In Christ Alone (Happy reformation day)

The Catholic Church is not a denomination.

If what you mean by “denomination” is any ecclesial body that retains a “jurisdiction”, or a semi-autonomy, then you will have to admit that even the Catholic Church is not "one". According to David A. Barrett’s World Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Survey of Churches and Religions in the Modern World A.D. 1900—2000 (ed. David A. Barrett; New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), there are seven major ecclesiastical “blocs” under which these 22,190 distinct denominations fall (Barrett, 14-15): (1) Roman Catholicism, which accounts for 223 denominations; (2) Protestant, which accounts for 8,196 denominations; (3) Orthodox, which accounts for 580 denominations; (4) Non-White Indigenous, which accounts for 10,956 denominations; (5) Anglican, which accounts for 240 denominations; (6) Marginal Protestant, which includes Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, New Age groups, and all cults (Barrett, 14), and which accounts for 1,490 denominations; and (7) Catholic (Non-Roman), which accounts for 504 denominations.

The Orthodox have nineteen traditions, while the Roman Catholic has sixteen of which are including Latin-rite local, Latin-rite catholic, Latin/Eastern-rite local, Latin/Eastern-rite catholic, Syro-Malabarese, Ukrainian, Romanian, Maronite, Melkite, Chaldean, Ruthenian, Hungarian, plural Oriental rites, Syro-Malankarese, Slovak, and Coptic.

There are four major groups within Roman Catholicism: (1) Catholic Pentecostals (Roman Catholics involved in the organized Catholic Charismatic Renewal); (2) Christo-Pagans (Latin American Roman Catholics who combine folk-Catholicism with traditional Amerindian paganism); (3) Evangelical Catholics (Roman Catholics who also regard themselves as Evangelicals); and (4) Spiritist Catholics (Roman Catholics who are active in organized high or low spiritism, including syncretistic spirit-possession cults). And of course, we all know that this list can be supplemented by distinctions between moderate Roman Catholics (represented by almost all Roman Catholic scholars), Conservative Roman Catholics (represented by Scott Hahn and most Roman Catholic apologists), Traditionalist Roman Catholics (represented by apologist Gerry Matatics), and Sedevacantist Roman Catholics (those who believe the chair of Peter is currently vacant).

So, I know, Annalex, you probably would love if everyone saw your religion as unified, but in reality, there are divisions and various beliefs among the people who identify as Catholic. The unity that Christ prayed for IS an answered prayer because those who trust in him as their savior are all members of the same spiritual body, the outward labels or signs on doors may be different but there is still unity on the major tenets that make up the Christian faith. Your organization does NOT have dominion over the name Christian. It is Jesus' body and he says who belongs within it.

The grace that alone saves us is not a result of our works, but good works are necessary for salvation.

We are saved by grace. We do not nor can we earn or merit salvation because sin must be atoned. The wages of sin is death, not good works, works of love, etc. Jesus made that atonement for us and we receive this grace from God by faith in him. The Texas two-step won't work here. You can't on one hand say we are saved by grace and then on the other say it is by faith AND works. If it is by grace, it can't be by works and vice versa.

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.

I think the world, and not only the Catholic world, has been greatly blessed with Pope Benedict, one of the greatest popes of modern times, a clear thinker and a true reformer.

I actually read them

Good, good, I am proud of you.

you probably would love if everyone saw your religion as unified, but in reality, there are divisions and various beliefs among the people who identify as Catholics

The distinctions you point out are in part imaginary and in part exist but such as they are, they reflect the breadth of the spiritual life of the Catholic people. In fact, the method your authrour chose is not the best, more natural way to further subdivide Catholics would be by religious order, such as Bendedictine, Franciscan, Jesuit, etc. which really reflect different spiritualities.

But nether of these are denominations; we all worship in the same Church and beleive in the same dogmas. The more important division that exists in the Church is that with the Orthodox, who are a collection of local Churches not in union with Rome, and the small group you mention, Sedevacantists. Those sometime are counted as Catholics with imperfections and sometimes are not. At least for the purposes of the exposition of the Catholic doctrine they are all Catholic. I for example, would use Orthodox apologetical material alongside Western Catholic.

While these distinctions are as old as the Church itself, "denomination" is the invention of Protestantism. The difference is not in the words, of course, but in the essence. The idea that the Bible alone is the source of doctrine has lead to apperance of leaders, like Calvin, Knox, or Wesley who each hold only their doctrine the full truth. In contrast, no group inside Catholicism rejects in any part the theological doctrines of the other and they do not have separate leadership structures.

You can't on one hand say we are saved by grace and then on the other say it is by faith AND works

Both parts are true. God sends His grace. We respond with faith and good works.

If it is by grace, it can't be by works [Romans 11:6]

Correct. That is the Catholic teaching. Grace is not of works.

If you don't understand the above, please ask, before complaining that it is the fifth time we engage in the same discussion (7161). Unless you understand the Catholic faith, it is not yet discussion, it is just you making noise on the thread while I repeat what you did not grasp previously.

it was a pastoral letter from one equal church to another [...] Clement had no direct authority over the church at Corinth.

Bishops to not write "pastoral" letters telling their fellow bishops what to do; it is a severe violation of the Canon Law.

Forget for the moment that Clement did not tell anyone what to do. There was no Canon Law for more than 1,000 years nor was there a Papacy when Clement was Bishop of Rome.

Feel free to develop your own retroactive history. You cannot apply your Canon Law retroactively

it was a pastoral letter from one equal church to another [...] Clement had no direct authority over the church at Corinth.

Bishops to not write "pastoral" letters telling their fellow bishops what to do; it is a severe violation of the Canon Law.

Forget for the moment that Clement did not tell anyone what to do. There was no Canon Law for more than 1,000 years nor was there a Papacy when Clement was Bishop of Rome.

Feel free to develop your own retroactive history. You cannot apply your Canon Law retroactively

There was no Canon Law for more than 1,000 years

On that, you are quite wrong. This is the relevant canon from c. AD 400:

35. The bishops of every country ought to know who is the chief among them, and to esteem him as their head, and not to do any great thing without his consent; but every one to manage only the affairs that belong to his own parish, and the places subject to it. But let him not do anything without the consent of all; for it is by this means there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified by Christ, in the Holy Spirit.
36. A bishop must not venture to ordain out of his own bounds for cities or countries that are not subject to him. But if he be convicted of having done so without the consent of such as governed those cities or countries, let him be deprived, both the bishop himself and those whom he has ordained.

(Apostolic Constitution Book VIII )

Condescension aside, I understand all too well the Roman Catholic doctrine regarding salvation by faith and works. What you seem to fail to understand is that those who have come from that religious expression into the light of the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ do not automatically forget their previous teachings. You say the "Catholic" belief is that we are saved by God's grace. Well and good. If not for his grace towards us, we would have no hope of redemption. But grace is God's action towards us and, in order for grace to be grace, it means that it is offered freely. Grace (charis), by its very definition, means the state of kindness and favor towards someone, often with a focus on a benefit given to the object. In other words, by an act of mercy and love, God chose to redeem us from condemnation, not because of our own merit or worth but because of his grace. Consequently, he also spells out to us how we acquire this grace, which is called a gift. Romans 5:1,2 says: Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand. So we access grace by faith, according to Scripture.

My point was that you cannot make a gift a reward for works, it no longer is grace but is instead deserved or earned. Grace is God's gift to us which we then receive by faith. You may choose to deny it but God is definitely clear in his word that faith is what he expects of us and our actions become an outgrowth of the work of the Holy Spirit within us. The place of works in a Christian's life is as evidence of the new nature. To claim that works supplement faith in the receiving of the gift is to cast aside the grace of God in favor of human merit. Trusting in anything else than the blood of Jesus Christ to save us from our sins is rejecting the gift of eternal life.

God chose to redeem us from condemnation, not because of our own merit or worth but because of his grace. Consequently, he also spells out to us how we acquire this grace, which is called a gift. Romans 5:1,2 says: Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand. So we access grace by faith, according to Scripture.

Yes. This is all true and you did retain it from the Catholic Church.

To claim that works supplement faith in the receiving of the gift is to cast aside the grace of God in favor of human merit

Both faith and good works is what we do under grace. You are correct when you say that "our actions become an outgrowth of the work of the Holy Spirit within us" but the same applies to faith also. We are not saved by merely responding to grace with faith but also by choosing to do those good works, -- we are not saved by faith alone but we are saved by grace alone:

[5] Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ, (by whose grace you are saved,) [6] And hath raised us up together, and hath made us sit together in the heavenly places, through Christ Jesus. [7] That he might shew in the ages to come the abundant riches of his grace, in his bounty towards us in Christ Jesus. [8] For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; [9] Not of works, that no man may glory. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them. (Eph. 2)
by works faith was made perfect (James 2:22)
[6] Who will render to every man according to his works. [7] To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life: [8] But to them that are contentious, and who obey not the truth, but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation. [9] Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek. [10] But glory, and honour, and peace to every one that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (Romans 2)

Yes.

“All is grace”.

ALL

There was no Canon Law for more than 1,000 years

On that, you are quite wrong. This is the relevant canon from c. AD 400:

35. The bishops of every country ought to know who is the chief among them, and to esteem him as their head, and not to do any great thing without his consent; but every one to manage only the affairs that belong to his own parish, and the places subject to it. But let him not do anything without the consent of all; for it is by this means there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified by Christ, in the Holy Spirit.

36. A bishop must not venture to ordain out of his own bounds for cities or countries that are not subject to him. But if he be convicted of having done so without the consent of such as governed those cities or countries, let him be deprived, both the bishop himself and those whom he has ordained.

(Apostolic Constitution Book VIII)

Oh come now, I find it difficult to understand how it is possible for anyone to claim the Apostolic Constitution ever purported to be Canon Law.

Further, and probably more important, the Apostolic Constitution is agreed upon as a forgery by both Catholic and Protestant scholars.

Even the "friendly" Catholic Encyclopedia finds it necessary to acknowledge this in it's opening pagagraph:

"A fourth-century pseudo-Apostolic collection, in eight books, of independent, though closely related, treatises on Christian , worship, and doctrine , intended to serve as a manual of guidance for the clergy , and to some extent for the laity."

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA - APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS

I repeat; There was no Canon Law in the early Church!

Please make an effort to support your arguments with historical fact.

the Apostolic Constitution is agreed upon as a forgery by both Catholic and Protestant scholars.

They believe fables and lies.

From your link:

Only that portion of it to which has been given the name "Apostolic Canons" was received; but even the fifty of these canons which had then been accepted by the Western Church were not regarded as of certain Apostolic origin. Where known, however, the Apostolic Constitutions were held generally in high esteem and served as the basis for much ecclesiastical legislation.

What forgery? An "apostolic constitution" is a certain type of papal document; the term is in use today. It does not pretend to be written by the Holy Apostles. The issue you raise is, was there a canon law and the answer is that most certainly there was such as soon as the Councils were able to convene. This particular document, Book 8, speaks to the issue in focus, jurisdictional authority, and is written in the form of legislation: it is meant to be law, and it was law.

Nor is it the oldest; here is a similar canon of the Synod of Ancyra (AD 314), even though it does not speak directly to the issue of jurisdiction among installed bishops. This surely shows that -- again, as soon as the Church could assemble openly as a single body, -- the Church legislated, just as Christ wanted her to (Acts 20:28, Matthew 18:18).

Canon 18
If any who have been constituted bishops, but have not been received by the parish to which they were designated, shall invade other parishes and wrong the constituted [bishops] there, stirring up seditions against them, let such persons be suspended from office and communion. But if they are willing to accept a seat among the presbyterate, where they formerly were presbyters, let them not be deprived of that honour. But if they shall act seditiously against the bishops established there, the honour of the presbyterate also shall be taken from them and themselves expelled.
Council of Ancyra (A.D. 314)

Oh, that’s rich — do you consdier the Apostolic Creed to be a forgery too? Does this mean that you agree with the unitarians in denying the Trinity?

From your link:

Only that portion of it to which has been given the name "Apostolic Canons" was received; but even the fifty of these canons which had then been accepted by the Western Church were not regarded as of certain Apostolic origin. Where known, however, the Apostolic Constitutions were held generally in high esteem and served as the basis for much ecclesiastical legislation.

What forgery? An "apostolic constitution" is a certain type of papal document; the term is in use today. It does not pretend to be written by the Holy Apostles. The issue you raise is, was there a canon law and the answer is that most certainly there was such as soon as the Councils were able to convene. This particular document, Book 8, speaks to the issue in focus, jurisdictional authority, and is written in the form of legislation: it is meant to be law, and it was law.

Nor is it the oldest; here is a similar canon of the Synod of Ancyra (AD 314), even though it does not speak directly to the issue of jurisdiction among installed bishops. This surely shows that -- again, as soon as the Church could assemble openly as a single body, -- the Church legislated, just as Christ wanted her to (Acts 20:28, Matthew 18:18).

Canon 18

If any who have been constituted bishops, but have not been received by the parish to which they were designated, shall invade other parishes and wrong the constituted [bishops] there, stirring up seditions against them, let such persons be suspended from office and communion. But if they are willing to accept a seat among the presbyterate, where they formerly were presbyters, let them not be deprived of that honour. But if they shall act seditiously against the bishops established there, the honour of the presbyterate also shall be taken from them and themselves expelled.

Council of Ancyra (A.D. 314)

Please pay attention. The meaning of words is important and the misuse of these words, whether intentional or not, is dangerously misleading.

1. The first paragraph of the Catholic Encyclopedia link I provided:

A fourth-century pseudo-Apostolic collection, in eight books, of independent, though closely related, treatises on Christian discipline, worship, and doctrine, intended to serve as a manual of guidance for the clergy, and to some extent for the laity.

2. (Dictionary.com) pseu·do /ËˆsudoÊŠ/

–adjective

1. not actually but having the appearance of; pretended; false or spurious; sham.

3. The so-called Apostolic Constitutions were "pretended", "false", "spurious". ie. a forgery.

I invite you to provide documentation concerning the authenticity of "The Apostolic Constitutions". Failing that it is disingenuous to quote them as "proof" of any argument.

4. The "Canons" of any Council, are not, and never have been, Canon Law. They are two different animals.

5. I believe it is important for you to learn the distinction between "Canon Law" and a Canon of a Council whether fake or real. Failing that I have no interesting in pursuing this dead end.

6. I repeat: There was no Canon Law for more than 1,000 years.