/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>533016

Catholic orders are pretty much denominations too if we apply the common definition of the word into it.

None of the ones at that link.

>All of them are protestant sects that LARPs as catholics

OP you illiterate mongrel. Now its just getting embarrassing.

>>533016

Eastern Catholic

>>533024

>catholics i don't like are protestants

>>533037

The catholic church has a logical criteria for what counts as the catholic church and it is orders: if the sacrament of ordination, the intent and process is valid then you have apostolic succession and the catholic church. If you don't have that then it is just protestantism. It is nothing to do with whether one likes the other or not but logical legal definition.

>>533038

>The catholic church

Which one?

The one that is the only one aka one with pope named Francis.

>>533055

>Was he chosen by valid cardinals aka mode that Pope that he claims to be successor of ordered? No? Color me surprised.

>>533016

The Roman Catholic Church (including Easterners). "Independent" churches you linked to are schismatic at best and aren't truly Catholic. They are just human creations.

>>533047

So you say your own denomination is the right one, but many of the hundreds of other Catholic denominations would say the same about themselves. See the problem?

>>533038

>If you don't have that then it is just protestantism

If it doesn't affirm the five solas it's not protestantism. Sorry.

>>533138

We have actual evidence for the claim that we are the real one - clear and widely accepted evidence.

The rest of the so-called Catholics may claim whatever they want, but in the end to justify their existence they have to resort to conspiracy theories.

>>533137

>"Independent" churches you linked to are schismatic at best and aren't truly Catholic

Says who?

>>533144

>We have actual evidence for the claim that we are the real one

I think you mean you have your personal interpretation of the evidence

>>533040

The one with apostolic succession. It is no surprise that you are not familiar with such a simple distinction

>>533144

>We have actual evidence for the claim that we are the real one - clear and widely accepted evidence.

Any minute now…

>>533146

History, the other apostolic brethren, the IRS, dunno?

>>533038

>logical

Straight from that same website you're pulling from:

Independent Catholicism is a movement comprised of clergy and laity who self-identify as Catholic and who form "micro-churches claiming apostolic succession and valid sacraments," despite a lack of affiliation with other Catholic churches,

>including the Roman Catholic Church.

It is virtually impossible to determine the number of jurisdictions, communities, clergy and members who comprise Independent Catholicism,, particularly since the movement "is growing and changing in every moment."

>Many choose Independent Catholicism as an alternative means to live and express their Catholic faith outside the Roman Catholic Church.

The structures, beliefs and practices of Independent Catholicism often closely align with those of other Catholic and Christian churches.

I>ndependent Catholicism is part of the larger Independent Sacramental Movement, in which clergy and laity of various faith traditions – including the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Anglican Communion and various non-Catholic Christian churches – have separated themselves from the institutions with which they previously self-identified. Within the Independent Sacramental Movement, various independent churches have sprung from the Eastern Orthodox Church, from which the Roman Catholic Church separated in 1054 A.D., but the members of these independent Orthodox groups most often self-identify as Independent Orthodox, and not as Independent Catholic.

Because the history of Independent Catholicism is closely tied to the birth of the Old Catholic Church in Utrecht, Netherlands, many Independent Catholics mistakenly consider themselves "Old Catholic." In a short, unfavorable characterization of Independent Catholic communities in the U.S., Anglican scholar C.B. Moss warned in 1948: "There are several sects which claim to derive their episcopal succession from Mathew, which are often confused with the Old Catholics, and which in some cases make use of the name 'Old Catholic.' It cannot be too strongly emphasized that none of these sects is Old Catholic or is recognized in any way by the genuine Old Catholic churches in communion with the Archbishop of Utrecht."

reminder sage goes in all fields

>>533037

So if I were to call myself baptist and recite the shahada I'd still be a baptist?

>>533227

To convert to Islam, you have to recite shahada in a mosque before witnesses. If you do that, well, I'd say you're no longer Christian at all.

>>533038

>Orthodox are Protestants

>>533232

Yeah, but what if I still call myself a baptist after that? In reality you would rightly say that I am not a baptist, but not according to what that guy said.

>>533238

If you call yourself a Baptist after that, you're a Muslim convert to Christianity

>>533642

>the is only one Catholic Church

Which one?

>>533643

Quit playing stupid

>>533643

The Ecclesia Catholica. The Roman Catholic Church. That's it. It is the only true Catholic Church.

>>533642

Oh wow, I didn't know that Eastern Catholics weren't legit.

Dhanks, Spurdo :-DDDD

>>533663

>The Ecclesia Catholica. The Roman Catholic Church

Which one?

>>533652

You see, this is what happens when you get rid of Sola Scriptura. All these tens of thousands of Catholic denominations are because all you have is your personal interpretation of what the pope says. All of these denominations claim to go by what sacred tradition says but none of them can agree on anything.

>>533017

No it isn't since a denomination has to differ in doctrine and/or dogma.

>>533666

Actually there is not.You can observe there are millions of sola scriptura denominations but a single catholicism, since anything that goes against the authority of the dogma is not catholic

>>533680

Of course if we were going to be intellectually consistent, that would drastically reduce the number of protestant denominations from the 33,000 meme.

>>533684

Anything that goes agains the solas is not protestantism but you slap that label on Mormonism, JWs, etc. anyway.

Every logical argument posted here was dismissed by mean-spirited protestants in favor of one self logical falacy. So I will speak in your language using the argumentum ad populum:

Wich one is the true Catholic Church you asked? The one with the greatest number of followers.

/thread

>>533141

By common baptist admission in this board, Baptists are not Protestant.

What are you guys, like Jews or something? Sometimes you are protestant and sometimes you are not, like sometimes a Jew is white and sometimes they are not.

>>533696

Only Independent Fundamental Baptists like Anderson don't regard themselves as protestants.

>>533696

Let me explain a few things. First of all, catholics (lower case) are the people who think the Pope either is or was a valid office at some point. As far as I know that includes protestants who say Rome simply went wrong at some point. Now among these are many people who, for whatever reason, hold beliefs similar to extra ecclesiam nulla salus to whom therefore some certain denomination/church membership becomes a matter of utmost importance. The rest of us however don't find that in Scripture, and therefore don't stress out over having membership in any particular denomination, we only stress over each individual's beliefs being correct, which is related to denomination but only indirectly. That is why it's not treated as a foremost issue what denomination you profess except inasfar as what that says about the doctrine you personally hold. We must be aware that even if you profess a denomination with sound doctrine there is a chance you might actually differ from that sound doctrine personally, and vice versa.

Also, it's absolutely true that there are 33,000 different Catholic interpretations of what the Pope says and no way to determine who is right.

The one true Church.

>>533726

>First of all, catholics (lower case

Isn't everyone here part of the lower-case c, catholic, church? Isn't that part of the Nicene creed , whose belief in it is required for membership to /chirstian/?

33000 protestant denoms is a bit exaggerated for sure, to say the least

however there is a clear difference between protestant denoms on the one hand and catholic schismatic groups on the other

A man on the street could hardly name one such schismatic group, and I do not count the sspx here but maybe I could. Well, then, besides that you have to be a hipster to know about pope michael and then after that there's nothing that even comes to mind.

but no one has to look up methodist, pentecostal etc. on a wiki just to know about them

the argument that catholic authority fails in the same way that sola scriptura fails to give any final certainty on dogma, is a mistaken argument…

the problem with sola scriptura is not that it does not in fact give anyone any final certainty. The real problem is that it CANNOT EVEN IN PRINCIPLE do so.

There is no way even in principle that the Bible alone could be a formally sufficient rule of faith. For starters, and to beat a dead horse, there is no divinely inspired table of contents…

the Catholic church may do some things which obscure the truths of some dogmas, like any organism it can fail to be healthy, but there is in principle a way for anyone to achieve the highest certainty about the central truths of faith, and that way to the truth runs through Rome.

wew sure is brainlet in here