Is Catholicism one of the Christian Denominations / Religions?

Monty.

From a recent thread, I was not aware that so many other Christian denominations / religions / philosophies do not view Catholicism as one of the Christian denominations / religions.

I find this interesting; I'm trying to understand people’s opinion / view on this matter.

So if you believe Catholicism is not one of the Christian denominations / religions, can you enlighten me as to why you think so ?

i.e. is it your personal opinion, or the establish view of your own denomination, either way, why is this so ?

Thanks, M.

PatricaMcKay2

No. (please expand your opinion/reason why below)

The RCC confesses the Incarnation and the Trinity so yes its Christian. Also practices Trinitarian Baptism, so how could it not be?

Monty.

No. (please expand your opinion/reason why below)

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

so how could it not be?

I've no idea, you'll have to ask antiskeptic etc.

JimiTime

In terms of headings and identity, then yes, of course it is. The objection comes when people apply value to the term 'Christian'. Personally, I don't think its worth the argument.

gimmebroadband

I voted no because I don't consider the Catholic Church (I'm Latin Rite) a denomination as it's the original Christian Church, all the rest are denominations!

soterpisc

No. (please expand your opinion/reason why below)

gimmebroadband wrote: »

I voted no because I don't consider the Catholic Church (I'm Latin Rite) a denomination as it's the original Christian Church, all the rest are denominations!

Any Orthodox consider them to be the Original Church. Even in Rome, the Original Church was Greek, not Latin, There is Greek graffiti all over from from 1st century.

The Original Church was Greek and that is a historical fact. (unless you count Isreal first)

PDN

No. (please expand your opinion/reason why below)

From a theological and sociological standpoint I voted 'yes' on the basis that the Roman Catholic Church holds to the Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed.

From a spiritual standpoint I have my doubts as to whether God would consider it to be a Christian denomination - but thankfully that is His decision, not mine.

antiskeptic

No.

Although I'd agree with PDN that a 'yes' vote is supported in part by Romes Christian theological, sociological and creedal moorings, it is nonetheless to Christianity what chimpanzee is to human.

Sharing 96% of the our genome does not make a chimpanzee human.

In my (admittedly) fallible view.

gimmebroadband

soterpisc wrote: »

Any Orthodox consider them to be the Original Church. Even in Rome, the Original Church was Greek, not Latin, There is Greek graffiti all over from from 1st century.

I was reffering to Latin Rite Liturgy, I am a 'Roman' Catholic, loyal to the Holy See. I like the Latin form of the liturgy, though I am looking forward to the new missal out next month!

I still don't refer the any Catholic Church as a domination.

gimmebroadband

antiskeptic wrote: »

No.

Although I'd agree with PDN that a 'yes' vote is supported in part by Romes Christian theological, sociological and creedal moorings, it is nonetheless to Christianity what chimpanzee is to human.

Sharing 96% of the our genome does not make a chimpanzee human.

In my (admittedly) fallible view.

[There aren't 100 people in America who hate what the Catholic Church believes, but there are millions who hate what they think the Church believes. ]

Archbishop Fulton Sheen.

antiskeptic

gimmebroadband wrote: »

[There aren't 100 people in America who hate what the Catholic Church believes, but there are millions who hate what they think the Church believes. ]

Archbishop Fulton Sheen.

Does the Roman Church believe anything (positively) spiritual happens when a priest baptises an infant?

Does the Roman Church believe that praying for the dead has any effect on the deads position before God?

Does the Roman Church believe that so-called Marian apparations are anything other than; bogus claims / mass-hysteria / satan-at-work?

Does the Roman Church believe your actions (good/bad) can influence whether or not you are saved finally?

Does the Roman Church believe itself the ultimate earthly authority on interpretation of scripture?


Until Bishop Fulton Sheen (or a significant chorus of his churchs adherents) can answer all of the above in the negative, then I'll take the opportunity to become honorary-American number 101.

alex73

No. (please expand your opinion/reason why below)

antiskeptic wrote: »

Does the Roman Church believe anything (positively) spiritual happens when a priest baptises an infant?

Does the Roman Church believe that praying for the dead has any effect on the deads position before God?

Does the Roman Church believe that so-called Marian apparations are anything other than; bogus claims / mass-hysteria / satan-at-work?

Does the Roman Church believe your actions (good/bad) can influence whether or not you are saved finally?

Does the Roman Church believe itself the ultimate earthly authority on interpretation of scripture?


Until Bishop Fulton Sheen (or a significant chorus of his churchs adherents) can answer all of the above in the negative, then I'll take the opportunity to become honorary-American number 101.

Antiskeptic, I take it that you are Free Presbyterian or Evangelical?

antiskeptic

alex73 wrote: »

Antiskeptic, I take it that you are Free Presbyterian or Evangelical?

I find that as I go on, I'm less and less inclined to stick a name on what I am. I attend an evangelical church though - it happens to be the one I ended up at an alpha course and I stayed.

deman

It all depends on whether we are talking about the Catholic Church or the Roman Catholic Church. I would consider the Catholic Church to be the original church of Christ and therefore not a denomination, whereas the Roman Catholic Church is a denomination of the Catholic church.

soterpisc

No. (please expand your opinion/reason why below)

antiskeptic wrote: »

I find that as I go on, I'm less and less inclined to stick a name on what I am. I attend an evangelical church though - it happens to be the one I ended up at an alpha course and I stayed.

So you won't stick a label on the Catholic Church to be Christian?

Evangelicals tie themselves very much to the bible, A Bible which was compiled by early father cerca 400. As the Church Grew and was formed many traditions followed going back to the apostles. Bible does not say much about Mary, but we know the apostles looked after her.

So the Evangelical focus on solo scriptura negates all what the Church originally was, a faith passed on generation to generation, You only have to read Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans to see how clear were many teachings in early church that your church has rejected. Most importantly the centrality of Eucharist. The faith that Christ is really present Body and Blood under the species of Bread and wine.

gimmebroadband

deman wrote: »

It all depends on whether we are talking about the Catholic Church or the Roman Catholic Church. I would consider the Catholic Church to be the original church of Christ and therefore not a denomination, whereas the Roman Catholic Church is a denomination of the Catholic church.

You are in error my friend!

The Second Vatican Council was clear in stating that Christ’s church “subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him.”
That phrase affirms that the “historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ” are only present in the Catholic Church, the congregation said.
It noted that the Orthodox faith communities are called “churches,” though separate from the Catholic Church, as they have retained apostolic succession, the ordained priesthood and the Eucharist. Because of those close bonds, the congregation said, they merit the title of churches and are seen as “sister churches” of specific Catholic churches.



http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=24660

antiskeptic

soterpisc wrote: »

So you won't stick a label on the Catholic Church to be Christian?

I would stick the label non-Christian on it.

I'm happy enough to identify as evangelical for the purposes of providing some kind of orientation for those I'm discussing with but would do so loosely - given the variety of views under that large umbrella-ella-ella.

Evangelicals tie themselves very much to the bible, A Bible which was compiled by early father circa 400. As the Church Grew and was formed many traditions followed going back to the apostles. Bible does not say much about Mary, but we know the apostles looked after her.

The bible existed as soon as it was written. I understand 'compilation' to mean 'rubber stamp what the church had all long taken to be the case'. That is not a reason to suppose the church fathers inerrant in their own views.

Since scripture itself warns of error and heresy creeping in at the very time of writing we have no particular reason to suppose the early church fathers/ early traditions are correct on any point not expressly supported by scripture - at least not on the basis of a proximity to events. Insights? Yes. Equality with scripture? No.

So the Evangelical focus on solo scriptura negates all what the Church originally was, a faith passed on generation to generation, You only have to read Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans to see how clear were many teachings in early church that your church has rejected. Most importantly the centrality of Eucharist. The faith that Christ is really present Body and Blood under the species of Bread and wine.

Since I don't agree that the faith is that which happens to be passed on from generation to generation (although I agree that lots was passed on from generation to generation), this point is moot. God has children, not grandchildren.

The trouble with tradition is that there's nothing to calibrate it off except more tradition. The trail peters out at the viewpoints of church fathers who may or may not be correct in what they say.

antiskeptic

gimmebroadband wrote: »

You are in error my friend!

The Second Vatican Council was clear in stating that Christ’s church “subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him.”
That phrase affirms that the “historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ” are only present in the Catholic Church, the congregation said.
It noted that the Orthodox faith communities are called “churches,” though separate from the Catholic Church, as they have retained apostolic succession, the ordained priesthood and the Eucharist. Because of those close bonds, the congregation said, they merit the title of churches and are seen as “sister churches” of specific Catholic churches.

Let me get this straight. The Roman Catholic church says it is the Catholic church therefore it's the Catholic church.

Cybercelesta

No. (please expand your opinion/reason why below)

antiskeptic wrote: »

Let me get this straight. The Roman Catholic church says it is the Catholic church therefore it's the Catholic church.

Historical fact!!!

soterpisc

No. (please expand your opinion/reason why below)

antiskeptic wrote: »

I would stick the label non-Christian on it.

I'm happy enough to identify as evangelical for the purposes of providing some kind of orientation for those I'm discussing with but would do so loosely - given the variety of views under that large umbrella-ella-ella.


The bible existed as soon as it was written. I understand 'compilation' to mean 'rubber stamp what the church had all long taken to be the case'. That is not a reason to suppose the church fathers inerrant in their own views.

Since scripture itself warns of error and heresy creeping in at the very time of writing we have no particular reason to suppose the early church fathers/ early traditions are correct on any point not expressly supported by scripture - at least not on the basis of a proximity to events. Insights? Yes. Equality with scripture? No.


Since I don't agree that the faith is that which happens to be passed on from generation to generation (although I agree that lots was passed on from generation to generation), this point is moot. God has children, not grandchildren.

The trouble with tradition is that there's nothing to calibrate it off except more tradition. The trail peters out at the viewpoints of church fathers who may or may not be correct in what they say.

The bible was part of the early church a united Roman/Greek Hellenic&Latin. There was no bible when Christ Died, no new testament, no St. Paul. We have writings about the early church even before the Gospels were written. The Eucharist was celebrated from the beginning. Before Sciptura was Church and Faith. Church, Faith,Tradition and Scripture all form part what what we believe. To pick 1 out and leave the rest is to reject the true faith.

There is lots to "calibrate" off if you are willing to look.

deman

Cybercelesta wrote: »

Historical fact!!!

It must be true then if you say so.

But it's not.

The protestant churches identify themselves as being part of the Catholic church but not as Roman Catholics. Just because a Roman Catholic comes out with something as vague as "historian fact" shows how little that person really knows.

Cybercelesta

No. (please expand your opinion/reason why below)

deman wrote: »

It must be true then if you say so.

But it's not.

The protestant churches identify themselves as being part of the Catholic church but not as Roman Catholics. Just because a Roman Catholic comes out with something as vague as "historian fact" shows how little that person really knows.

There is no such thing as 'Roman Catholics, it was a derogatory term invented by Anglicans!

antiskeptic

soterpisc wrote: »

The bible was part of the early church a united Roman/Greek Hellenic&Latin. There was no bible when Christ Died, no new testament, no St. Paul.

Indeed there wasn't. My comment merely stated that it existed as soon as it was written, not when folk decided to compile it at a later date.

We have writings about the early church even before the Gospels were written. The Eucharist was celebrated from the beginning. Before Sciptura was Church and Faith. Church

Just because something was practiced in the very early church doesn't mean it was correct to practice it. Knowing that error crept into the very early church (the authority of scripture says so) demands that you ascertain how it is that the practice was correct then (and from then, correct now)

How do you do that (without pulling yourself up by the bootstraps)?

Faith,Tradition and Scripture all form part what what we believe. To pick 1 out and leave the rest is to reject the true faith. There is lots to "calibrate" off if you are willing to look.

To calibrate off scripture is to assume scripture is inspired. We both do that. To calibrate off anything else is to assume it equally erroneous. I don't see the sense in doing that when finding the something else clashing with scripture.

Other than that it was the "very early church" (as if proximity itself instills something with authority) what solid ground does your position stand on?

JimiTime

Cybercelesta wrote: »

There is no such thing as 'Roman Catholics, it was a derogatory term invented by Anglicans!

Its all just labels. 'Christian', 'catholic', whatever. Remember, the term 'Christian' was not this important title, it was a label even back in apostolic times. Look at the book of Revelation, and you'll see that Christ doesn't really care what you call yourself, or how much history you have. If you are living his way, then thats what matters.

These petty arguments over who should be called what. As PDN pointed out earlier, Christ will be the judge, and I'm sure these kinds of discussions will look moronic when the time comes as his sheep are called out from everywhere.

Cybercelesta

No. (please expand your opinion/reason why below)

JimiTime wrote: »

Its all just labels. 'Christian', 'catholic', whatever. Remember, the term 'Christian' was not this important title, it was a label even back in apostolic times. Look at the book of Revelation, and you'll see that Christ doesn't really care what you call yourself, or how much history you have. If you are living his way, then thats what matters.

These petty arguments over who should be called what. As PDN pointed out earlier, Christ will be the judge, and I'm sure these kinds of discussions will look moronic when the time comes as his sheep are called out from everywhere.

Just ironing out a few misconceptions, and yes, we shouldn't be squabbling, that's what Satan wants - dissent!

deman

I think most terms were derogatory in their original meanings; Christians, Roman Catholics, Protestants...

antiskeptic

JimiTime wrote: »

Its all just labels. 'Christian', 'catholic', whatever. Remember, the term 'Christian' was not this important title, it was a label even back in apostolic times. Look at the book of Revelation, and you'll see that Christ doesn't really care what you call yourself, or how much history you have. If you are living his way, then thats what matters.

There are but two sides of the fence. On the right side and on the wrong side. The label "Christian" is merely being used as a convention to describe those who stand on the right side of the fence - whatever denomination (or none) they happen to adhere to.

When it comes to churches (as teaching authorities and umbrella organisations) some churches will stand on the right side and some on the wrong side. Islam is an example of one on the wrong side. My view is that Roman Catholicism is another example of one standing on the wrong side. And in so far as they represent teaching authorities and umbrella organisations, I'd include atheist, materialistic secular systems in there too.

These petty arguments over who should be called what. As PDN pointed out earlier, Christ will be the judge, and I'm sure these kinds of discussions will look moronic when the time comes as his sheep are called out from everywhere.

Would you take a backseat position in Islams/Materialism/Atheisms attempt to spread it's message? I pose the question not intending to rile but because it's a perfectly valid question to ask.

If you think the Roman church is just like any other Christian denomination (erroneous at points but on the right track generally) then that's okay. I'm not coming from that position so it's not about petty inter-denominational squabbles.

PatricaMcKay2

No. (please expand your opinion/reason why below)

Antisceptic when do you believe the majority of the Church both east and west stopped being Christian? With Constantine?

soterpisc

No. (please expand your opinion/reason why below)

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not coming from that position so it's not about petty inter-denominational squabbles.

to be honest its hard to see where you are coming from, you say you are evangelical..

Its really a deadend thread.. Catholics are Christians.

gimmebroadband

The Catholic Church existed before Constantine, and the primacy of the Roman Bishop was affirmed before the Council of Sardica.

http://www.almostnotcatholic.com/2011/08/myth-buster-constantine-founded.html

antiskeptic

soterpisc wrote: »

to be honest its hard to see where you are coming from, you say you are evangelical..

It's just a viewpoint which concludes the same about the Roman church as it does about Islam and a host of other systems. It comes from the position that there is such a thing a core Christian teaching that is essential in order that the proponant of that teaching be considered Christian.


Most here would accept that Islam and Hinduism aren't Christian. I just go one religion further.

Its really a deadend thread.. Catholics are Christians.

Doubtlessly some are. My position pertains to the Roman church, not individuals