30 thousand denominations?

[DrumminFool91]

Well, aren’t we all missing the point? Well numerically 9000 is certainly a smaller number than 30,000, the fact remains that there is a HUGE number of “Christian” churches that all claim to follow the Holy Spirit’s interpretation… of course, pay no attention to the conflicting doctrines. There is a problem here - either somebody’s the true church, or we’re all wrong. Once you chuck out the visible, authoritative Catholic Church established by Christ, you’re free to do whatever you like. Division is a tool of the Devil. And right now, we are being divided and sub-divided. Today the number is 9000, tomorrow who knows? 10,000? 20,000? This splitting of the church isn’t a testament to the truth of Christianity, but rather to relativism.

 

[a_Pole_ogist]

The last time I read an explanation from the editor of that book, he counted the Roman Catholic Church, that is, those in communion with the Pope, as 236 Churches in 238 countries. The other figures are arrived at in a similar manner, by counting countries separately. In the definition used in the book, a denomination always refers to a single country. It has to do with what the book is supposed to be documenting. A good explanation, with quotes, is here:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a106.htm

GKC

Thx, I see it now. However that problem apply fully only to Catholic Church. Other “ecclesial communities” are quite often different in different countries. Lutheran Church in USA teach quite different Gospel then Luteran Church in Poland. Heck, they usually teach different Gospel in every city, and every church.

But even If we take those few historical groups, like Anglicans, Lutherans and Presbyterians and lists them together, we still would have tens of thousand denominations. Especially, that all the new Lutheran and Presbyterian churches are independent

And actually doesn’t matter if today we have 40 000 of them, or “only” 30 000. Besides, the number is growing weekly and all the newcomers are always independent churches, not a new countries with new Anglican, Catholic, or Lutheran churches.

 

[GKC]

Thx, I see it now. However that problem apply fully only to Catholic Church. Other “ecclesial communities” are quite often different in different countries. Lutheran Church in USA teach quite different Gospel then Luteran Church in Poland. Heck, they usually teach different Gospel in every city, and every church.

But even If we take those few historical groups, like Anglicans, Lutherans and Presbyterians and lists them together, we still would have tens of thousand denominations. Especially, that all the new Lutheran and Presbyterian churches are independent

And actually doesn’t matter if today we have 40 000 of them, or “only” 30 000. Besides, the number is growing weekly and all the newcomers are always independent churches, not a new countries with new Anglican, Catholic, or Lutheran churches.

True. And as an Anglican, I can see problems with the manner in which he divides Anglicans; it is illogical. But it is the way in which this reference book looks at Christianity as a whole, and while not how I would do it, I can understand what is being done.

My point is not that there is not some number of Churches/denominations, but that how the specific 30,000/33,000/35,000 (pick one) figure is actually derived is rarely understood. If it is taken as 33,000, included in that is some 240 counts of the Catholic Churches in communion with Rome.

GKC

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Begging your pardon, but it looks like you still think like a Protestant, since you still think you can decide matters of faith by yourself, apart from the authority of the Church. If you do not accept the Church’s claim to be an infallible guide in matters of faith and morals, then what was the point of becoming Catholic? If you think the Church is capable of steering you wrong in matters touching the salvation of your soul, then nothing you have ever done in your life was more futile than boarding the Barque of Peter. Jesus promised to remain with the Church all days – ALL days, not SOME days – unto the consummation of the world. He also promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide her. If the Church cannot preserve intact the faith and authority He gave her, then either He failed to keep His promises – in which case He is a liar – or He did keep them, but they were of no avail – in which case He is not who He claims to be.

As for the Church’s doctrine on contraceptives: didn’t anybody teach you during your formation that as a Catholic, you are bound in conscience to accept all the Church’s doctrines, without exception, whether you like them or not? If you do not like a doctrine, or are tempted to dissent from it, then, in view of the fact that the Church speaks with the authority of Christ, you have a duty to assume that the fault lies with you, and take steps to rectify the problem. It is prideful in the extreme for a child of the Church to take the position that he is somehow wiser and more knowledgeable than the Church founded by Jesus Christ, which speaks with His authority and His voice.

So back in the days of the Inquisition, with the auto da fe, I wouldn’t be allowed to use my own brains, which God also gave to me, to object to it, despite the fact the church obviously approved of it?

Or the killing of Protestants if they didn’t recant, eg. the Hugenots in France?

Or the Crusades?

Or the excommunication of Galileo, for which infallible decision the previous Pope apologised. How’s that for church teaching. Make a decision one century and apologise for it five centuries, and then have somebody tell you the church is guarded infallibly from error.

Don’t give me that. God’'s given me a brain to think with, and He expects me to use it.

 

[DrumminFool91]

So back in the days of the Inquisition, with the auto da fe, I wouldn’t be allowed to use my own brains, which God also gave to me, to object to it, despite the fact the church obviously approved of it?

Or the killing of Protestants if they didn’t recant, eg. the Hugenots in France?

Or the Crusades?

Or the excommunication of Galileo, for which infallible decision the previous Pope apologised. How’s that for church teaching. Make a decision one century and apologise for it five centuries, and then have somebody tell you the church is guarded infallibly from error.

Don’t give me that. God’'s given me a brain to think with, and He expects me to use it.

Yes God gave you a brain and expects you to use it. But, if you are charitble and give the Church you claim to believe in the benefit of the doubt and to do some research, you’ll be pleasantly surprised. The Church’s positions on the pill are not incorrect morally and the Church will never reverse itself on this one. It is because it is objectively morally evil. It’s not that the Church wants to ban contraception, it’s that it has no choice if it is to stand against what it is evil. Also the over-population theories are complete bunk - check out the article in “This Rock” here: Planet Un-Parenthood.

The killings of Protestants were most regretible… as was the killing of Catholics. Remember the sword has always cut both ways in history. But the violence wasn’t a matter of the Church’s infallibility… there may be some confusion here between impeccability and infallibility. There was never a papal statement that mandated the killing of non-Catholics and labeled it as the infallible word of God. If you know of such a document, then please share it.

Galilleo wasn’t excommunicated based on his scientific research, nor did the Pope apologize for that. He was excommunicated based on his disobediance to the Church and his publishing of some heretical theological positions. Again some good research can be done just a click away: Galileo Controversy

**I wanted to add a little tiny bit about the Crusades… Do you know why the first crusade was undertaken? I just wanted to issue a bit of a challenge.

Give your Church the benefit of the doubt here and really check out what it has to say. I felt the same way you did about birth control. My wife (who was my girlfriend at the time which shows you just how out of line we were) really thought the Church was just being slow with its rules - and after all, it’s run by a bunch of old-school church-ladies right? Well, I really had to eat my hat on that one later in life and not with out much debate. I sincerely hope that after a while you might change your mind on this one as well.

 

[Victorious]

So back in the days of the Inquisition, with the auto da fe, I wouldn’t be allowed to use my own brains, which God also gave to me, to object to it, despite the fact the church obviously approved of it?

Or the killing of Protestants if they didn’t recant, eg. the Hugenots in France?

Or the Crusades?

Or the excommunication of Galileo, for which infallible decision the previous Pope apologised. How’s that for church teaching. Make a decision one century and apologise for it five centuries, and then have somebody tell you the church is guarded infallibly from error.

Don’t give me that. God’'s given me a brain to think with, and He expects me to use it.

God gave you a brain to think with, but He still expects you to believe the truths He has revealed. The mere fact that He has revealed them, without more, is sufficient reason to accept them and not doubt them. Otherwise, you must not believe that God is God.

As for the historical examples you cite, take a closer look at your history. (1) The Church has never put heretics to death. At a time when heresy was an offense against the state as well as against the Church, it was the state that put heretics to death. (2) The Crusades had as their legitimate object the safeguarding of Christian interests against the aggression of non-Christians. (3) Galileo was not excommunicated, and the Church never invoked infallibility against heleocentrism.

I ask again: if you think the Church is capable of steering you wrong, then why are you in it?

 

[GKC]

So back in the days of the Inquisition, with the auto da fe, I wouldn’t be allowed to use my own brains, which God also gave to me, to object to it, despite the fact the church obviously approved of it?

Or the killing of Protestants if they didn’t recant, eg. the Hugenots in France?

Or the Crusades?

Or the excommunication of Galileo, for which infallible decision the previous Pope apologised. How’s that for church teaching. Make a decision one century and apologise for it five centuries, and then have somebody tell you the church is guarded infallibly from error.

Don’t give me that. God’'s given me a brain to think with, and He expects me to use it.

Oops. Point made above.

As always, I recommend de Santillana’s THE CRIME OF GALILEO to understand what happened, and why.

GKC

 

[po18guy]

It’s quite the exaggeration, but some folks find it useful when they’re arguing a point.

Any number greater than “1” is unacceptable. So, we work for unity, as the Holy Spirit always leads to unity. Amen.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

God gave you a brain to think with, but He still expects you to believe the truths He has revealed. The mere fact that He has revealed them, without more, is sufficient reason to accept them and not doubt them. Otherwise, you must not believe that God is God.

As for the historical examples you cite, take a closer look at your history. (1) The Church has never put heretics to death. At a time when heresy was an offense against the state as well as against the Church, it was the state that put heretics to death. (2) The Crusades had as their legitimate object the safeguarding of Christian interests against the aggression of non-Christians. (3) Galileo was not excommunicated, and the Church never invoked infallibility against heleocentrism.

I ask again: if you think the Church is capable of steering you wrong, then why are you in it?

Saying the state put heretics to death is a piece of sophistry. The church was right behind it. I suppose you’ll tell me now that technically the Jews didn’t put Christ to death - the Romans did. It was the church which tried heretics.

Galileo was “tried on suspicion of heresy”. So what was the heresy, if the church was so infallible? Incidentally I’ve just read elsewhere that statements by the “Inquisition” are not necessarily “infallible”. So where do you draw the line?

I’m in the Catholic Church because I think it’s CLOSEST to the truth. But God doesn’t expect me to just blindly accept every church teaching without even thinking about it. Had Peter had his way, the very fist Pope, we’d all have been circumcised, but he had to be rebuked by Paul.

Finally I think God’s going to push us off the planet into space. I think we’ll make such a mess (eg. “The sun scorched men with it’s rays”, “a third of the fish died etc”), that we’ll have to move off the planet to have any sort of life. In the early days of space settlement, resources will be so scarce and the difficulties so pronounced, there will simply be no room for too many children. We’re already moving with the technology, including the earliest stages of teleportation. Space medicine, artificial intelligence, space stations, robotics are all advancing rapidly. Give a nuclear war or two, I think we might find He’s set up the timetable just in time to make us move. We wouldn’t go otherwise.

What’s the church going to tell the space pioneers who will have a hard enough time just surviving? Don’t use artificial contraceptives?

 

[Victorious]

Saying the state put heretics to death is a piece of sophistry. The church was right behind it. I suppose you’ll tell me now that technically the Jews didn’t put Christ to death - the Romans did. It was the church which tried heretics.

Galileo was “tried on suspicion of heresy”. So what was the heresy, if the church was so infallible? Incidentally I’ve just read elsewhere that statements by the “Inquisition” are not necessarily “infallible”. So where do you draw the line?

I’m in the Catholic Church because I think it’s CLOSEST to the truth. But God doesn’t expect me to just blindly accept every church teaching without even thinking about it. Had Peter had his way, the very fist Pope, we’d all have been circumcised, but he had to be rebuked by Paul.

I detect a great deal of incomplete understanding here. Part of using your brain in the manner God expects is acquiring knowledge. You can’t think with precision about the Church’s claims and doctrines until you know what they are. There is nothing secret about them, so there is no excuse for not finding them out. It also wouldn’t hurt to learn some history.

P.S. We all put Christ to death, by our sins.

 

[a_Pole_ogist]

What that has to do with this tread? Can you guys go argue somewhere else?

 

[kalt]

Have you ever read the other side of the story? While you church makes a claim that it’s infallible, your church’s apologists certainly aren’t infallible.

You don’t understand what infallibile means in the Catholic Church.

 

[ejb21]

You don’t understand what infallibile means in the Catholic Church.

I’m trying to follow the posts here. It might help some if we are on the same page as to what infallibility means. My understanding (and please correct me if I’m wrong) is that infallibility means the Catholic Church can not teach error.

 

[SemperReformada]

You don’t understand what infallibile means in the Catholic Church.

I understand infallibility very well.

What makes you say I don’t?

 

[a_Pole_ogist]

Hmm… let me ask you, guys,again… What it has to do with theme of this tread? With question about number of Christian denominations?

Can you. please, find treads about Galileo, infallibility, what means to be real Catholic and crusades somewhere else on this forums? Let s keep it clean, otherwise nobody will be able to find anything here. Thanks.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Hmm… let me ask you, guys,again… What it has to do with theme of this tread? With question about number of Christian denominations?

Can you. please, find treads about Galileo, infallibility, what means to be real Catholic and crusades somewhere else on this forums? Let s keep it clean, otherwise nobody will be able to find anything here. Thanks.

If you go back through the posts, I originally made an observation that I could easilfy believe 30,000 Protestant denominations worldwide as I could find at least 20 (easily) merely by going for a drive within a 10 mile radius.

This brought a challenge by a Protestant that our apologists weren’t infallible. I tend to agree (as a former Protestant) and brought in some arguments against infallibility (the wrong word in my opinion - it should be “binding” which is what Christ used - at no time did I hear Christ say Peter would be infallible in his teachings - he himself nearly reverted to enforcing circumcision at one stage, after initially denying Christ three times. The same man who denied Christ later pronounced the death sentence on Ananias and Sapphira for lying.).

I also pointed out my difference on opinion on the contraceptive pill which I believe was God’s gift given at the very time population pressures were becoming a real problem. Witness China’s draconian and desperate measures to control their own burgeoning population - easy to sit in Western comfort in less than crowded cities and pontificate that they shouldn’t make any effort to control their numbers.

Naturally this brought a response from a traditionalist.

And so we go to where we were.

Meanwhile back to 30,000 or more denominations worldwide - I have no trouble believing it. I lifted the following web site as one result of searching for “different Baptist denominations in the US” and got about 75 (I make no claim to infallibility for my counting, unlike Catholic doctrine). And that’s just the divisions in the Baptist movement. The table appears to be for North America as a whole, including Canada.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Baptist_denominations_in_North_America

 

[a_Pole_ogist]

If you go back through the posts, I originally made an observation that I could easilfy believe 30,000 Protestant denominations worldwide as I could find at least 20 (easily) merely by going for a drive within a 10 mile radius.

This brought a challenge by a Protestant that our apologists weren’t infallible. I tend to agree (as a former Protestant) and brought in some arguments against infallibility …

I know the mechanism of that. I have my own little forum and I have problems with off topics all the time. It’s natural. I just wanted to stop it, because soon nobody would remember where we start and what we talking about.

Meanwhile back to 30,000 or more denominations worldwide - I have no trouble believing it. I lifted the following web site as one result of searching for “different Baptist denominations in the US” and got about 75 (I make no claim to infallibility for my counting, unlike Catholic doctrine). And that’s just the divisions in the Baptist movement. The table appears to be for North America as a whole, including Canada.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Baptist_denominations_in_North_America

You right. And I wasn’t looking for concrete proof, that we have exactly 33827 denominations, or so. I wanted know how they were calculated, by whom, and where I can find source. I’ve got my answers.

It doesn’t matter that calculation like this is wrong. It has to be. Nobody can count exactly every new ecclesiastic community, or sect, if every day springs several of them in many different countries. And if he made mistake calculating as a single churches those, who belong to one international body, likie Catholics, some Orthodox, or Anglicans, he my miscalculated by couple of thousand. But he certainly is in the right neighborhood. Very unfortunately, I may add.

Let’s all pray for unity of all Christians. It is great scandal, that we are separated and that we are faithing with each other. I strongly recommend great lecture by Peter Kreeft about true ecumenism, which he gave in Episcopalian Church (here I go with another off-toping ) You can listen to it here: (links from his website, peterkreeft.com/audio.htm )

** Ecumenism-mp3**
… or read it here:
Ecumenism Without Compromise—Transcription

He is funny, he is smart and he is right. And we can do it. Jesus prayed for it, so it has to be possible. We can do all things in Him.

 

[Paul3144]

The problem with the “30K denominations” is it’s a double standard. Look at how the Catholic Church has split: Orthodox, Protestants, PNCC, Old Catholic, SSPX, Anglicans, etc.

 

[Victorious]

The problem with the “30K denominations” is it’s a double standard. Look at how the Catholic Church has split: Orthodox, Protestants, PNCC, Old Catholic, SSPX, Anglicans, etc.

The Church hasn’t split. Many have broken away from the Church, and some who break away still call themselves “Catholic.” But the Catholic Church is still intact in her doctrines and under Christ’s Vicar on earth, even if defections leave her smaller.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

The problem with the “30K denominations” is it’s a double standard. Look at how the Catholic Church has split: Orthodox, Protestants, PNCC, Old Catholic, SSPX, Anglicans, etc.

Groups have broken away, although there were two just two main divisions - the Orthodox or Eastern Churches, and Protestants. I hear Protestants try to say Anglicans aren’t Protestant, but they are.

Within the Catholic Church, human nature being what it is, there are groups which from time to time try to make a mountain out of particular molehills (eg. SSPX, right wing groups peddling particular panaceas and complaints, left wing groups trying to break the mould), and sometimes they are put, or put themselves, out of communion with the church. But by and large the Catholic Church is a unity.

You can’t say that about Protestants. They’re very divided, far more so than the Orthodox church by my understanding. You have for instance the joke about old style Methodists - “Why do Methodists hang around darkened doorways? They don’t want to be seen dancing.”