Is the Catholic Church considered a Denomination?

[The Times]

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?

I am absolutely gobsmacked, really, really! Are you serious!

 

[The Times]

@Monk Brendan I sincerely plead with you that you consider my arguments for the hope that lies within me, rather than searching out for what flesh there is left in me, like my name, my ethnicity, my colour, my Church Denomination, my Bishop, my Priest, my favourite past times, my favourite foods etc.

The qualities exhibited by a born again believer is to refrain from touching God's glory and even looking back to reference my self (flesh) in conjunction to my faith in Christ. Who exactly is me, is it me, the self who lives for the faith or Jesus Christ the faithful in me and his Holy Words and wisdom as my wonderful counsellor and everlasting Father/Pope?

@Monk Brendan please embrace what you discern is right and truthful and this may require you to seek the truth and to ultimately deny what you once ideologically held to as an unmovable wall. There beyond the wall of religious ideology exists Christ's infinite truth and wisdom.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Correction, Everyone in heaven is a Catholic.

Capital, schmapital. The word means the same capital or lower case.

And you say I need to learn grammar. You also need to learn what your church calls itself. It vacillates between just Catholic and Roman Catholic. You listed your faith as Catholic.

And you need to learn grammar. Church is the noun, Catholic is an adjective. I didn't mention the "RCC".

Catholic is sometimes used as an adjective as my post stated it is used in the Nicene Creed. As an adjective it is not capitalized. Why don't you take a look at proper grammar and read the SOF.

Catholic is also used as a Proper Noun, which grammar rules dictates as being Capitalized. An example would be to look at your own description where your faith is listed as "Catholic". As such most everyone knows this as Roman Catholic.

You responded to a post where one has listed different denominations with the argument that all denomination memberships have lost their place in heaven. Your failed "correction" was to say "Everyone in heaven is a Catholic". Now if you truly did intend for catholic to be an adjective, you broke two grammar rules. You don't capitalize adjectives. You don't say a person is an "adjective". Proper grammar would have been "Everyone in heaven is part of the catholic church".

Now regardless of what you intended, someone reading what you wrote, that knows grammar rules, would read it as you saying everyone in heaven is a Roman Catholic, the equivalent of just a Catholic.

Now if you are Roman Catholic, you should know that your church also goes by just Catholic. You also appear to understand what catholic means as an adjective, the complete universal church. So it is pretty clear you are playing games with the two uses of the word and so I stand by my post that it was
deceptive and an attempt to try and mislead people here that all in heaven have some association with the RCC.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

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.

Good point that the Pope dictates to heads of states what they can wear.
So what does it mean that queens, usually Catholics, can wear white? Does that mean they are married to the Pope, aka, in cahoots?

 

[The Times]

Good point that the Pope dictates to heads of states what they can wear.
So what does it mean that queens, usually Catholics, can wear white? Does that mean they are married to the Pope, aka, in cahoots?

 

[The Times]

 

[Radagast]

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

Logically, there are only four possible views:

1) There are no denominations. The Roman Catholic Church is the only true Church. The others (Protestant, Orthodox, etc.) are not true Churches at all.

2) The Roman Catholic Church is not a true Church at all. There are no denominations: some other group is the only true Church.

3) The Roman Catholic Church is not a true Church at all. The Universal Church of Christ is split into two or more denominations, but the Roman Catholic Church is not one of them.

4) The Universal Church of Christ is split into two or more denominations, of which the Roman Catholic Church is one.

My understanding of the CF rules is that views 1, 2, and 3 may not be stated here. I have met adherents of all 4 views, however.

 

[The Times]

The 4rth option is the only logical and viable alternative, unless off course RCC wants to declare itself something else, which is the one MOTHER and the other denominations as her many daughters

 

[Basil the Great]

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.

Well...... I thought that everyone here on Christian Forums is supposed to accept every group that follows the Nicene Creed as fellow Christians.

 

[Monk Brendan]

DP

 

[Monk Brendan]

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.

Where did you learn world history? First of all, the Roman Empire did not compass the world. Among others, the was the Chinese Empire, the Japanese Empire (which was around in 660 BC,) the Egyptian Empire--which dated back to 3150 BC. and others. Forgive me, but you are making wildly inaccurate statements about almost everything. If you don't believe me, talk to your fellow Orthodox Christians on these fora, and they will tell you the same thing.

 

[JacksBratt]

All religions are man made...... What makes you a Christian is the fact that you believe that Christ is your savior and He is your savior because He died for you on the cross.

All the rest is bantering among men and women who think they know better than other men and women.


Find a church that has a statement of beliefs that suit you best... and go there.

 

[Monk Brendan]

I am absolutely gobsmacked, really, really! Are you serious!

Yes, I am!

 

[Root of Jesse]

I have from a biblical and historical perspective highlighted pertinent facts that John was authorised to send the letter containing the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

No doubt. The question is when?

The 7 churches in Asia Minor had notaries/bishops who were considered by Jesus as his entire Church. There is no reference to Rome. After all Jesus told John to address the letters to the seven Churches.

You're right, Jesus did tell John to address those 7 churches under his bishopric.

You have to prove that one of those seven Churches was a Roman bishop. If you do, then you would have proven two things... that is.....

I never said one of those letters was to Rome, but why did it need to be?

Rome had an appointed Notary in Asia Minor who was not the head of the overall Church of Christ and secondly that the church itself was only one candlestick within the symbolic minorah of God. It therefore follows that RCC started off as a denomination, just like the other candlesticks, under the head apostle John.

It really depends on when Revelation was written, and to whom it was to be addressed.

However, if Rome had no Notary in Asia Minor and existed as an independent entity as you say, then Jesus had left out the letter from being delivered to them, because Jesus did not consider that head and Notaries as part of his candlesticks, rather a separate tree altogether that needed not addressing at the time. Or if RCC was just small house churches without a head, then it follows that a bishop from one of those seven Churches/candlesticks had eventually anointed and laid hands on a bishop of Rome to be. The latter is what is reported by the Orthodox Church, that believes that one of its historic bishops laid hands on a bishop to be of Rome.

Either way the conclusion is evidently compelling that RCC is historically and biblically categorised as a denomination, unless it wants to set itself up as something else.

Where does it say ANYWHERE that the only Churches in existance were those in Asia Minor? Fact is, it doesn't. At the time of Revelation's writing, there were Patriarchates in Antioch, Rome, and Alexandria already, and Peter had already left for Rome. John was, in our Tradition, the bishop of Ephesus, and included the other 6 in his diocese.
The Catholic Church isn't a denomination, Rome is a diocese of the Catholic Church (As is Ephesus and Antioch). Every diocese is its own entity, though an Archdiocese would have some say over dioceses in its domain.
But to the "Roman" Catholic Church, it is really the Latin Rite Catholic Church as opposed to the Eastern Rite (though both are in communion with the Pope).

 

[Root of Jesse]

And you say I need to learn grammar. You also need to learn what your church calls itself. It vacillates between just Catholic and Roman Catholic. You listed your faith as Catholic.

Actually, the official name is Latin Rite Catholic Church. Roman is a title given by anti-Catholic Protestants, even though many parishes call themselves Roman Catholic.

Catholic is sometimes used as an adjective as my post stated it is used in the Nicene Creed. As an adjective it is not capitalized. Why don't you take a look at proper grammar and read the SOF.

Well, if you read what I said...

Catholic is also used as a Proper Noun, which grammar rules dictates as being Capitalized. An example would be to look at your own description where your faith is listed as "Catholic". As such most everyone knows this as Roman Catholic.

"Church" is the noun, "Catholic" is the adjective-it describes the Church.

You responded to a post where one has listed different denominations with the argument that all denomination memberships have lost their place in heaven.

I never said that anyone has lost their place in heaven. I don't believe we can tell who's in heaven and who's not.

Your failed "correction" was to say "Everyone in heaven is a Catholic".

That is a true statement. Whoever is in heaven is in communion with God in the one Faith. Catholic.

Now if you truly did intend for catholic to be an adjective, you broke two grammar rules. You don't capitalize adjectives. You don't say a person is an "adjective". Proper grammar would have been "Everyone in heaven is part of the catholic church".

Now regardless of what you intended, someone reading what you wrote, that knows grammar rules, would read it as you saying everyone in heaven is a Roman Catholic, the equivalent of just a Catholic.

Now if you are Roman Catholic, you should know that your church also goes by just Catholic. You also appear to understand what catholic means as an adjective, the complete universal church. So it is pretty clear you are playing games with the two uses of the word and so I stand by my post that it was
deceptive and an attempt to try and mislead people here that all in heaven have some association with the RCC.

Church is implied. Sorry you don't see that. And I never said anything about the "RCC". It's funny how you don't read what's not there sometimes and do read what's not there at other times. As to the definition:

cath·o·lic
ˈkaTH(ə)lik/
adjective
adjective: catholic

1. including a wide variety of things; all-embracing.
   "her tastes are pretty catholic"
   synonyms: universal, diverse, diversified, wide, broad, broad-based, eclectic, liberal, latitudinarian;More
   
   antonyms: narrow

Origin

late Middle English: from Catholic.

Cath·o·lic
ˈkaTH(ə)lik/
adjective
adjective: Catholic

1. 1.
   of the Roman Catholic faith.
   • of or including all Christians.
   • relating to the historic doctrine and practice of the Western Church.

noun
noun: Catholic; plural noun: Catholics

1. 1.
   a member of the Roman Catholic Church.

Origin
late Middle English: from Old French catholique or late Latin catholicus, from Greek katholikos‘universal,’ from kata ‘with respect to’ + holos ‘whole.’

As you can see, they consider Catholic to be both an adjective and a noun, so I guess we're both right. I don't see a distinction between the adjective and the noun, personally.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Good point that the Pope dictates to heads of states what they can wear.
So what does it mean that queens, usually Catholics, can wear white? Does that mean they are married to the Pope, aka, in cahoots?

Huh? Popes do not dictat what heads of state may wear. In a recent visit, Mrs. Trump did wear black, but that was her own choosing.

 

[Root of Jesse]

View attachment 208114 View attachment 208115 View attachment 208116 View attachment 208117 View attachment 208118 View attachment 208119 View attachment 208120 View attachment 208121 View attachment 208122 View attachment 208123

Any proof that any of this was dictated, as opposed to a traditional way of honoring the office of Pope?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Logically, there are only four possible views:

1) There are no denominations. The Roman Catholic Church is the only true Church. The others (Protestant, Orthodox, etc.) are not true Churches at all.

2) The Roman Catholic Church is not a true Church at all. There are no denominations: some other group is the only true Church.

3) The Roman Catholic Church is not a true Church at all. The Universal Church of Christ is split into two or more denominations, but the Roman Catholic Church is not one of them.

4) The Universal Church of Christ is split into two or more denominations, of which the Roman Catholic Church is one.

My understanding of the CF rules is that views 1, 2, and 3 may not be stated here. I have met adherents of all 4 views, however.

I would agree to #4, except that the Catholic Church isn't one. Catholic is the call of Christ, though. Catholic, Baptist, Anglican, etc. is our response to the call. I believe the devout Catholic comes closer to Christ's call than the others. I'd bet every non-Catholic would disagree. That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.

Nope.

 

[The Times]

Where did you learn world history? First of all, the Roman Empire did not compass the world. Among others, the was the Chinese Empire, the Japanese Empire (which was around in 660 BC,) the Egyptian Empire--which dated back to 3150 BC. and others. Forgive me, but you are making wildly inaccurate statements about almost everything. If you don't believe me, talk to your fellow Orthodox Christians on these fora, and they will tell you the same thing.

No I don't believe your claim that I am "making wildly inaccurate statements about almost everything". It is clear that you are trying to discredit me and this is more of a personal attack than a dialogue between two sensible Christians. I would like to remind you that we both carry the name Christ, so let us stick to the claims at heart, rather than the person making those claims.

You are deflecting the issue at heart, the Bible talks about the last kingdom on earth and this last kingdom kingdom is widely agreed by theologians to be the Roman Empire or what is left of it towards the end, as the last remaining ten toes.

Let me ask you one thing, prophetically speaking, what has the Chinese, Japanese or the Egyptian empires have to do with the New Testament Church?

Nothing!