33,280 Protestants and Catholic Apologists?

[Iron_Donkey]

The thing is, Protestants can then proceed to make the argument that, since Catholics, Byzantines, Orientals, and Assyrians all point to Scripture, Tradition, and Church as their sources of authority, and multiple groups claiming to teach the true faith have been in existence since the fifth century, the methodology they share is thus shown to be unworkable.

I’ve heard this as well, but the problem is that it misunderstands what we’re saying when we criticize sola scriptura in this way. The response I give:

The problem with the schismatic groups of this sort is not so much what material they accept, what it is that they read, but who it is that decides what it means.

Suppose you have a Catholic-ish group who says they follow all the same sources as Catholics do, but was formed because its founder decided, say, that a certain council went against prior Tradition, and so in professing it the leadership of the Church must have stopped being Catholic, and therefore that there cannot currently be a Pope. This Catholic-ish group is making (fundamentally) exactly the same error as the Sola Scriptura people, except they’re just reading more documents than just the bible before deciding what the truth is for themselves.

The problem here is not only that scripture does not contain the whole truth. That’s a problem, true enough, but scripture contains an awful lot of truth, and a person who started from sola scripture but interpreted it as the Church interprets it rather than however he desired would eventually discard the sola and become Catholic.

The real fundamental problem is the inherent personal interpretation thing. The idea that God gave a book (a list of books, a list of books and documents from every council up until X date), and then we each figure out what it means.

This is the same issue with all schismatic groups - someone decided that it was they who decided what everything meant rather than the Church God founded, and so they break off.

The problem is just exacerbated further when that same frame of mind is applied to Scripture only. Accept a couple Church councils, and you’d have to be really creative to discard the ordained priesthood, the eucharist, etc. Most people really are trying to follow what they read, and the more true stuff they read, the harder it is to mistakenly discard certain truths.

But again, it all stems from the question of authority - did God set up a Church to guide and protect doctrine, or did He just leave a book (a book and a few Church father writings, a book and a creed, a book and a council or two) and then say “every man for himself, let’s see what you can make of this.”

 

[fbl9]

But again, it all stems from the question of authority - did God set up a Church to guide and protect doctrine, or did He just leave a book (a book and a few Church father writings, a book and a creed, a book and a council or two) and then say “every man for himself, let’s see what you can make of this.”

And that’s why i am Catholic. Without any authority i can not accept even scriptures as being true. Nay i couldn’t even accept the Eucharist if were not for the authority of the Catholic Curch.

 

[ericc]

A lot of complaining, but no refuting what the Catholic apologists stated. (I only watched the first 5 minutes, though, as I grew tired of the ad hominem). I do think that the 33,000 (or whatever) number is a exaggerated though. Now, I’m not saying there are not that many different Protestant churches, sects, groups, etc…but I think if you actually narrowed it down to the number of unique sets of doctrine…the number would be far lower. I once read someone on this forum say that 350 might be a more realistic number. I happen to use 400 when discussing the topic…and admit that it’s just my own estimate based on the 33,000. But the real fact of the matter is that even 2 is too many. If 2 groups who both adhere to SS come to 2 unique and opposing views on even 1 doctrine…then SS has failed because there can be only 1 Truth and SS has given birth to more than 1. And it’s essentially because SS is a misnomer…a pretend idea that simply hides the true authority in an SS belief system…the individual self.

Phil Porvaznik has done a nice writeup/summary of the 33,000 number. By now , he is tracking 44,000. philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm. Interestingly, aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2218 still thinks it is a myth while it tries to steer the reader that the source indicates 242 Roman Catholic denominations. If only they have spent 5 mins understanding the data they would have realise that the database categorises RC churches by country and count each country as 1 RC denomination. So don’t be shy, you can confidently state it is not 33,000 but higher.

Also, most conversations centre around number of churches, not number of doctrines. Notwithstanding that, if the doctrine is the same, why split? There must have been differences in opinion on what their bible says to cause a split however minor.Call it nano-doctrines differences if you will.

 

[Trebor135]

I’ve heard this as well, but the problem is that it misunderstands what we’re saying when we criticize sola scriptura in this way. The response I give:

The problem with the schismatic groups of this sort is not so much what material they accept, what it is that they read, but who it is that decides what it means.

Suppose you have a Catholic-ish group who says they follow all the same sources as Catholics do, but was formed because its founder decided, say, that a certain council went against prior Tradition, and so in professing it the leadership of the Church must have stopped being Catholic, and therefore that there cannot currently be a Pope. This Catholic-ish group is making (fundamentally) exactly the same error as the Sola Scriptura people, except they’re just reading more documents than just the bible before deciding what the truth is for themselves.

The problem here is not only that scripture does not contain the whole truth. That’s a problem, true enough, but scripture contains an awful lot of truth, and a person who started from sola scripture but interpreted it as the Church interprets it rather than however he desired would eventually discard the sola and become Catholic.

The real fundamental problem is the inherent personal interpretation thing. The idea that God gave a book (a list of books, a list of books and documents from every council up until X date), and then we each figure out what it means.

This is the same issue with all schismatic groups - someone decided that it was they who decided what everything meant rather than the Church God founded, and so they break off.

The problem is just exacerbated further when that same frame of mind is applied to Scripture only. Accept a couple Church councils, and you’d have to be really creative to discard the ordained priesthood, the eucharist, etc. Most people really are trying to follow what they read, and the more true stuff they read, the harder it is to mistakenly discard certain truths.

But again, it all stems from the question of authority - did God set up a Church to guide and protect doctrine, or did He just leave a book (a book and a few Church father writings, a book and a creed, a book and a council or two) and then say “every man for himself, let’s see what you can make of this.”

The fatal flaw of your argument is that it assumes the Catholic Church to have the true faith and not be in schism, on the sole basis–it appears–of structure.

But surely those who decide against Eastern Orthodoxy et al. and in favour of Catholicism have done their own historical study of the relevant scriptural, patristic, credal, and conciliar texts, at which point they have determined that Catholicism best fits this data rather than the Eastern Churches.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

The fatal flaw of your argument is that it assumes the Catholic Church to have the true faith and not be in schism, on the sole basis–it appears–of structure.

But surely those who decide against Eastern Orthodoxy et al. and in favour of Catholicism have done their own historical study of the relevant scriptural, patristic, credal, and conciliar texts, at which point they have determined that Catholicism best fits this data rather than the Eastern Churches.

Not really, my argument is really an explanation of why referencing other groups that hold to Tradition does not shoot down our problem with protestant groups interpreting whatever they accept however they will. I would not take this approach with the Orthodox or similar, because the Orthodox do not believe they split from Catholicism whereas the others do. There can be no doubt that the Sede-Vacante people split from Catholicism, not the other way around. Likewise, Martin Luther very obviously left the Church because of his own interpretations and not the other way around.

I do believe that the Orthodox made the same error (as presumably the Orthodox believe of us) and that it is the many parts of the East broke from the West and not the other way around, but this argument is against creating schisms based on one’s own readings, not a method for determining who schismed from whom.

If we leave the Orthodox vs Catholic distinction as an unknown for the moment (just because getting in to that would be off topic), then what this would mean is that either the Catholics or the Orthodox is the true Church containing the interpreting authority. In either case, going off to start one’s own Church is wrong - a person in one who comes to believe that the authority rests in the other would logically only be able to switch between the two, not make is own based on his own non-existent authority.

So in short - NO person can schism, because if God made a teaching authority, and it’s silly to believe He didn’t, then it’s still around, and it’s not “whatever I feel like is true is”. Saying that other people did a long time ago does not make it good now. If a person comes to believe that the teaching authority does not exist in the Catholic (resp. Orthodox) Church, but does not simply wish to set up himself as the ultimate authority and recognizes that such an authority does exist, then his only option is to become Orthodox (resp. Catholic). One of the two is original, and the other is wrong, and the one that is wrong made the error that I am talking about, and the fact that one of the two made that error does not excuse making it again.

Obviously, I think the Catholic Church is the original Church Christ founded, but I recognize that the waters are a bit muddied when it comes to Orthodox vs Catholic so that that’s not quiet as clear as that, say, the 322nd Church of Bob’s Opinion is not the original Church founded by Christ.

 

[Trebor135]

Not really, my argument is really an explanation of why referencing other groups that hold to Tradition does not shoot down our problem with protestant groups interpreting whatever they accept however they will. I would not take this approach with the Orthodox or similar, because the Orthodox do not believe they split from Catholicism whereas the others do. There can be no doubt that the Sede-Vacante people split from Catholicism, not the other way around. Likewise, Martin Luther very obviously left the Church because of his own interpretations and not the other way around.

I do believe that the Orthodox made the same error (as presumably the Orthodox believe of us) and that it is the many parts of the East broke from the West and not the other way around, but this argument is against creating schisms based on one’s own readings, not a method for determining who schismed from whom.

If we leave the Orthodox vs Catholic distinction as an unknown for the moment (just because getting in to that would be off topic), then what this would mean is that either the Catholics or the Orthodox is the true Church containing the interpreting authority. In either case, going off to start one’s own Church is wrong - a person in one who comes to believe that the authority rests in the other would logically only be able to switch between the two, not make is own based on his own non-existent authority.

So in short - NO person can schism, because if God made a teaching authority, and it’s silly to believe He didn’t, then it’s still around, and it’s not “whatever I feel like is true is”. Saying that other people did a long time ago does not make it good now. If a person comes to believe that the teaching authority does not exist in the Catholic (resp. Orthodox) Church, but does not simply wish to set up himself as the ultimate authority and recognizes that such an authority does exist, then his only option is to become Orthodox (resp. Catholic). One of the two is original, and the other is wrong, and the one that is wrong made the error that I am talking about, and the fact that one of the two made that error does not excuse making it again.

Obviously, I think the Catholic Church is the original Church Christ founded, but I recognize that the waters are a bit muddied when it comes to Orthodox vs Catholic so that that’s not quiet as clear as that, say, the 322nd Church of Bob’s Opinion is not the original Church founded by Christ.

OK, I believe I understand your position better now. So, you’re against an individual starting their own group based on whatever they happen to think is true doctrine, but not against him accepting the faith handed down from the apostles as best as he can discern it. That makes sense.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

OK, I believe I understand your position better now. So, you’re against an individual starting their own group based on whatever they happen to think is true doctrine, but not against him accepting the faith handed down from the apostles as best as he can discern it. That makes sense.

Essentially, yes. I do of course believe that there is a right answer, but I would not accuse a person who is simply trying to discern the best that they can where this answer lies of relativism (though I do think that recognition of this issue can be used to rule out a few choices).

(I do think that after saying so much against protestantism I have to say that I certainly recognize that protestants are mostly good people honestly doing their best to seek God, and there is a lot to admire in the ways that they do so. I’m not in fact trying to demonize them or call them stupid - I just think they’re wrong, and if the reason seems obvious to me I also recognize that I’ve been steeped in Catholicism since birth and what seems obvious and what takes a lot of work to get to varies based on one’s initial beliefs.)