I'm a Catholic, and because of this, I consider myself to be Non-denominational

[LivingWordUnity]

The reason why is because the Catholic Church existed long before there was any such thing as a denomination, when being a Christian meant being a member of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church which included the Eastern Churches before the schism of 1054 AD.

By the way, I converted to Christianity as an adult and chose the Catholic faith because I didn't see any real authority anywhere else where I could know for certain how to interpret scripture.

May God bless you all. :)

[JHM]

Happy Birthday. Nothing wrong with Catholicism, after all it is the only church that was founded by one of Christ's apostles. Not wishing to offend anyone; but I consider that a firmer foundation than Henry the Eighth's desire to divorce one of his many wives.

[HypnoToad]

Denomination - a particular religious body, with a specific name, organization, etc.

Denominational - sponsored by, or under the control of, a religious denomination; sectarian.

- both from Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition

If you are Roman Catholic you are, by definition, NOT non-denominational. The reason you give at best makes you a member of the first denomination, but certainly not non-denominational.

It may sound nice in order to try to reach out to other people, but that's no reason to redefine words to mean whatever suits our fancy.

[JHM]

I believe that the scriptures were handed down to us all by the Catholic church. I also think Webster's is off base. Comparing the "Denominations" to the Catholic church is like comparing the branches of a tree to its trunk. Only the trunk has roots. - Peter the apostle. You may say that only the branches have leaves; and that too is true; but the point is they are not the same.

Reading comprehension tested @ 3 in 100,000.

[HypnoToad]

I believe that the scriptures were handed down to us all by the Catholic church. I also think Webster's is off base. Comparing the "Denominations" to the Catholic church is like comparing the branches of a tree to its trunk. Only the trunk has roots. - Peter the apostle. You may say that only the branches have leaves; and that too is true; but the point is they are not the same.

Reading comprehension tested @ 3 in 100,000.
So, as the trunk bears no fruit, are you saying that the RCC is, therefore, a dead faith (faith without works is dead)? Either that, or the tree analogy is a bit disconnected from reality. You'd also need to provide something more substantial to claim Webster's is wrong in this case.

[Ben12]

It is Rome who started the whole process of religion in Christianity or as the scripture declares Baby lon.

[JHM]

A clever riposte; but I believe you are stretching the analogy too far. Your remark about Webster's is something akin to the Canadian govenment deciding that they could arbitrarily redefine marriage so as to include "same sex couples". I would point out that marriage predates recorded history, and as I understand it, is : "The union of a man and a woman in holy matrimony sanctioned by God for the purpose of procreation". That definition was crafted by the church and guarded zealously by the church for centuries before the government of Canada existed. Who gives these twits the right to change it? Does God sanction this change? Similarly the Catholic church is the only christian church whose linage may be traced to Christ through his association with Peter. The others are all branches, and in some cases not even that. That is not to say they are less relevant but rather that there is but one original church, however many denominations may have since arisen.

[HypnoToad]

A clever riposte; but I believe you are stretching the analogy too far. Your remark about Webster's is something akin to the Canadian govenment deciding that they could arbitrarily redefine marriage so as to include "same sex couples".
Another bad analogy. Who is Webster "redifining"? I don't recall a definition of "denomination" in Scripture anywhere. It seems you are the one who is trying to redefine terms.

there is but one original church, however many denominations may have since arisen.
"Original" is irrelevant, it is still a denomination.

[LivingWordUnity]

"Original" is irrelevant, it is still a denomination.Are you saying that you believe that Jesus was talking about a denomination when he said, "On this rock I will build my Church"?

[HypnoToad]

Are you saying that you believe that Jesus was talking about a denomination when he said, "On this rock I will build my Church"?
No, I believe He was talking about His church. What's your point?

[Mick116]

Happy Birthday. Nothing wrong with Catholicism, after all it is the only church that was founded by one of Christ's apostles. Not wishing to offend anyone; but I consider that a firmer foundation than Henry the Eighth's desire to divorce one of his many wives.
No offense, but the foundations of the Church of England and the present-day Anglican Communion are Jesus Christ, the scriptures, the apostles, and the holy tradition of the undivided Church. The catholic Church in England has existed since at least the end of the first century. Tradition states that Joseph of Arimethia first introduced Christianity into Britain.

Also, the Roman Catholic Church is not the only Church founded originally by apostles; so was the Antiochian Orthodox Church (St Peter), the Coptic Orthodox Church (St Mark), the Indian Orthodox Church (St Thomas), the Orthodox Church in Jerusalem (St James) and the Greek Orthodox Church (St Matthew?).

[Mick116]

The reason why is because the Catholic Church existed long before there was any such thing as a denomination, when being a Christian meant being a member of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church which included the Eastern Churches before the schism of 1054 AD.

By the way, I converted to Christianity as an adult and chose the Catholic faith because I didn't see any real authority anywhere else where I could know for certain how to interpret scripture.

May God bless you all. :)
You are quite correct, it wouldn't be right to label the Catholic Church a denomination, at least in the most common sense of the word.

[Mick116]

It is Rome who started the whole process of religion in Christianity or as the scripture declares Baby lon.

What do you mean by "religion"?

[JHM]

I suppose it comes down to what your understanding of the word "denomination" is. If you wish to subscribe to the belief that all churches are merely separate sets of sectarian beliefs, to use another analogy, like so many peas in a pod; that is your priviledge. My own belief, is that the Catholic church has an historic legitimacy that sets it apart from others.

Original is not irrelevant. It became, (supposedly) a "denomination" when someone at a publishing house, without a by your leave, decided to call it one. If I decide to call someone something they are not, does that mean they become what I call them?

EDIT : With appologies to Mick 116. Your knowledge of the early church far exceeds mine. As for Henry the Eighth, he did found the Anglican church out of a desire to divorce one of his wives, which I do not regard as a highly legitimate reason to found a church. As for the current beliefs of the church of England, I have no idea what they are, and am quite prepared to accept that they are as legitimate as any. The Anglican church in Canada however is undergoing an internal schism over the same sex marriage issue, which indicates to me it is in a state of decline.

[HypnoToad]

Original is not irrelevant. It became, (supposedly) a "denomination" when someone at a publishing house, without a by your leave, decided to call it one. If I decide to call someone something they are not, does that mean they become what I call them?
But on what are you basing your definition? I've already asked about your claim that Webster is somehow "redefining" the word denomination, but you haven't answered. No one has yet presented any reason why Webster's is not definitive in this case, other than the simple reason of not liking it.

[LJSGM]

Matthew 16
13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"

14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter(LITTLE ROCK), and on this (BIG) rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

This simple, yet PROFOUND truth, that "the kingdom is within you; that the key to the kingdom entering into you is but proclaiming Christ, and at the same time one enters into the ruleship or kingship of Christ by proclaiming Him LORD and that Christ is our ROCK and FOUNDATION" is well represented throughtout the scriptures.

But men, because they are good at doing this, base whole doctrines and all truth on one scripture taken out of context and the meaning thereof is not well represented in scriptures. Such is the case with this doctrine that Jesus appointed Peter to take his place as the foundation and head of the church, yet, why does Paul still say that Jesus is the head of the church? Didn't Peter replace Jesus? Why does Paul say that Jesus is our rock and foundation? Twisting these scriptures is just another method to try and control other people and drive them into submission, so that they will even go against the Holy Spirit within, and the undeniable truth of scriptures in their "obediance".

Satan is quite good at this as well, he takes the words of God and twist them into a lie in order that we will stumble and fall. "Thou shalt become like God!" he says to us

Luke 17:20
20Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."

1 Corinthians 3
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Matthew 7

24"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.

1 Corinthians 10

3They all ate the same spiritual food 4and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.


1 Timothy 2
5For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Whoever believes and is born again is the Universal Chruch and the TRUE chruch, Period. The true church is present in all "denominations" of christianity.

[JHM]

But on what are you basing your definition? I've already asked about your claim that Webster is somehow "redefining" the word denomination, but you haven't answered. No one has yet presented any reason why Webster's is not definitive in this case, other than the simple reason of not liking it.
In reality it is not only Webster's. The Catholic church predates the word "denomination" and the English language as we know it. I have never traced the antecedants of the word "denomination"; and I am not going to spend time doing so now. Someone, somewhere along the line coined that word and gave it a generalized meaning which lumps all Christian churches together as separate equals. The issue to me, is whether it is correct to do that. I personally feel that a church founded in antiquity by an apostle has a "built in" degree of legitimacy that other churches have to earn by their acts. And for that reason I feel they are in a separate category.

[HypnoToad]

In reality it is not only Webster's. The Catholic church predates the word "denomination" and the English language as we know it. I have never traced the antecedants of the word "denomination"; and I am not going to spend time doing so now. Someone, somewhere along the line coined that word and gave it a generalized meaning which lumps all Christian churches together as separate equals. The issue to me, is whether it is correct to do that. I personally feel that a church founded in antiquity by an apostle has a "built in" degree of legitimacy that other churches have to earn by their acts. And for that reason I feel they are in a separate category.
Like I said, you have no reason other than you just don't like it.

[JHM]

What is right and wrong and what I like and don't like are two different things. I have told you what I believe is right. You may believe otherwise. In that case we shall have to agree to disagree.

[FreeinChrist]

The reason why is because the Catholic Church existed long before there was any such thing as a denomination, when being a Christian meant being a member of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church which included the Eastern Churches before the schism of 1054 AD.

By the way, I converted to Christianity as an adult and chose the Catholic faith because I didn't see any real authority anywhere else where I could know for certain how to interpret scripture.

May God bless you all. :)
However, that is NOT the definition of a nondenominational in this forum.

[HypnoToad]

What is right and wrong and what I like and don't like are two different things. I have told you what I believe is right. You may believe otherwise. In that case we shall have to agree to disagree.
But the problem for you is that you fail to demonstrate how Webster's definition is not accurate with anything more substantial than "I don't feel it's right".

[JHM]

I have said all I am going to say on that subject except this: No-one makes an enemy of me by telling me the truth.

[lordgrog]

EDIT : With appologies to Mick 116. Your knowledge of the early church far exceeds mine. As for Henry the Eighth, he did found the Anglican church out of a desire to divorce one of his wives, which I do not regard as a highly legitimate reason to found a church.

What are you talking about? :scratch:

[JHM]

History class Appleby College, (Canadian private school). Can't quote this as this was far too long ago to remember verbatim.

The gist of it was this : King Henry the Eighth wanted a divorce and applied to the Pope for dispensation to divorce his wife. That dispensation was granted. Later Henry wanted to divorce his new wife, as best I remember "Catherine of Arragon". and again applied to the Pope for dispensation for a divorce. The Pope refused; and in order to obtain his divorce, Henry, (an absolute monarch), split the English church off of the Roman Catholic church and founded the Church of England with himself as its head. He then proceeded with his divorce.

Question answered? or have I landed in another debate?

[lordgrog]

Appleby College
Sounds delicious. :yum:

Question answered? or have I landed in another debate? Debate? No thanks.

dispensation for a divorce
I don't think that such a thing exists.

Later Henry wanted to divorce his new wife, as best I remember "Catherine of Arragon".
Catherine of Aragon was Henry's first wife, she'd been married to his older brother Arthur.

The Pope refused
To be fair to Giulio, he didn't really have much of a choice in the matter.

split the English church off of the Roman Catholic church So he didn't really 'found' anything then, did he? Besides, the CoE was reconciled with Rome during the reign of Mary - blame Elizabeth.

[JHM]

Seems to be a lot of hairsplitting here.

Funk and Wagnals : found 1(fownd) v.t. 1. originate or establish

Now you are going to tell me that the "CoE" was not established by Henry the Eighth, and did not originate out of his desire for a divorce.

[lordgrog]

Now you are going to tell me that the "CoE" was not established by Henry the Eighth,Pretty much.

and did not originate out of his desire for a divorce.Hank's need of a male heir.


Henry didn't found anything, he just buggered around with what was already there (mostly just nicking whatever he could). Again - the CoE was reconciled with Rome under Mary. Elizabeth is the one you should be moaning about.

If you're going to grumble about the English reformation (deformation - as you you please) at least complain about what actually happened.

Now I'm off to bed, g'nite. :sleep:

[JHM]

Wow !
1) I have not the slightest doubt that you know far more than I do about the history of the Churh of England.
2) I am not grumbling about any aspect of the Church of England, because I know next to nothing about it.
3) Henry the Eighth DID found the "CoE" by splitting it off from Catholicism
4) Mary was a Catholic, of course she was reconciled with Rome, (and the pendulum of who was persecuting who swung the other way for a few years).
5) Elizabeth was another Protestant and she reigned for a very long time, so again the pendulum swung back and the schism became much deeper.
6) The only point I was making is that desiring a divorce, (for whatever reason), is NOT what I consider to be a solid ground for founding, (or splitting if you prefer), a church. Though in this day and age, there are probably some churchs out there which went independant for even more picayune reasons. (i.e. less related to belief in God than worldly considerations of some sort or other.)

[Mick116]

History class Appleby College, (Canadian private school). Can't quote this as this was far too long ago to remember verbatim.

The gist of it was this : King Henry the Eighth wanted a divorce and applied to the Pope for dispensation to divorce his wife. That dispensation was granted. Later Henry wanted to divorce his new wife, as best I remember "Catherine of Arragon". and again applied to the Pope for dispensation for a divorce. The Pope refused; and in order to obtain his divorce, Henry, (an absolute monarch), split the English church off of the Roman Catholic church and founded the Church of England with himself as its head. He then proceeded with his divorce.

Question answered? or have I landed in another debate?
I would question the use of the word "founded". The Church of England existed before Henry VIII's shameful antics, and continued to exist thereafter. The event could be regarded as a catalyst in the Anglican Church's separation from Rome, but nothing more. Other factors influencing the separation were the English spirit of independence, and Lutheran influence from the Continent.

You are correct in saying that Henry's actions fostered a change in the Church of England's relationship with Rome, but I'm not sure I'd call this a "foundation".

[faithbeliever1]

However, that is NOT the definition of a nondenominational in this forum.Isn't it hypocritical to for this sub-forum to define "non-denominational" as rejecting a central authority while, at the same time, this sub-forum acts as the authority for determining who can and who can't consider themselves to be "non-denominational"? Isn't it replacing one kind of authority for another?

[FreeinChrist]

Isn't it hypocritical to for this sub-forum to define "non-denominational" as rejecting a central authority while, at the same time, this sub-forum acts as the authority for determining who can and who can't consider themselves to be "non-denominational"? Isn't it replacing one kind of authority for another?
No, there is nothing hypocritical about it.

[JHM]

@ FreeinChrist : Where at this whole site would you recommend that one post if one wants to freely exchange views with people of all "Denominations" and "Non Denominational" people as well ?

Or is that possible here?

[HypnoToad]

@ FreeinChrist : Where at this whole site would you recommend that one post if one wants to freely exchange views with people of all "Denominations" and "Non Denominational" people as well ?

Or is that possible here?
There's nothing in the Non-Denom rules (have you even bothered to read them?) that prohibits those who aren't Non-Denom from posting and fellowshipping here. And there are other forums that are open to all Christians for fellowship as well, just look, they're not hard to spot.

But that, however, is not the issue. The issue is whether or not an adherent to Roman Catholicism can call themselves "non-denominational". And, by the actual definitions, they can not accurately do so.

[JHM]

Yes I did. But it seemed to me that a Catholic who was posting here was being re-directed to post elsewhere. Your attitude seems somewhat rude.

"Have I therefore become your enemy by telling you the truth?" - Gal.4:16

[Nadiine]

There's nothing in the Non-Denom rules (have you even bothered to read them?) that prohibits those who aren't Non-Denom from posting and fellowshipping here. And there are other forums that are open to all Christians for fellowship as well, just look, they're not hard to spot.

But that, however, is not the issue. The issue is whether or not an adherent to Roman Catholicism can call themselves "non-denominational". And, by the actual definitions, they can not accurately do so.
I'd have to agree with this - if someone is "roman catholic", that's not a "non" denomination...

But I would like to mention that I think the term "non denomination" is actually a contradiction of terms. It IS a denomination all it's own by definition. Basically setting itself up as a new Type of "non specific" denomination that doesn't adhere to any others in any specific way; making it it's own classification of a denom. :tutu:

Anyhoo, I don't see how a "Catholic" can be non denominational or why they'de want to be classified as such if they believe and practice the dogma of the RCC. :scratch: :confused:

[HypnoToad]

Yes I did. But it seemed to me that a Catholic who was posting here was being re-directed to post elsewhere. Your attitude seems somewhat rude.

"Have I therefore become your enemy by telling you the truth?" - Gal.4:16
Not once did I or anyone else say, "go post somewhere else". The OP doesn't ask anything about wanting to fellowship here. The OP says nothing other than "I consider myself nondenominational". The only thing that's been argued against is an RC adherent saying they are "nondenominational".

[Mick116]

The term "non-denominational" refers to independent Christian churches that are self-governing, i.e. congregational. The Catholic Church simply does not fit such a description.

[LJSGM]

The term "non-denominational" refers to independent Christian churches that are self-governing, i.e. congregational. The Catholic Church simply does not fit such a description.
There has been debate about what non-denominationalism is severals times before, who defines it? Each person on here probably has a different view of it, and a different reason for being one.

[Nadiine]

There has been debate about what non-denominationalism is severals times before, who defines it? Each person on here probably has a different view of it, and a different reason for being one.
I don't doubt that at all. To me it just means there is no set doctrine type -- non denominational can basically teach anything and doesn't have a governing body that keeps a standard doctrine.

I'm really careful when looking for a new non denom. church because you never know what you'll get there.

[faithbeliever1]

The term "non-denominational" refers to independent Christian churches that are self-governing, i.e. congregational. The Catholic Church simply does not fit such a description.Where did this definition come from?

Why do you accept this definition absolutely without question?

Who has the authority to say absolutely what the definition of what "non-denominational" should or should not be?

Should I believe this is the definition simply because you said so or because this website says so?

[faithbeliever1]

No, there is nothing hypocritical about it.Thanks for explaning it.

[Ishida]

Who would've thought it? The ONE TRUE CHURCH is non-denominational?!

[Nadiine]

Where did this definition come from?

Why do you accept this definition absolutely without question?

Who has the authority to say absolutely what the definition of what "non-denominational" should or should not be?

Should I believe this is the definition simply because you said so or because this website says so?
Well actually, let's just take a minute and analyze what non denominational churches are and teach.

They aren't "goverened" by any body of believers - so there's no set standard they are governed by like other denoms are....
they are independant of all other denoms. so they have different doctrines that they teach and styles of teachings.
Some churches teach verse by verse thru the bible, others don't... I think that definition is pretty close to what they are. They're a mixed bag of nuts imo.

If someone has a better idea of a definition, I'd like to hear it. :)

[faithbeliever1]

Well actually, let's just take a minute and analyze what non denominational churches are and teach.

They aren't "goverened" by any body of believers - so there's no set standard they are governed by like other denoms are....
they are independant of all other denoms. so they have different doctrines that they teach and styles of teachings.
Some churches teach verse by verse thru the bible, others don't... I think that definition is pretty close to what they are. They're a mixed bag of nuts imo.

If someone has a better idea of a definition, I'd like to hear it. :)But you haven't addressed the history of the term "non-denominational" or any of my questions about it.

You have only shown that you accept what someone told you about it without questioning where this definition comes from or who has the authority to say what "non-denominational" truly means.

In other words, anyone can call themselves "non-denominational", but who has the authority to define what "non-denominational" really is?

When did someone first say, "this is what non-denominational is, and this is what it is not"? What authority did they have to come up with this rule about it? You won't find the term "non-denominational" in the Bible.

Livingwordunity is right that the Catholic Church did exist long before denominations existed. So how can someone say that the Catholic Church is a denomination when the Catholic Church existed for 2,000 years but denominations did not exist until the 16th century?

If any Church has the historical right to call itself non-denominational, it would be the Catholic Church since it is an undisputed historical fact that the Catholic Church existed long before denominations did.

[JHM]

I tried to make that point too. Also pointed out that churches founded in antiquity by apostles have a certain "built in" degree of legitimacy that other churchs can only acquire by their acts; and hence should be categorized separately. Nobody here, except a few like us, cares. They go by a dictionary definition, that for all they know, was originally composed by the devil himself.

[HypnoToad]

Livingwordunity is right that the Catholic Church did exist long before denominations existed. So how can someone say that the Catholic Church is a denomination when the Catholic Church existed for 2,000 years but denominations did not exist until the 16th century?

If any Church has the historical right to call itself non-denominational, it would be the Catholic Church since it is an undisputed historical fact that the Catholic Church existed long before denominations did.
And, as already stated, at best that makes them the first denomination, but not non-denominational.

And I have yet to see anyone provide any legitimate claim as to why Webster's is not an authoritative definition. The idea that Webster's was "composed by the devil himself" is utterly laughable.

[JHM]

Can you not read? The definition of the word "Denomination" goes back a long ways. Webster's CERTAINLY DID NOT COMPOSE IT, and I doubt if anyone here knows who did. Ergo my remark.

"ORIGINALLY COMPOSED"

[Nadiine]

But you haven't addressed the history of the term "non-denominational" or any of my questions about it.

You have only shown that you accept what someone told you about it without questioning where this definition comes from or who has the authority to say what "non-denominational" truly means.
I'm going on what it means TODAY - as we live in this culture and how the churches operate compared to most known denominations.
I found this answer from a website and I tend to agree with most of it:

please explain to me the definition of a non-denominational church
It simply means that the congregation has no formal affiliation with a larger group of churches. Such churches make all of their own decisions as to doctrine, hiring, faith standards -- everything.

They have no seminaries of their own, no single source for ministers, and do not view themselves as the bearer of any one tradition within Christianity. (This is not true, for example, of Baptists, Congregationalists, and Vineyard congregations, who are very independent but do have some standards and schools in common with other churches of their kind and do view themselves as part of a tradition.)

It used to be true that the nondenominational church was basically out on its own, with no means of outside support, encouragement, and accountability. This is no longer necessarily so. An indie church can now develop its own network of support, through various outside agencies and associations which meet specific parts of a church's task.
Thanks in no small part to the work of the Billy Graham Association over the years, they can even identify themselves as part of a tradition, should they choose to. The only thing that remains hard to do is to develop a system of accountability, to keep a nondenom congregation from jumping off whatever cliff its pastor or lay leadership tells it to. This is a real danger. It is a real danger for denominational churches too, but they have ways of limiting the damage.

(my bold emphasis)
Here's Wiki on non denom:
http://www.answers.com/topic/non-denominational-christianity
Or, read what a denomination means - and figure a non denom. is just the opposite:
http://www.answers.com/topic/denomination?cat=biz-fin

I truly don't think we have to reject the definitions of what a non denom. means in our society when we can SEE and know they keep no affiliation with known denominations. It's just common sense imho. They're independant of established denoms.

In other words, anyone can call themselves "non-denominational", but who has the authority to define what "non-denominational" really is?
Their useage defines it - what they are in reality defines it in it's current status. The fact that they aren't aligning with known denoms. & having governing bodies over them & that they're individual churches run by individual people - that denom churches have no authority over them...

When did someone first say, "this is what non-denominational is, and this is what it is not"? What authority did they have to come up with this rule about it? You won't find the term "non-denominational" in the Bible.
I have no idea and haven't found anything that answers that. And I doubt you'll find "Methodist, Luthern or 7th day adventist in the Bible either.

Livingwordunity is right that the Catholic Church did exist long before denominations existed. So how can someone say that the Catholic Church is a denomination when the Catholic Church existed for 2,000 years but denominations did not exist until the 16th century?
Technically, everything is a denomination - each church whether organized or independant sets it's own dogma or teaches what it teaches that do fall in line with either a cult, or what another denom. has already taught (or holds the same beliefs) - not associating or aligning with a Baptist church, yet teaching exactly what a Baptist church teaches is still holding to Baptist (denominational) teachings of someone else.

If you make a NEW church that isn't in line with any other denoms, YOU'VE FORMED YOUR OWN NEW ONE that can start to be copied and multiply....

I don't know why people get hung up on denom.s in the first place. They simply define the dogma or central tenets a church teaches, and teach in a certain style.
Catholics do it their more formal way, baptists have their formal ways w/ choirs and hymnals, others use contemporary bands & soft rock, etc etc.

It's no big deal imo.


If any Church has the historical right to call itself non-denominational, it would be the Catholic Church since it is an undisputed historical fact that the Catholic Church existed long before denominations did.
The issue is, WHAT NON DENOM. MEANS TODAY, not hundreds of years ago or more. That's partly the problem today, people decide something, and then want to change the definitions -
they're already hijacking "Christianity" to mean whatever they want it to mean (this site is proof). Terms and definitions have lost their meanings in a society that's embracing 'relative & subject' truth instead of absolutes.
Lines get blurred and words lose meaning - truth gets lost along the way and you end up with chaos.

[HypnoToad]

Can you not read? The definition of the word "Denomination" goes back a long ways. Webster's CERTAINLY DID NOT COMPOSE IT, and I doubt if anyone here knows who did. Ergo my remark.

"ORIGINALLY COMPOSED"
Of course I can read - do you know what you wrote?

You wrote about the composition of a dictionary, not the origination of the word "denomination". There's a difference.

But if you now want to claim that the word "denomination" itself is somehow Satanic, I would say that is also laughable.

And again, no one is showing ANY evidence whatsoever with any kind of substantial reason as why the definitions provided in this thread or in the forum rules are incorrect in any way. Nothing has gone beyond the level of "I just don't like it".

[JHM]

@ XianJedi : If you take another stab at it, you might notice that what I referred to was a dictionary definition. Not a dictionary. The definition of a word is inborn when the word is coined. Otherwise it would be a meaningless grunt.

If I were to say stauberschid, what does that mean to you? Nothing, because it is random letters I just typed. Words are coined to describe various things and concepts. Because they are coined to describe something, specific or general, they have to have meaning from the time they come into being. Denomination has had meaning for a long time. Long before Webster's existed. Webster's simply prints what they view to be the accepted meaning of the word. Who originally gave the word its currently accepted meaning is an other matter entirely.

CAST NOT THY PEARLS BEFORE SWINE

[Zecryphon]

Well actually, let's just take a minute and analyze what non denominational churches are and teach.

They aren't "goverened" by any body of believers - so there's no set standard they are governed by like other denoms are....
they are independant of all other denoms. so they have different doctrines that they teach and styles of teachings.
Some churches teach verse by verse thru the bible, others don't... I think that definition is pretty close to what they are. They're a mixed bag of nuts imo.

If someone has a better idea of a definition, I'd like to hear it. :)
"If someone has a better idea of a definition, I'd like to hear it. :)"

Buffet Christianity! Pick and choose what you want to believe and leave the rest for the other denoms to deal with. ;)

[HypnoToad]

@ XianJedi : If you take another stab at it, you might notice that what I referred to was a dictionary definition. Not a dictionary. The definition of a word is inborn when the word is coined. Otherwise it would be a meaningless grunt.

If I were to say stauberschid, what does that mean to you? Nothing, because it is random letters I just typed. Words are coined to describe various things and concepts. Because they are coined to describe something, specific or general, they have to have meaning from the time they come into being. Denomination has had meaning for a long time. Long before Webster's existed. Webster's simply prints what they view to be the accepted meaning of the word. Who originally gave the word its currently accepted meaning is an other matter entirely.
Great. Still doesn't change that the idea that "denomination" is Satanic is laughable. You keep claiming "we don't know where it came from", but that alone is no basis to reject the definition. Like I've asked several times now - let's see one shred of reason and substantiation here.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

And, as already stated, at best that makes them the first denomination, but not non-denominational.

And I have yet to see anyone provide any legitimate claim as to why Webster's is not an authoritative definition. The idea that Webster's was "composed by the devil himself" is utterly laughable.

You do realize that logic forbids the existence of a 'first denomination', right?

[JHM]

Bye Now

[Zecryphon]

Well you are finally starting to make some sense. True it is highly unlikely that the word Denomination is Satanic in origin. I just pointed out that for all you knew it might be. And it has taken you about five posts to absorb that; which is why I have to keep repeating myself. Though when you think about it, all the various religious splits which have taken place over the centuries have certainly contributed more than their fair share of misery in the world. Had the Catholics and Protestants never split, Ireland would have been a much more pleasent place to live.

Now having finally established that the Webster's definition of "Denomination" is nothing more than a hand me down, perhaps we can examine the question of whether it is right to consider those churchs founded by apostles as equivalent equals to the other churches out there.
"Had the Catholics and Protestants never split, Ireland would have been a much more pleasent place to live."

What proof do you have that this claim is true? How can you possibly hope to prove that the Irish wouldn't have found something else to fight about? Also, why are you limiting the split between Catholics and Protestants to affecting just the Irish? That split is said to have caused anywhere from 25,000 to 100,000 deaths in Germany alone shortly after it happened.

[JHM]

Bye Now

[fritz300]

Catholicism is not Christianity.

Catholics don't believe in hell, they believe in purgatory.

Catholics pray to Mary and the Saints (well technically fallen angels)

Catholicism is responsible for all the paganism in mainstream Christianity such as Easter, Christmas, etc etc... and according to scripture she is the great harlot, Mystery Babylon in which all have become drunk off of.. Revelation 17... yes all have become drunk off of her because mainstream Christianity is right out of Catholicism.. while correcting a lot of issues, it's paganism has kept intact.

Regards,
fritz

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Catholicism is not Christianity.

Catholicism is the Church founded by Christ.

Catholics don't believe in hell, they believe in purgatory.

Whomever told you about Catholicism was wrong. Catholics believe in hell.

Catholics pray to Mary and the Saints (well technically fallen angels)

Saints are fallen angels?

[quoote]Catholicism is responsible for all the paganism in mainstream Christianity such as Easter, Christmas, etc etc... and according to scripture she is the great harlot, Mystery Babylon in which all have become drunk off of.. Revelation 17... yes all have become drunk off of her because mainstream Christianity is right out of Catholicism.. while correcting a lot of issues, it's paganism has kept intact.

Regards,
fritz[/quote]

There's nothing pagan about Christianity. Christmas and the day of Resurrection has nothing to do with paganism.

[HypnoToad]

You do realize that logic forbids the existence of a 'first denomination', right?
Logic does no such thing.

Well you are finally starting to make some sense. True it is highly unlikely that the word Denomination is Satanic in origin. I just pointed out that for all you knew it might be. And it has taken you about five posts to absorb that; which is why I have to keep repeating myself.
It hasn't taken 5 posts to "absorb" anything. Whether it's Webster's that's Satanic, or just the word "denomination", there is no substantial difference for this discussion.

Now having finally established that the Webster's definition of "Denomination" is nothing more than a hand me down
Lol, that makes most words in the dictionary "hand me downs" - how many of those have incorrect definitions?

perhaps we can examine the question of whether it is right to consider those churchs founded by apostles as equivalent equals to the other churches out there.
Being "equivalent equals" is irrelevant to whether or not the RCC is a "denomination".

[LJSGM]

Had the Catholics and Protestants never split, Ireland would have been a much more pleasent place to live.



You speak as if protestants split from catholics for silly reasons. There was no longer any spiritual truth left in the RCC church. I'm still amazed at indulgences:sick:

Satan gives us the same deal, give up your spiritual fight in order to live an easy life here on earth, and I'll give you an abundance of material blessings, ect. But Jesus says, "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." Now, I don't believe it was a physical sword, and it was sad that the whole thing brought about the lost of life, but who knows, maybe it was the only way since the catholic church forced people to believe in their christianity and their doctrines, otherwise they would be killed, kinda like the nation of Islam performed in those days as well, eh? If it wasn't this way with the RCC chruch, there probably wouldn't have been any blood shed. But you never know in those days, they were the "dark" ages.

[Nadiine]

You speak as if protestants split from catholics for silly reasons. There was no longer any spiritual truth left in the RCC church. I'm still amazed at indulgences:sick:

Satan gives us the same deal, give up your spiritual fight in order to live an easy life here on earth, and I'll give you an abundance of material blessings, ect. But Jesus says, "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." Now, I don't believe it was a physical sword, and it was sad that the whole thing brought about the lost of life, but who knows, maybe it was the only way since the catholic church forced people to believe in their christianity and their doctrines, otherwise they would be killed, kinda like the nation of Islam performed in those days as well, eh? If it wasn't this way with the RCC chruch, there probably wouldn't have been any blood shed. But you never know in those days, they were the "dark" ages.
Nice point:thumbsup:

[JHM]

Bye Now

[JHM]

Bye Now

[JHM]

Bye Now

[faithbeliever1]

Catholics don't believe in hell,Actually, the Catholic Church teaches that your final destination will only be either Heaven or Hell.

The Catholic Church does not teach that Purgatory is a permanent state but that it is only for those who are destined for Heaven but who need to be purged before entering Heaven. A biblical justification used by Catholics for this teaching is in Revelation 21:27 where it says that nothing unclean shall enter into Heaven.

[HypnoToad]

@ XianJedi : Your logic is flawed, SpiritualAntiseptic is right in terms of pure logic
Well, it's good that you've cleared that up. One more claim offered with no substantiating reason.

The real issue is whether Catholicism and the other churchs founded by apostles are just "Denominations" the same as any other church with central authority, or whether by virtue of having being founded by an apostle of CHRIST they have a greater measure of legitimacy and authority than the rest.

You say NO. I beg to differ.
No, that is not the issue at all.

A "greater measure" or not is irrelevant. The issue is whether the RCC is a denomination, not whether they are a "greater" denomination.

And it's not simply me "saying" so. I've given a legitimate definition of "denomination" that clearly shows the RCC is one. No one has yet to give any substantial argument to the contrary. All we've been given is arguments with no more validity than "I just don't like it," and ridiculous notions that the word "denomination" was created directly by Satan himself.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

You speak as if protestants split from catholics for silly reasons. There was no longer any spiritual truth left in the RCC church. I'm still amazed at indulgences:sick:

Maybe because you don't understand them? Usually the people who attack the Church have absolutely no understanding of what the Church believes. They are usually brainwashed by anti-Catholics.

How is the Church lacking any 'spiritual truth'?

atan gives us the same deal, give up your spiritual fight in order to live an easy life here on earth, and I'll give you an abundance of material blessings, ect. But Jesus says, "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." Now, I don't believe it was a physical sword, and it was sad that the whole thing brought about the lost of life, but who knows,

You are just writing a lot of words here that don't mean anything and aren't relevant. There's no argument.

maybe it was the only way since the catholic church forced people to believe in their christianity and their doctrines, otherwise they would be killed

Uh, no, they didn't.

, kinda like the nation of Islam performed in those days as well, eh? If it wasn't this way with the RCC chruch, there probably wouldn't have been any blood shed. But you never know in those days, they were the "dark" ages.


The Dark Ages was after the fall of the Roman Empire, there was no blood shed within Catholicism, except Catholic martyrs killed by pagans.
It seems somehow has seriously misinformed you about
history- I just doing a little research.

BTW- The "nation of Islam" is an organization created this century, in America. It has nothing to do with Islam really. It's just a bunch of angry African-Americans with weird ideas loosely based on the teachings of Muhammad.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Logic does no such thing.


Do you know what a denomination is? You can't have denominations of something if there is only one way of doing it. You can't have a 'first denomination'. You can have two denominations, even 'the first two denominations'.

[HypnoToad]

Do you know what a denomination is? You can't have denominations of something if there is only one way of doing it.
This would only apply BEFORE anyone split from the first church. Yes, at that time, you couldn't say they were the first, because there's only one. But after someone split away, the original body can certainly be called the first.

[faithbeliever1]

This would only apply BEFORE anyone split from the first church. Yes, at that time, you couldn't say they were the first, because there's only one. But after someone split away, the original body can certainly be called the first.What you are saying is very confusing. How can the first Church be a denomination when Christian denominations did not exist until the 16th century? :scratch:

In early Christianity there were local churches, but they were all a part of the one united Catholic Church which was united from East to West.

By contrast, denominations are totally separate from each other. And when a new denomination is founded, it brings with it new doctrines.

[JHM]

Bye Now

[HypnoToad]

What you are saying is very confusing. How can the first Church be a denomination ...
The RCC is a denomination because it fits the definition of "denomination".

Here they are once more:

Denomination - a particular religious body, with a specific name, organization, etc.

Denominational - sponsored by, or under the control of, a religious denomination; sectarian.

No one has presented anything substantial to challenge the definition.

@ faithbeliever 1 You are wasting your time and falling into his trap. I think he is a recruiter for the pharisees.
One more laughable theory.

[JHM]

Bye Now

"You brood of vipers ! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come ?

NOT Me !!

[HypnoToad]

What is laughable about it? You ceaselessly argue about the most niggleing details,
Since you won't offer any substantial details that support your opinion that the RCC is not a "denomination", the "niggleing" ones are all that are available to address.

[Ishida]

Interesting opinions. May I ask some scripture that talks about purgatory?

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

The RCC is a denomination because it fits the definition of "denomination".

According to someone. There is no such thing as objective definition except for very few cases.

[HypnoToad]

According to someone.
According to Webster's. And, once again, no one has provided any substantial reason as to why Webster's is incorrect.

[LivingWordUnity]

Interesting opinions. May I ask some scripture that talks about purgatory?Most Protestants have a misunderstanding of what Purgatory is.

Let's start by saying what it isn't. It isn't a third final option. The Catholic Church has always taught that there are only 2 final options for where our souls can go. And that is either Heaven or Hell.

Purgatory is a temporary state of being only for those souls who are destined for Heaven but who were not perfect at the time that they died.

Revelation 21:27 says that nothing unclean can enter into Heaven. So Purgatory is a word that describes a state of being for purifying the souls of the just in order to perfect them so that they may enter into Heaven clean. This goes with the Christian belief that God is loving and merciful because how many of us are perfect?

If Purgatory did not exist and nothing unclean could enter into Heaven then that would mean that no one who was not perfect when they died would go to Heaven. How many people do you think would not make it into Heaven if only those who die in a perfect state of grace could go to Heaven?

If you are looking for where it says the word "Purgatory" in the Bible, you won't find that word there. But neither will you find the word "Trinity" or even the word "Bible" in the Bible.

Christians always had a belief in the Trinity, but it wasn't officially defined by the Church as a doctrine until much later. The same is true for Purgatory.

It was always believed by Christians and even the Jews before Christ that they should pray for those souls who have passed away with the hope that it might help them on their journey to Heaven. If you go to Rome to the ancient Christian catacombs you will find inscriptions on tombs, which are prayers for the dead.

If a soul is in Hell, our prayers won't help them. But if they are in Heaven, they don't need us to pray for them since they made it to eternal bliss.

Therefore, the only thing that makes any sense would be for there to be a place where God perfects the souls of the just so that they can enter into Heaven. Call this what you will, but the Catholic Church has named it Purgatory.

"and the assembly of the firstborn enrolled in heaven, and God the judge of all, and the spirits of the just made perfect" - Hebrews 12:23

[Ishida]

So, the blood of Christ does not make us as white as snow and fit to enter the kingdom? I cannot accept this.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Do you believe in penance? Like fasting and such?

[twistedsketch]

A simple reading of Philippians disproves Purgatory. Paul wrote this letter when he was awaiting trial and possibly execution, and he said:

"For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body." - Phil 1:21-24

Paul makes it very clear that if he dies, he will be with Christ. Nothing about purgation first, and if this was a serious prospect, it wouldn't make sense to leapfrog over it in his letter. Ah, but he was the Apostle Paul you say, and not a sinful lout like the rest of us. He was already perfect! But Paul contradicts this:

"Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus." - Phil 3:12-14

So we have a man who is not perfect who is also not going to Purgatory. He also contradicts the notion in his letter to the Ephesians:

"But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus." - Eph 2:4-7

God 1) made us alive with Christ and 2) raised us up and seated us with Christ already. This is where we are in placement. In practice, we are still here on earth and we live imperfect lives. However, getting into Heaven is a placement issue. It is the blood of Jesus that purifies us from all sin.

Furthermore, doesn't it seem unfair to you that the Christians who will be around when Jesus returns will be changed to be ready for Heaven in a flash, while the Christian who dies today and who died 400 years ago, according to Catholic doctrine, must languish in Purgatory for an indeterminant period of time?

"Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed." - 1 Cor 15:51-52

[LivingWordUnity]

A simple reading of Philippians disproves Purgatory.Jesus tells us that we have to be perfect and that nothing unclean can enter into Heaven. Do you believe that you are perfect?

[LivingWordUnity]

So, the blood of Christ does not make us as white as snow and fit to enter the kingdom? I cannot accept this.You call it "the blood of Christ" making us pure. Catholics call it Puratory. In both cases, it is about Jesus making those who are saved pure to enter into Heaven. I think we are talking about the same thing but with different words to describe it.

This does not deny the fact that there is a Hell.

Only those who are saved but who did not reach perfection in this life will go to Purgatory to be perfected in God's grace. This is only temporary for a cleaning up before going to Heaven.

[twistedsketch]

Jesus tells us that we have to be perfect and that nothing unclean can enter into Heaven. Do you believe that you are perfect?
The blood of Christ makes us perfect in God's sight. On the cross, He substituted all of our sin for all of His righteousness.

[fritz300]

Catholicism is the Church founded by Christ.



Whomever told you about Catholicism was wrong. Catholics believe in hell.



Saints are fallen angels?

[quoote]Catholicism is responsible for all the paganism in mainstream Christianity such as Easter, Christmas, etc etc... and according to scripture she is the great harlot, Mystery Babylon in which all have become drunk off of.. Revelation 17... yes all have become drunk off of her because mainstream Christianity is right out of Catholicism.. while correcting a lot of issues, it's paganism has kept intact.

Regards,
fritz

There's nothing pagan about Christianity. Christmas and the day of Resurrection has nothing to do with paganism.[/quote]

Sorry, but Christmas, Easter and etc ALL have to do with Paganism... they are rooted from paganism and have nothing to do with Jesus Christ.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Christmas (Christ Mass) and Easter (Pascha) are rooted in Christ, nothing pagan.

[zeke37]

Christmas (Christ Mass) and Easter (Pascha) are rooted in Christ, nothing pagan.
Pascha=Passover


easter is not Passover....that is a one time mistranslation of Pascha, and is really a pagan orgy festival held near the same time of year...a spring solstice ritual...

and what do bunnies and eggs have to do with Christ? rhetorical...


but you may be interested to learn what eggs and bunnies have to do with easter!



and then I doubt that you could ever see Passover and easter as the same again....they are pretty much opposites...

[fritz300]

Christmas (Christ Mass) and Easter (Pascha) are rooted in Christ, nothing pagan.

No, they're rooted from sex orgy's and idolatrous worship to false god's.

Please research it and reflect it with Scripture, you will quickly find that there is nothing to do with Easter OR Christmas in the Word... but rather you will find Scriptures condemning them... I tell you this truth in love my friend, that you may see the truth of how far Catholicism and Christianity have strayed away from the truth...

Jer 3:12 Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say: 'Return, backsliding Israel,' says YHVH; 'I will not cause My anger to fall on you. For I am merciful,' says YHVH; 'I will not remain angry forever.
Jer 3:13 Only acknowledge your iniquity, That you have transgressed against YHVH your God, And have scattered your charms To alien deities under every green tree, And you have not obeyed My voice,' says YHVH.

The biggest problem is more of the fact that we celebrate these pagan holidays versus the Feast day's He has given us... such as Pseach, Shavout, Yom HaKippurium Yom T'ruah, Sukkot, etc...

Jer 10:1 Hear the word which YHVH speaks to you, O house of Israel.
Jer 10:2 Thus says YHVH: "Do not learn the way of the Pagans; Do not be dismayed at the signs of heaven, For the Pagans are dismayed at them.
Jer 10:3 For the customs of the peoples are futile; For one cuts a tree from the forest, The work of the hands of the workman, with the ax.
Jer 10:4 They decorate it with silver and gold; They fasten it with nails and hammers So that it will not topple.
Jer 10:5 They are upright, like a palm tree, And they cannot speak; They must be carried, Because they cannot go by themselves. Do not be afraid of them, For they cannot do evil, Nor can they do any good."

I encourage you to watch the following videos regarding Truth & Tradition. It explains all the origins of these Pagan festivals and is all Scripturally reinforced with the Scriptures talking about the truth birth of Christ and etc.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CHYaDUcRvJo (Truth & Tradition Part 1)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=A_aVPi0ZLh4 (Truth & Tradition Part 2)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wYLsSnEpJkw (Truth & Tradition Part 3)

Regards,
fritz

[stone]

Everyone here needs to be reminded that unless you are non-denominational, your post must be limited to fellowhipping or asking questions.

closing for staff review