30 thousand denominations?

[happilycatholic]

These different denominations don’t “believe whatever they want”. Their beliefs and traditions differ from yours and in mine, in many cases. The difference between us is that you’re the only claiming that your beliefs are the only ones which contain validity.

Actually, they do believe what they want to believe and so do you and I. I choose and want to believe in the Church I believe holds the Truth. In your case, you choose the Episcopalian church. In most cases “their beliefs and traditions” differ from those taught by Christ and his apostles.

And no, I am not claiming my beliefs are the only valid ones. There are lots of churches within Christianity that have valid beliefs. I am catholic for the same reason you are Episcopalian. I believe the catholic Church holds the “whole” (T)ruth and not certain valid points.

And, to a non-Christian, the differences in these beliefs are quite minor indeed.

I agree, to a non-Christian that would probably be so.

 

[O.S.Luke]

This is becoming less about numbers and more anti-Protestant rhetoric. It certainly isn’t apologetics.

 

[happilycatholic]

This is becoming less about numbers and more anti-Protestant rhetoric. It certainly isn’t apologetics.

I agree, but how much can you say about numbers? There are denominations because there are differeing beliefs. How can there be differing beliefs in the Church Christ left with us?

Do you have any specific (name removed by moderator)ut on the numbers or why there are so many? Even if there were 20. That would be 20 differing opinions that didn’t exist in the Church at the time of Christ.

How do you justify that? How do you validate that?

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t see how you can simultaneously describe the existence of these numerous denominations as “chaos” but then say you’re not claiming it’s a black mark against Protestantism.

All I’m saying is that the statistic is staggering and scandalous and does point out the fallacy that “the Holy Spirit will inspire me to understand Scripture.”

 

[PRmerger]

It certainly isn’t apologetics.

I think you have too narrow a view of why people come to these forums.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Oh no… it becomes clearer to me day by day why a lot of folks come to these forums. Of that, you need not have any worries at all.

 

[O.S.Luke]

I agree, but how much can you say about numbers? There are denominations because there are differeing beliefs. How can there be differing beliefs in the Church Christ left with us?

There have been differing beliefs since the beginning of Christendom… or there wouldn’t have been any heresies to combat or Ecumenical Councils to call.

Do you have any specific (name removed by moderator)ut on the numbers or why there are so many? Even if there were 20. That would be 20 differing opinions that didn’t exist in the Church at the time of Christ.

How do you justify that? How do you validate that?

I don’t justify or validate it - it’s tragic. Christian history has been clear, however, even from Paul’s writings, that where two or three are gathered, one (or two) are certain to disagree. That’s original sin.

 

[happilycatholic]

Okay, this thread by it’s nature is offensive to protestants. We have to admit that. I for one was not catechized to believe that protestants are “less Christian” than I am. I was taught that non-catholics are less informed or *maybe *mistakenly informed. But isn’t that what protestants believe about catholics?

If you can’t take a little differing point-of-view, then don’t come to thread incinuating a differing point-of-view.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh no… it becomes clearer to me day by day why a lot of folks come to these forums. Of that, you need not have any worries at all.

Hmmm…so why do* you* think I have I come to the CAFs?

 

[happilycatholic]

There have been differing beliefs since the beginning of Christendom… or there wouldn’t have been any heresies to combat or Ecumenical Councils to call.

But we aren’t talking differing beliefs here. We are talking differences, sometimes major ones such as the Eucharist, in doctrine. This is not about John and Jane Doe deciding that they don’t like the way the preacher preaches. This is about our spiritual direction. The Apostles weren’t all running in different directions. Yes, the people may, but NOT the Church. That is why there is a difference in the basic doctrine of what “The Church” is between catholics and protestants and hence this very argument.

O.S., you can’t tell me that this (any number of denominations declaring themselves guided by the Holy Spirit) is what you believe Christ intended. And if not this, then what? One Church guided in Truth by the Holy Spirit. It is what I believe. It doesn’t have to be what you believe.

I don’t justify or validate it - it’s tragic. Christian history has been clear, however, even from Paul’s writings, that where two or three are gathered, one (or two) are certain to disagree. That’s original sin.

And when that happens, there must be a definite. That is the Church. There MUST be Truth above all other opinions and/or interpretations*. That* was Paul’s point. We have to have something to depend on. Christ said that was Peter at the time. I doubt that he would leave Peter in charge just to have the very same circumstance come about at the time of Peter’s death with no resolution.

The authority was to have been passed down from Christ to Peter and so on, without end. It’s the only way there *can *be one Church with one absolute Truth.

Again, this is my belief. It doesn’t have to be yours.

 

[oberyn3]

Okay, this thread by it’s nature is offensive to protestants. We have to admit that. I for one was not catechized to believe that protestants are “less Christian” than I am. I was taught that non-catholics are less informed or *maybe *mistakenly informed.

I applaud that. I would hope that every catholic believes that catholicism has it “right” or at least “more right” than non-catholic denonimations.

I’m an Episcopalian. I attend catholic mass (without, obviously, taking communion) 3-5 days per week. This is due to its proximity to my place of employment. Daily worship is a part of my life, but it’s simply not feasible for me to travel to my home church body for a noon service. I feel this (attending mass) has enriched my personal relationship with God and I have always felt welcome.

I came to this forum (lurking, mostly) in order to better understand the history, traditions, and doctrines of the church I was attending. I don’t believe catholics are “less Christian” than I am, though, nor can I boil down differences of opinion to right vs. wrong.

I also don’t find the thread title offensive, I just think there’s a bit of intellectual dishonesty going on in citing the 30,000 denominations claim as evidence of what’s “wrong” with Protestantism.

 

[happilycatholic]

I applaud that. I would hope that every catholic believes that catholicism has it “right” or at least “more right” than non-catholic denonimations.

I’m an Episcopalian. I attend catholic mass (without, obviously, taking communion) 3-5 days per week. This is due to its proximity to my place of employment. Daily worship is a part of my life, but it’s simply not feasible for me to travel to my home church body for a noon service. I feel this (attending mass) has enriched my personal relationship with God and I have always felt welcome.

I came to this forum (lurking, mostly) in order to better understand the history, traditions, and doctrines of the church I was attending. I don’t believe catholics are “less Christian” than I am, though, nor can I boil down differences of opinion to right vs. wrong.

I also don’t find the thread title offensive, I just think there’s a bit of intellectual dishonesty going on in citing the 30,000 denominations claim as evidence of what’s “wrong” with Protestantism.

I would like to add to this at the risk of being pummeled by my catholic brothers and sisters.

There are most likely protestants that are closer in their relationship with God than catholics. There may even be folks that have never stepped foot in a church that are closure to God than I am. What I do know is that if your heart is pure, God will know that. If you believe with all your heart that you have the Truth and you live by the Word, then you have a very rare and unique relationship with our Lord.

No one can judge that.

For me, that requires the Church. I feel my spirit, my soul, is at it’s home in the Church. Everything I know intimately about Christ, I learned as I was becoming catholic. I cannot say with certainty that it is the same for everyone.

 

[oberyn3]

I would like to add to this at the risk of being pummeled by my catholic brothers and sisters.

There are most likely protestants that are closer in their relationship with God than catholics. There may even be folks that have never stepped foot in a church that are closure to God than I am. What I do know is that if your heart is pure, God will know that. If you believe with all your heart that you have the Truth and you live by the Word, then you have a very rare and unique relationship with our Lord.

No one can judge that.

For me, that requires the Church. I feel my spirit, my soul, is at it’s home in the Church. Everything I know intimately about Christ, I learned as I was becoming catholic. I cannot say with certainty that it is the same for everyone.

Thank you for writing that. That is very well said indeed.

For me, I simply don’t subscribe to the belief that someone who is born and raised in a particular faith (e.g., Presbyterian) and has never had any reason to question that faith is “less Christian” than someone who is born and raised in catholicism and has similarly never had any reason to question that. I’ll use my maternal grandfather as an example. He was born a Baptist, raised a Baptist, and died a Baptist. He was not “protesting” anything. His life situation did not present him with any reason to question the body of believers to which he belonged. I can’t find fault in his Christian walk even if I don’t necessarily agree with the teachings of his particular denomination.

 

[Hebrew_Student]

I agree, I think that this has gotten way out of hand. There is no argumentation here, and no real concern for where this logic leads. Keep in mind that there are people in good standing with the Roman Catholic Church such as Father Joseph Fitzmayer and Father Raymond Brown who do not believe in inerrancy. Also, Father Raymond Brown does not believe in any kind of unanimous consent of the fathers.

The point is that there would be far greater agreement between myself and someone attending an Assemblies of God church than there ever would be between someone like a Patrick Madrid and a Raymond Brown. The problem is, as I mentioned on the other thread, you may have an infallible interpreter, but you still have to interpret the infallible interpreter. Even asking for a clarification doesn’t help, because then you have to interpret both the original statement and the clarification, and there is no guarantee that your interpretation of either will be correct. That is why, if you take all of the documents of the Catholic Church, it looks like an encyclopedia, and why it is that folks like Joseph Fitzmayer and Raymond Brown are able to remain in good standing in the Catholic Church, because they have a lot of material to work with.

Just as a conservative Catholic would say that Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmayer have come to their conclusions by not following the teachings of the Catholic Church, I would say that all of these differences in what the Bible teaches have come from not following Sola Scriptura. People have sin, and, if they love something so much, no matter how much the Bible says it is wrong, they will do everything they can to avoid the conclusion that the Bible teaches what it actually does teach. Whatever your ultimate authority is, we are sinners, and there will always be the possibility for the abuse of an infallible authority, whether it is church teaching, the scriptures, or something else.

 

[PRmerger]

I would like to add to this at the risk of being pummeled by my catholic brothers and sisters.

There are most likely protestants that are closer in their relationship with God than catholics. There may even be folks that have never stepped foot in a church that are closure to God than I am. What I do know is that if your heart is pure, God will know that. If you believe with all your heart that you have the Truth and you live by the Word, then you have a very rare and unique relationship with our Lord.

You’ll get no disagreement from me, happilycatholic! I am humbled by and deeply respectful of the love that many Protestants have for our Lord and the Bible.

Also, I know of a nun who separated herself from the Church by her vehement advocacy of priestesses, yet whose love of Christ put me to shame.

Indeed, I’ve stated on this CAF that there are many atheists who are more charitable and loving than many of us Christians.

 

[happilycatholic]

God is Great! (my apologetics…not so much)

God Bless and Peace to All. Gotta run!

~HC

 

[Peter_J]

Hi happilycatholic,

I would like to add to this at the risk of being pummeled by my catholic brothers and sisters.

There are most likely protestants that are closer in their relationship with God than catholics.

Not only do I agree with that statement, I would go so far as to say that Catholics of all different stripes would be united in agreeing with that statement. The diversity lies in how different Catholics deal with it. A striking example is the attitude expressed in this quote (emphasis added):

7). Anyone who comes in the Catholic Church thinking that they will find clouds of angels at Mass dressed as parishioners; hordes of perfect saints kneeling for communion; seminaries packed with angelic young men burning to be priests; a parish hall stacked to the ceiling with morally pure people eager to serve; and a priest without flaw or blemish, well, you’re cracked and you probably need to go back and try again. Telling Catholics that they aren’t perfect makes as much sense as telling fish they’re wet. We know already. Move on.

• Fr. Philip Neri Powell, O.P., Ph.D., Church is not Wal-Mart (UPDATED).

 

[Victorious]

1. Finally, if the Catholic apologetic view is that Protestant church x splitting from Protestant church y is a negative representation of both churches (even though neither make claims to be the “one, true, church”), then how can that be reconciled with the fact that all of these 30,000 denominations can trace their origins back, by however many degrees, to a schism with Rome? By this logic, wouldn’t these schisms reflect poorly on the Roman Catholic Church? If not, why not?

The schisms don’t reflect on the Church. They reflect on those members of the Church who chose to leave her. Meanwhile, the Church continues to preserve the faith intact and entire.

3.) No particular church or its members are perfect. From that standpoint, the one, true Church is not an organization, denomination, building, or series of buildings. It’s a body of believers. Christ, recognizing man’s imperfection, didn’t make salvation dependent upon membership in one particular “church” as opposed to another.

Jesus said: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church.” Not “churches,” but Church. The Church that Jesus founded must be of one mind as regards the Faith. Otherwise, Jesus founded a church filled with contradictions, in which case He could not be the Way, the Truth and the Life. And it is certain that Jesus wanted all of his disciples to be one, as He and the Father are one – He said so. St. Paul also warned members of the Church at Corinth against splitting off into factions.

A recognition of man’s imperfection did not move Jesus to present him with a smorgasbord of contradictory yet equally valid choices. Rather, it moved Him to give us, through the Apostles, one Faith, under the visible headship of Peter and his successors, so that we should be in no doubt what the Faith is and where it resides. (And to the extent we do doubt it, that’s our fault, not God’s.)

 

[oberyn3]

The schisms don’t reflect on the Church. They reflect on those members of the Church who chose to leave her. Meanwhile, the Church continues to preserve the faith intact and entire.

And there are those born into or raised in other denominations who, likewise, have not “left” any church body. This is why the notion of 30,000 Protestant “sects” all angrily denying the authority of Rome doesn’t, in my opinion, reflect the current state of affairs within Christianity.

I can understand why a Catholic would feel this way. I respect why a Catholic would feel this way. I simpy don’t agree with it.

Jesus said: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church.” Not “churches,” but Church.

And there are those of us who do not view Church to mean the Roman Catholic Church, nor do we view doctrinal differences between denominations as being indicative of contradictions as to basic truths.

And with that, I will return to lurking as my intention is not to debate or to pretend that I somehow speak for or am obliged to defend “Protestantism”. I have never been a member of the RCC. I had no membership in the Roman Catholic Church to deny or renounce. So, what exactly am I “protesting”?

 

[Paul3144]

The schisms don’t reflect on the Church. They reflect on those members of the Church who chose to leave her.

Or people who get kicked out against their will, like Martin Luther.