day geopolitical, state based religious enterprise. I am therefore holding to the hope that RCC must acknowledge itself as just a branch/ denomination of the same TREE. If not, then my fears about such state based religious enterprise would be rightly warranted.

How liberal you are! Okay, you say you're Eastern Orthodox, and yet you write like someone from a Protestant background. If you are, indeed, Eastern Orthodox, what is the Paschal Greeting? Who is your Bishop, and what is the name of your Church and what patriarch are you under?

 

[The Times]

Really? How about Imperial Great Britain, or Nazi Germany, or Communist USSR?

The Bible doesn't talk of Imperial Great Britain, or Nazi Germany, or Communist USSR, the Bible speaks of a geopolitical state based religious enterprise that immediately follows the 1st century Apostolic Church and whereby later assuming the title and role of MOTHER.

Daniel 7:25
He will speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people and try to change the set times and the laws. The holy people will be delivered into his hands for a time, times and half a time.

It is widely agreed by theologians that the global empire spoken of in Daniel and in Revelation of Jesus Christ, especially during John's captivity on the island of Patmos, is referring to the Roman Empire that encompassed the globe. The Roman Empire absorbed the Christian religion and made it into a state based religious enterprise, which attracted the shakers and movers of the Roman Empire, that is the Elite of the society. The RCC under Vatican 2 is playing the exact same role, no different then before, just under a different name, different time, different stage of what is left of the Roman Empire (Western civilisation), different Pontiff, different structure, however with the same agenda, that is world domination, under the Crusade banner.

And this, also is untrue. John was NOT the head of the Church at any time. Clement I has nothing to do with this discussion at all, except you keep trying to drag him in. Peter was first Bishop of Antioch (where they were first called Christian), and then he moved on to Rome, where he was the first Bishop there. Rome, for the first 300 years, was a liturgical wasteland. It ONLY became important later in history. Most of the doctrine, dogma, etc. was being written in the East, in Constantinople, and Antioch, Nicea, places like that.

You said "most of the doctrine, dogma, etc. was written in the East, in Constantinople, and Antioch, Nicea, places like that."

I say, exactly!

Now Christ's Church was not a liturgical wasteland like Rome, it was an established ONLY Church system. I capitalised the word ONLY Church system, because it was not geopolitical and there is no historical evidence, that it influenced global politics, as what the Roman establishment 300 years later would do.

Jesus gave his Revelation to John, who was entrusted and authorised to write the letters to the already established Church in Asia Minor. This negates any notion of Vicarious authority to an alleged Pontiff who resided in Rome. Jesus would not have forgotten and been confused where his established Church is.

John the last of the original Apostles was entrusted by Jesus and therefore the go between man between Jesus and His Church was John and not Clement 1. Now I need you to acknowledge this fact with an astounding YES!

There is no evidence that highlights the Vicarious authority of a Pontiff in Rome, because Jesus would not have missed this huge detail when addressing his Church through John, would he?

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

The above quotes are from another thread which led me to start this thread.

Simple question: Is the RCC considered a Denomination?
Is so, why. If not, why not.
Thank you

I consider it a sect (heresy) not a denomination. Once a group or denomination crosses the line and believes itself to be "the one true church." Those who accept that begin to exclude themselves from the Kingdom of God. Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Secondly: Jesus forbad his own apostles to set up an institution. That is what they were always arguing about: "Who would be the greatest." Who would be the leader, who would be the head, who would have the final say so etc, etc. It's not that God isn't with institutions. Its just they are not Gods best. We are to be bound together by good will not the "authority" of men and their institutions. You will have to look up those verses on your own.