Denominations question...

[Amica]

Peace to all of you--

There are lots of Christian denominations and I personally often find that when I pose a question that I think is related to Christianity in general, turns out my question is "for Catholics, or Baptists" or any others.

Perhaps, I need to learn more. What are the major differences between the denominations and what are the major similarities? I am interested to get some information about this so that people do not get offended when I ask questions.

Thanks.

 

[greymare]

Hi amica, I cant offer you any answers as i often ask myself the same question. it will be interesting to see some of the replies from our more informed community. LOL. I do know one thing, that as a catholic i have attended many services of other faiths, and have always felt welcome. although, these services have been christian based. The rituals(?) may be slightly different, the hymns i dont recognise but the general "feel" is the same. I also didnt attend catholic sunday services for about 14years and even found the hymns were different to what i remember.
Good Luck.
Love the Grey

 

[Amica]

Hi--
Thanks for your reply. I hope people can enlighten me more I most interested in the beliefs and religious beliefs:

1) belief about God Almighty (i.e. does everyone believe in trinity, divinity of Jesus, etc)
2) what about the saints?
3) what about Virgin Mary?
4) holidays the same?

Thanks to all in advance.

 

[Dream]

Hi--
Thanks for your reply. I hope people can enlighten me more I most interested in the beliefs and religious beliefs:

1) belief about God Almighty (i.e. does everyone believe in trinity, divinity of Jesus, etc)
2) what about the saints?
3) what about Virgin Mary?
4) holidays the same?

Thanks to all in advance.

1) Most mainstream churches take this to be the #1 test for deciding who is in a cult. For that reason a church that does not believe in Holy Trinity will be found listed in websites that identify and list cult groups. While they object to being called 'Cult', most groups still use cults lists as a map of where they fit in to the general scheme! Looking up information on cults is the easiest way to learn the names of the different persuasions (denominations). Here are a couple of mainstream sites that task themselves with defining which major groups are cults:

howcultswork.com
Cults - AllAboutCults.org

Those groups not listed as cults by this strategy are considered mainstream in terms of believing in the Holy Trinity and include most Baptists, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Holy Rollers, Laughing Revivalists, TV Churches, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox. Groups that don't actually care who believes in trinity or not, will also be found listed with the cults on the charts. This is pretty much the current classification scheme all over the world as far as I know. Additionally, some groups consider themselves to be more mainstream or more correct than all others, but this is not used to define who is cult and who isn't.

2) Belief in having saints pray on your behalf involves mostly just Catholic Christians and Eastern Orthodox, but you can probably look this up in the cult descriptions.

3) Belief in the Virgin Mary does not strictly fall along the major division of cult or mainstream. You have to look up each group, although most everybody teaches Jesus had/has a virgin mother. I think the most common disagreement is whether she remained a virgin after Jesus was born; but this is usually not a major obstruction between believers.

4) Holidays are not nearly as important in most Christian groups as they are in Judaism or Islam. I think Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have the most developed emphasis upon holidays, but everybody has some. Most mainstreams pick and choose creatively how and what they celebrate. Some groups are opposed to the major holidays, especially Christmas, Easter, and Halloween.

 

[iBrian]

Early Christianity was organised as a single faith with a single faith under the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great - there were different approaches (the Donatists, the Arians, etc) but only those who subscribed to the Nicene Creed were recognised as "Christians" for the purposes of the Roman Empire.

This group became known as the "Catholic" (ie, universal) church under the leadership of the Papacy in Rome, but still includes groups who maintained some degree of autonomy (ie Orthodox Christianity, which was focused in the eastern Mediterranean.

Tensions with the Orthodox church resulted in a schism around the 1200's - both effectively went their own way, with the Catholic refusing to acceptthe Orthodox faith unless they came under control of the Papacy.

A key point of the Catholic Church was that it stood as an intermediary between people and Jesus, with the Catholic Church dictating matters of faith accordingly.

In the 1500's, Martin Luther began the Reformation, which directly challenged the Papacy's perceived right to act as an intermediate, along with a range of theology challenges, which effectively made faith a matter of individual choice, with no intermediate required - ie, following the Catholic Church as not being a necessity to reach out to Jesus and God. Protestants effectively follow on from this theology.

This approach became very popular, not least because of the perceived corruption of the Catholic church (previously, the rich could buy their way to salvation). The lack of need for the Catholic church also had political appeal as different European countries sought to become more ambitious and free themselves of political interference from Rome.

Anyway, that's just off the top of my head and a personal opinion, but hopefully helps explain some of the major differences between Catholic, Protestant, and how they relate to one another in terms of denominations.

 

[BlaznFattyz]

the similarities is that Christ is Saviour and the Messiah; God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; that Christ was born from a virgin by being overshadowed from the Holy Spirit; Christ was crucified having taken on all the sins of man, was ressurected thus defeating death, and will come again and judge man.

the differences are the pre-existing cultures and norms that these christian fundamentals fall upon.

 

[Dogbrain]

Early Christianity was organised as a single faith with a single faith under the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great

A highly questionable claim, admittedly popular in some Protestant circles and among those non-Christians who uncritically swallow out-of-date historiography regarding Christianity.

there were different approaches (the Donatists, the Arians, etc) but only those who subscribed to the Nicene Creed were recognised as "Christians" for the purposes of the Roman Empire.

Demonstrably false, since there were Arian Emperors after Constantine who imposed Arianism as the "recognized" form of Christianity. This whole "Constantine started the Church" fable has long been discredited.

This group became known as the "Catholic" (ie, universal) church under the leadership of the Papacy in Rome, but still includes groups who maintained some degree of autonomy (ie Orthodox Christianity

Ultramontanism, pure and simple. There was no "some degree of autonomy", because the Pope of Rome was NEVER some sort of "monarch" of the Church. The Pope of Rome NEVER had "leadership".

 

[iBrian]

Dogbrain, I read that as a combative Orthodox point of view, which naturally involves questioning any legitimacy to the Papacy in the first place.

A highly questionable claim, admittedly popular in some Protestant circles and among those non-Christians who uncritically swallow out-of-date historiography regarding Christianity.

Certainly Constantine oversaw recognition of a single organised faith, though it had existed as a sometimes loosely affiliated series of groups.

Demonstrably false, since there were Arian Emperors after Constantine who imposed Arianism as the "recognized" form of Christianity. This whole "Constantine started the Church" fable has long been discredited.

Really? I remember reading about Julian trying to return the empire to Paganism, and Rome was sacked and conquered by the Germam Visigoth and Vandal tribes who repeatedly professed to being Arians - but at no point did they fundamentally change the existing tenets of Christianity as held by the RC.

Ultramontanism, pure and simple. There was no "some degree of autonomy", because the Pope of Rome was NEVER some sort of "monarch" of the Church. The Pope of Rome NEVER had "leadership".

So what would you say was the relationship between Rome and Constantinople, both before and after the Schism, and the reason for it?

 

[Dogbrain]

So what would you say was the relationship between Rome and Constantinople, both before and after the Schism, and the reason for it?

Rome was a patriarchate, as was Constantinople. At very most, Rome held a place of "honor" among the Patriarchates but had no powers nor authority not equally held by all Patriarchates. Indeed, even though Rome had a special place as being the only Latin Patriarchate, it was not senior-most. That honor belongs to Jerusalem, followed by Alexandria. Ecclesiastically and doctrinally, Rome held no special place. Politically, there was a lot of struggle between Rome and Constantinople, but that was politics invading the Church, not proper to Ecclesiastic affairs. Rome was the old capital city, that had been deserted by the Emperors. It had a lot of history behind it. Constantinople was the hot spot and hub for the Empire. It had a lot of fashion behind it. Before the schism, that was the relationship between Rome and Constantinople. Very human squabbling over things that were not matters of Ecclesiology.

After the Schism, Rome overstepped its boundaries in its ever-more absurd claims of monarchism over all of Christianity. Of course, the Orthodox simply ignored them unless at the point of a knife, and even then, many Orthodox did not accede to monstrosities as the "Empire of the Latins" or the pseudocouncil of Florence.

Regarding the reasons for the Schism, they revolved around human frailty and failures.

1) As the only Patriarchate in the West, Rome did not have the necessary brakes on pride that being one Patriarch among many put on Constantinople. Instead, it was more free to choose (hairein, to use the Greek root of "heresy") its own path, unfettered by the ever-present council of its equals and peers.

2) Rome was Latin, the rest of Christianity's Patriarchates were Greek. Thus, there were constant difficulties in communication due to language and differences in culture.

3) Rome was a backwater constantly beset by barbarians who were deflected or bought off by the Empire in the East. In such a situation, the Pope had to exercise more political power in a protective fashion than may have been healthy for the Church. This may have gone to the Popes' heads.

4) There has always been Liturgical diversity within the Church. In the East, multiple Liturgical practices could interact often. In the West, there were only the Rite of Milan and the Gallican Rite. The lower diversity combined with poor communication led to intolerance of the differences that were simply accepted in the East.

There are several other contributory factors. However, it was not a matter, in the slightest, of the Orthodox asserting some sort of limited "autonomy". Each Patriarchate was and is autocephalous.

 

[wil]

1) Most mainstream churches take this to be the #1 test for deciding who is in a cult. For that reason a church that does not believe in Holy Trinity will be found listed in websites that identify and list cult groups. While they object to being called 'Cult', most groups still use cults lists as a map of where they fit in to the general scheme!

Actually some of us cultish Christians don't mind being called cults and actually enjoy it as it opens up the conversation to know that there exist colloquial definitions and then the dictionary definition whereby the number one and two preferred definitions are...drum roll please....formal religious veneration & a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents

Oh my how those that like to look down at others and call them cults hate that.

from Mirriam Webster...
Main Entry: cult
Pronunciation: \ˈkəlt\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate — more at wheel
Date: 1617
1 : formal religious veneration : worship
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : the object of such devotion c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

Hi--
Thanks for your reply. I hope people can enlighten me more I most interested in the beliefs and religious beliefs:

1) belief about God Almighty (i.e. does everyone believe in trinity, divinity of Jesus, etc)
2) what about the saints?
3) what about Virgin Mary?
4) holidays the same?

Thanks to all in advance.

To answer your OP, take a look here List of Christian denominations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and know that it is sort of like evolution between the segments as they progressed very little difference, little nuances broke them apart (or a single big nuance like whether or not to accept homosexuals is breaking apart big denominations today) So there differences as time went on are many, and include marriage, celibacy, drinking alcohol, what is sin, methods of forgiveness, use of medical professionals, working on the sabbath as well as the points you are discussing.

For me, one of those darned cult members, a non-denominational unitic, I believe in G!d (differently than many) I believe in the trinity (ditto) and divinity of Jesus (ditto). Saints I don't dance to, Virgin Mary I don't pray to, and I participate in most of the conventional Christian practices Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, Easter, Christmas despite their pagan influences and origins. Also let my kids dress up on halloween and go to church on New Years Eve!...oh my.

Early Christianity was organised as a single faith

The way I see it I would say the various denominations and expressions of early Christianity were attempted to be organised by force and intimidation into a single faith from 300-1200.....

 

[dan b]

Hello there,
About why there are several christian denominations the reason is that Christiandom is today the re-generation of the lost tribes of Israel as spoken of by Jesus Christ. He said that "the ones that follow me will one day sit upon 12 thrones governing the 12 tribes." I believe Jesus and he said "the ones that follow me will be a combiniation of 12 tribes." Now I'm not saying that the European Christians are in fact the actual DNA of the lost Israelite tribes, but John the baptist himself says that "God can raise the children of Abraham even from stones." The Christian countries/cultures of Europe/America are the re-generated tribes or the new Christian covenant. Because these 12 tribes/brothers were born of 4 diffeerent mothers therefore they developed, in the Christian re-generation as three races and the Tribe of Judah. These are Leah's children-the Latinos, Rachel's children-Germanic children and the Handmaidens children-Slavic This is the composition of Christian Europe today. These are the Christian denominatios. Leahs - Catholics, Rachel's-Protestant, Handmaids- Orthodox and Catholic dan b

 

[Dream]

Nice to meet you, dan b. I've never heard that way of looking at the divisions as purposeful and good. Division as a good thing is actually a common theme for interfaith -- to see all of the world religions as tribes of a sort. Another way of saying it is that people are just not able to see things the same way sometimes. When you look for a reason for why that is, you actually are scratching at one of the greatly pondered problems of history.

I once visited a church in Va. that believed all of Bible prophecy taught that the original gospel had been lost but then re-emerged in the Philippines in its purity again. It was a Philippino church that I was visiting, which lent the story some validity. Their task was to be part of the reintroduction of the gospel, specifically to the people in the USA and America. I think this theory does a good job of explaining why there are divisions among Christians. Obviously until the gospel is reintroduced Christians will have to put up with their various divisions. I do not mean that I necessarily endorse this point of view, but it seems like a competitor to your idea. It basis seems very similar, though not the same.

There is a common thread also between that and what I've heard from several other denominations. Actually, I've heard several ideas that attempt to explain, among other things, why there are divisions.

 

[Saltmeister]

the original gospel had been lost but then re-emerged in the Philippines in its purity again. Their task was to be part of the reintroduction of the gospel, specifically to the people in the USA and America. I think this theory does a good job of explaining why there are divisions among Christians. Obviously until the gospel is reintroduced Christians will have to put up with their various divisions.

I think this church could be creating a new division. If they believe they are completely right and that the rest of us are completely wrong then they are simply adding to the problem. It is one thing to say that you've got something right, but quite another to say you've got everything right and likewise to criticise another group for getting something wrong and getting everything wrong.

I disagree with and oppose fundamentalism but that doesn't mean I think it's completely wrong. I disagree with Catholicism but that doesn't mean I think it's completely wrong. I would rather that a religious community that exists for many good reasons and with few faults and flaws continue to exist as a religious community than to support a deeply flawed and malfunctioning community with few merits. There are many good reasons for keeping and maintaining the former, but not many for the latter.

I believe we all uphold parts of the gospel, but due to some ideological, philosophical and theological misunderstandings, prevent ourselves from pursuing the whole gospel.

I am frequently and consistently annoyed by the idea that just because there is one little thing wrong with a church it means you have to throw the whole church into the rubbish bin. It is natural and inevitable that factions exist. It is a political and ideological reality. Look at the secular world. It is inevitable that there will be differing views on what "policy" is right for us. Different people believe in different things being important. To deny the policy of another, you are denying that person's experience when it may be very valid.

As for me, I'm a pragmatist and I judge an idea on its value not on its "correctness." I evaluate ideas based on their social, political, emotional, communal and practical value. A religious community must decide for itself what is important and very often it will have to ignore the judgments of outsiders. I think it's inevitable that there are going to be "many fellowships." Paul chose not to argue with certain "troublesome individuals" not because he probably saw them as heretics, but I believe because he accepted that people were going to have a different "policy" when dealing with matters affecting their respective local communities. Dissidents simply belonged to another fellowship.

I make a distinction between factions and divisions. Factions are just groups with different policies and merely believe that other factions have inferior policies. Divisions are groups that truly believe everyone else is a heretic. I'm talking about separatists here.

I think Christianity will grow and mature if only we come to accept that "many fellowships" is a reasonable thing to have. I believe it is right for churches to "mind their own business" not in the sense of denouncing and vilifying other churches that can't conform to their ideology, but in the sense of deciding what is right for themselves. Different fellowships are not to interfere with each other's internal affairs unless someone has been hurt and there is seriously something wrong with that fellowship.

I think I should say the same macroscopically of dealing with Judaism and Islam. We are not to interfere with other groups, whether that is within, or without the tradition of Christianity -- nor to allow outsiders to meddle with Christianity internally (usually it's the other way round, however).

That isn't to say there shouldn't be co-operation between various groups . . . that is external. Joint ventures will be taken when people are ready to share. Once they have taken care of their internal needs they might start looking outward.

 

[wil]

Quite nice post there salty!

to attempt to quote BB....hurrr hurr

 

[dan b]

Hello again,
The denominations of Christianity are the "lost sheep of Israel" which Jesus was so acutely preaching to. He said "take my message only to the lost sheep of Israel." He said don't take it to the Jews. they already know the law and arn't lost. Anyway these lost sheep as Jesus predicted have now become the Christian cultures. There are actually 12 of them to match the 12 original tribes of Israel. Many Organizations called British Israel have been studying the exestence and history of the tribes in Europe. If you google "british Israel" one of the first entries is called " secondbook of daniel." It is here, in chapter 10 to 16 that the basis of the christian denominations is described with charts, diagrams and maps. It's written as a prophetetic epistle and you must fill in the gaps between pages yourself. And it is not a description of the commonly held notions of "British Israel Organizations." The British Israel movement is in fact the "john the baptist" for the re-generation of the tribes of Israel spoken of by Jesus. Today the tribes are re-generating under the 12 stared flag of the E.U. It's not all settled yet. Even the flag is still only in the colors of Leah. But the many who preach that it is the anti-christ are indeed the anti-christ themseves. See in Rev12 how the woman is European Chriatian Israel and we have now began the 1000 millennium! dan b

 

[iBrian]

Hello again,
The denominations of Christianity are the "lost sheep of Israel" which Jesus was so acutely preaching to. He said "take my message only to the lost sheep of Israel." He said don't take it to the Jews. they already know the law and arn't lost. Anyway these lost sheep as Jesus predicted have now become the Christian cultures. There are actually 12 of them to match the 12 original tribes of Israel. Many Organizations called British Israel have been studying the exestence and history of the tribes in Europe. If you google "british Israel" one of the first entries is called " secondbook of daniel." It is here, in chapter 10 to 16 that the basis of the christian denominations is described with charts, diagrams and maps. It's written as a prophetetic epistle and you must fill in the gaps between pages yourself. And it is not a description of the commonly held notions of "British Israel Organizations." The British Israel movement is in fact the "john the baptist" for the re-generation of the tribes of Israel spoken of by Jesus. Today the tribes are re-generating under the 12 stared flag of the E.U. It's not all settled yet. Even the flag is still only in the colors of Leah. But the many who preach that it is the anti-christ are indeed the anti-christ themseves. See in Rev12 how the woman is European Chriatian Israel and we have now began the 1000 millennium! dan b

Crikey - I thought the British Israel movement had died out with the Victorians!

 

[Dogbrain]

Crikey - I thought the British Israel movement had died out with the Victorians!

TimeCube has a worthy competitor in this "Second Book of Daniel".

 

[Dream]

Dan B., hey man. I realize it is an exciting thing to put a puzzle together, and I just want you to know I'm rooting for you. I have fundamental differences with you about Jesus conversation about the twelve tribes and lost sheep of Israel, but we are not going to make any progress arguing about those from the get-go. It is best if you go ahead and fully develop your concept of how things work, because there will be side-benefits along the way. Even if there turned out to be some error in your idea, you would still get lots of benefit in the end. My only objection is to those who are selling you on the idea, because that is all it is. It is an idea, and its not at all a sure thing. We are merely men, and there can be no certainty with us.

 

[dan b]

Hello again,
Here's a miracle. Jesus began the regathering of the lost sheep of Israel. Thats why his appostle in Acts 1 ask " will you now restore the kingdom to Israel?" He said that those that follow me will at the end of days sit on 12 thrones. This is the 1000 year millennium of Rev.20 This isn't only on a spiritual level it omnipresent. The distance from Jerusalem to Constantinope to Rome to Madrid or to Paris is all the same measuable distance on a map of Eurasia. On the Lambert's Azimuthal equal area projection of the map of eurasia this distance is 4.2cm on a small map. On a large wall map its 8.4c, between these cities. Because England was first Roman Catholic and then came for a second helping it twice this distance. All of the present capital cities of Eurpean christian Isreal are mesured and sealed. try it this is a very common map in old school atlases and the readers digest atlas. dan b

 

[Dream]

He said that those that follow me will at the end of days sit on 12 thrones. This is the 1000 year millennium of Rev.20 This isn't only on a spiritual level it omnipresent.

Hi Dan b,
what does it mean to you when you say this is the 1000 year millenium of Revelation on a spiritual level? I looked up the verses you're talking about, and I also found the passage you sourced in Revelation. It connects the word thrones with 1000 years, and mentions at that time the resurrection of those who died as witnesses for Jesus. What I'm asking is, what do you mean by 'On a spiritual level', and what does this make the resurrection in verse 5? Thanks.

Revelation 20:4-5 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had
not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.