the one and only

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Franimus' post='993701' date='May 31 2006, 05:31 PM']
[size=4]WILL YOU PEOPLE STOP SAYING THAT CATHOLICISM IS NOT A DENOMINATION?!?[/size]
It's actually heretical to say that Catholicism is not a "denomination."
From Dictionary.com:
de·nom·i·na·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-nm-nshn)
n.
A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.
One of a series of kinds, values, or sizes, as in a system of currency or weights: Cash registers have compartments for bills of different denominations. The stamps come in 25¢ and 45¢ denominations.
A name or designation, especially for a class or group.

Denomination merely means the name given to a group. Non-denominational, then, refers to a group that is nameless. Catholicism is equally a denomination just as is Protestantism, and all forms of both of those.
Now, I'm going to move into something that could contain a hint of my own opinion:
I think that it is true that the early Church was "non-denominational" since, as rc says, there were no separate denominations back then, and they did not have any need to name themselves. You all know as well as I do that the Christians back then did not name themselves Catholic right away. RC has proved his point, for reasons yet unknown, that the Bible does not state that Christ called the Church the "Catholic Church." This is not to say that the Catholic Church is not the Church that Christ founded. Back to where I started this paragraph, the earliest Christians were non-denominational. When they started calling themselves Catholic, they became a denomination, but they were the only denomination, and non-denominational Christianity ceased. Years later, we get into the schisms and the breakoffs and such, and we see other denominations formed, until we get to where we are today.
[/quote]

Catholicism = Christianity
Christiany = Catholicism

Catholicism is not a denomination of Christianity because it is complete unadulterated whole Christianity.

ALL non-Catholic churches that claim to be Christian are denominated from Catholicism.

Before the offshots, it was simply Catholicism also known as Christianity...

Catholicisim is not a "denomination of Christianity" because it is Christianity.

[Franimus]

Please read both of my posts pertaining to the matter before replying about them.. In the first one, I mentioned how in the literal dictionary (denotative) definition of the word, Catholicism is a denomination. However, in the second, I realized how, in the understood meaning of the word, Catholicism is not a denomination. I do agree with you all on that.

[raptor13]

[quote name='rckllnknny' post='992275' date='May 29 2006, 06:35 AM']
was "catholicism" ever mentioned in any scripture of the Holy Bible??

and if not...why do you think that was???


[/quote]

Was non-denominational ever mentioned in any scripture of the Holy Bible?

If not.. why do you think that was?



Raptor's Quick and Logical [i]Summa Ecclessiae
[/i]

1. Jesus is the Truth (John 14:6).
2. The Pillar and Foundation of Truth is the Church (1 Tim 3:15).
3. The Church is built upon Peter (Matt 16:13:-18)

Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox all agree to number 1. Only the Catholic and the Orthodox make it to number 2. But, when you get to number 3, only the Catholic Church stands. No other Church other than the Catholic Church even [i]claims [/i]to be built on Peter!

Thus the Church built upon Peter is the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth which is Jesus. Only the Catholic Church has the credentials to be this Church.

[cmotherofpirl]

my dictionary says: A denomination is a group that has broken off the original. So by MY dictionary we are NOT a denomination :

[MichaelF]

[quote name='rckllnknny' post='992275' date='May 29 2006, 06:35 AM']
was "catholicism" ever mentioned in any scripture of the Holy Bible??

and if not...why do you think that was???


[/quote]


Was the [b]Bible[/b] mentioned in the Bible?

Clearly, the Bible is not Biblical.



Or......we cold be talking in historical context, and you would see that certain terms were not then in use.

[MichaelF]

[quote name='rckllnknny' post='992481' date='May 29 2006, 04:56 PM']
you know i agreed with everyone else up until this point.
but sorry if it makes you mad.
but youre wrong.
sorry.
you also know socrates. you gonna start alot of wars in the future whether it be here or out in the world saying stuff like that too. show some respect for other christians who love God. WE are the church. dont burn mine down.

Christ founded only one Church, not a bunch of different churches.

well sounds like christianity never grew then. i know when i grow up and im a big boy ill know that say 4 or 5 is more than 1. in any universe!

quote..He didn't need to say "Catholic" because it was the only Church that He founded

that is ridiculous and its hipocracy. youre just saying 'its not in the bible because...'
how bout saying whats IN the bible???
it never said anything about a rosary or nuns or pets not having souls or us not being angels when we die. but i respect what you believe alot more than you think. but dont sit there and say Jesus only founded the Catholic church. because of the word universal.

universal is the same as interdenominational anyway.
[/quote]

One Church: a single organization

Universal: For -everyone-, everywhere.

A new Diocese or Parish is not a new Church (other than the building). Sophistry (deliberate pretense of misunderstanding, in order that your reply will make the opponent look silly) won't help you with that.

You just lost the debate.

Edited June 2, 2006 by MichaelF

[ReinnieR]

[quote name='MichaelF' post='995470' date='Jun 2 2006, 11:23 AM']
Was the [b]Bible[/b] mentioned in the Bible?

Clearly, the Bible is not Biblical.
Or......we cold be talking in historical context, and you would see that certain terms were not then in use.
[/quote]
cute little argument on sola scriptura.

but from what i've experienced, people will use "for it is written" and they will say scriptures says scriptures in it.

[dspen2005]

[quote name='rckllnknny' post='992275' date='May 29 2006, 08:35 AM']
was "catholicism" ever mentioned in any scripture of the Holy Bible??

and if not...why do you think that was???


[/quote]

'Holy Trinity' was never used either.... and we do not deny this part of Divine Revelation...

[ReinnieR]

cept for

Matthew 28:19


Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,


just not the word trinity

[Akalyte]

[quote name='rckllnknny' post='992275' date='May 29 2006, 07:35 AM']
was "catholicism" ever mentioned in any scripture of the Holy Bible??

and if not...why do you think that was???


[/quote]


Probably because the bible came from the Catholic church and the catholic church
has no need to mention itself. Besides, all one has to do is read history. Who is the author, safeguard and protecter of the bible?

Read history and it will tell you.

[ReinnieR]

[quote name='Akalyte' post='996494' date='Jun 4 2006, 09:53 AM']
Probably because the bible came from the Catholic church and the catholic church
has no need to mention itself. Besides, all one has to do is read history. Who is the author, safeguard and protecter of the bible?

Read history and it will tell you.
[/quote]


[quote name='Akalyte' date='ULTRAMONTANE - ORTHODOX']
WE GOT THE DOCUMENTS READ HISTORY WE GAVE THE WORLD A BIBLE 393 TO 419AD
[/quote]

[raptor13]

[url="http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=1365"]A Church By Any Other Name[/url]

An interesting thought on this topic.

[journeyman]

I found a note that suggests the name of the Catholic church dates back to the early 100s

While there is debate over the authenticity of some of the writings of St. Ignatious, his letter to Smyrna is generally on the "accepted" list
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm"]Catholic Encyclopedia article on Ignatious[/url]

It is scarcely possible to exaggerate the importance of the testimony which the Ignatian letters offer to the dogmatic character of Apostolic Christianity. The martyred Bishop of Antioch constitutes a most important link between the Apostles and the Fathers of the early Church. [i]Receiving from the Apostles themselves, whose auditor he was, not only the substance of revelation, but also their own inspired interpretation of it; dwelling, as it were, at the very fountain-head of Gospel truth, his testimony must necessarily carry with it the greatest weight and demand the most serious consideration.[/i] Cardinal Newman did not exaggerate the matter when he said ("The Theology of the Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius", in "Historical Sketches", I, London, 1890) that "the whole system of Catholic doctrine may be discovered, at least in outline, not to say in parts filled up, in the course of his seven epistles". Among the many Catholic doctrines to be found in the letters are the following: the Church was Divinely established as a visible society, the salvation of souls is its end, and those who separate themselves from it cut themselves off from God (Philad., c. iii); the hierarchy of the Church was instituted by Christ (lntrod. to Philad.; Ephes., c. vi); the threefold character of the hierarchy (Magn., c. vi); the order of the episcopacy superior by Divine authority to that of the priesthood (Magn., c. vi, c. xiii; Smyrn., c. viii; Trall., c. iii); the unity of the Church (Trall., c. vi; Philad., c. iii; Magn., c. xiii); the holiness of the Church (Smyrn., Ephes., Magn., Trall., and Rom.); the catholicity of the Church (Smyrn., c. viii); the infallibility of the Church (Philad., c. iii; Ephes., cc. xvi, xvii); the doctrine of the Eucharist (Smyrn., c. viii), which word we find for the first time applied to the Blessed Sacrament, [color="#3333FF"][b]just as in Smyrn., viii, we meet for the first time the phrase "Catholic Church", used to designate all Christians;[/b][/color] the Incarnation (Ephes., c. xviii); the supernatural virtue of virginity, already much esteemed and made the subject of a vow (Polyc., c. v); the religious character of matrimony (Polyc., c. v); the value of united prayer (Ephes., c. xiii); the primacy of the See of Rome (Rom., introd.). He, moreover, denounces in principle the Protestant doctrine of private judgment in matters of religion (Philad. c. iii), The heresy against which he chiefly inveighs is Docetism. Neither do the Judaizing heresies escape his vigorous condemnation.

[Guest T-Bone]

[quote name='ReinnieR' post='996483' date='Jun 4 2006, 06:02 AM']
cept for

Matthew 28:19
Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,
just not the word trinity
[/quote]

Of course, this doesn't mention that they are all facets of God, that God is both triune [i]and[/i] singular.

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='raptor13' post='995418' date='Jun 2 2006, 07:29 AM']
Was non-denominational ever mentioned in any scripture of the Holy Bible?

If not.. why do you think that was?
Raptor's Quick and Logical [i]Summa Ecclessiae
[/i]

1. Jesus is the Truth (John 14:6).
2. The Pillar and Foundation of Truth is the Church (1 Tim 3:15).
3. The Church is built upon Peter (Matt 16:13:-18)

Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox all agree to number 1. Only the Catholic and the Orthodox make it to number 2. But, when you get to number 3, only the Catholic Church stands. No other Church other than the Catholic Church even [i]claims [/i]to be built on Peter!

Thus the Church built upon Peter is the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth which is Jesus. Only the Catholic Church has the credentials to be this Church.
[/quote]

i just read this whole thread, and i think this is just about the best post in it. extremely concise. I'm quoting so that if the topic-starter ever returns he can see these points.

it's hilarious to say that present-day non-denom's are what christians were in the beginning. The form of non-denom's back in the time of hte apostles is true because there were no denominations at all. In our present-day, the term "non denominational" is a title, that is your denomination. I mean, i'm open to being wrong? perhaps they do everything like the apostles did back then - like they claim. (body and blood of christ?)

back on track though. its simple logic. There can only be one truth. all forms of christianity disagree. Cleary God would not want this. He wouldnt try to make it complicated for us since his goal is to get us to be with him. I mean, its kinda funny you'd think we would all get it seeing how God came down to us and basically laid it all out for us right there in our own words plainly and bluntly.

John 6:53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever." .....

look how much Jesus repeats himself here - just so we GET IT.

[b]first line[/b], a very elegant explaination of what he is saying.
[b]second line[/b]. a retelling, simpler. just to make sure that YES.. he did just say that. (everyone was probably like 'wait..what did he just say?' - disbelief)
[b]third line[/b]: getting blunter, yes, he DOES mean his body and blood.
[b]forth line[/b]: beginning to explain why it is so important, God wants to be in us. (people were probably still shocked, Jesus is trying to explain to them why it is so important that they partake of him)
[b]fifth line[/b]: further explaination of why it is important and what happens when they eat/drink him.
[b]sixth line[/b]: finally a comparison to the old jewish tradition (I believe he's referring to Mosses in the desert with the Jews) - which they all knew. and how this is not that, but something better.

you can tell that this was a hard thing to "swallow" (Excuse that HILARIOUS pun ) many people, even after Jesus reassured them 6 times that this was what he wanted, that it was OK, and that it'll help them get to heaven, they were still confused/disgusted and left. EVEN after jesus healed the sick and raised the dead..

sometimes i just dont understand the confusion. It's God. clearly he's not going to be hurt by the act of us injesting him physically and spiritually. It's not like he's going to "run out" of body and blood, and "die". God is infinite love. God > Gatorade. Wouldnt people want that in them?

In any case I focused on this because it is the most important difference that seperates catholics from everyone else.

And if you do research you will see that even those very early, "non denominational" christians went to a weekly ceremony that suspisciously mirrors the events of todays Catholic Mass.

Edited June 15, 2006 by Sirklawd