Are Protestants part of other Religions?

[Peter_J]

I think you’re right commenter: the “30,000 protestant denominations” figure means very little.

 

[GKC]

But PietroPaolo gets the credit for first bringing up the “30,000 denominations”.

First in two days, maybe.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Catholics, stop throwing around those statistics, like Protestantism is supposedly divided into 20,000, or whatever the current number, of churches. No one, not one single Protestant in 500 years, ever converted to Catholicism after hearing that. Do you really think Joe Baptist will read something, then say “My God, the number of Protestant denominations is up to 30,000 now? Here I thought it was only 5,000! My eyes are open. Take me to the nearest RCIA.”

The figure is meaningless. Many Christians are in doctrinal and spiritual unity, though they belong to different denominations. Others are opposed to each other, in the same denomination. Many denominations began as historical accidents that don’t really divide Christians today.

In response, Protestants throw in that there are what, 20 or 200, different Catholic churches. Also meaningless. In my perspective, there is one Catholic Church, by which I include those who recognize the Pope as the Vicar of Christ. It includes Latin and Eastern Rite (Catholic) Churches. There are many raised as Catholics who now don’t accept that. I say they are no longer practical Catholics. There are a few who may belong to other denominations, who do accept that, and most are on the road to conversion to Rome.

But nothing, nothing is accomplished by counting denominations. Let’s count the things that unite us.

True. And always being aware how the agency that originates those numbers counts “denominations”.

GKC

 

[JonNC]

Fair enough, but this still doesn’t justify jumping to his original conclusion based on my not specifically mentioning the EO. Whether there are 30,000, 3,000, or 300 groups it is still unreasonable to expect me to list them all, which is the only point I was making when mentioning the 30,000 number. As long as the number is larger than a dozen or so (which it certainly is), his conclusion is unfounded.

Forgive me. My implication was too vague, using Holy Orthodoxy simply because you didn’t mention it… It was my intention to point out that, regardless who claims it, not one communion can claim for itself to be only and exclusively the one Church. Not Rome, not Eastern Orthodoxy, not the OO, and not Lutheranism though some have claimed it.

The fact is more than one division or schism of His Church is too many, but while there is more than one, no one communion can claim for itself to be only and exclusively the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Jon

 

[PietroPaolo]

Forgive me. My implication was too vague, using Holy Orthodoxy simply because you didn’t mention it… It was my intention to point out that, regardless who claims it, not one communion can claim for itself to be only and exclusively the one Church. Not Rome, not Eastern Orthodoxy, not the OO, and not Lutheranism though some have claimed it.

The fact is more than one division or schism of His Church is too many, but while there is more than one, no one communion can claim for itself to be only and exclusively the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Jon

Your logic doesn’t follow. Have you seen the old movie Spartacus? Just because a hundred slaves stand up and say “I am Spartacus” doesn’t mean none of them are Spartacus. In fact, one is and the rest are impostures. Well meaning impostures, but impostures nonetheless. Simply saying “a bunch of communions claim to be the one true Church”, doesn’t mean “none of them are the one true Church.”

At the end of the day, Christ established ONE Church. He promised that ONE Church would exist forever. That means it is still hear today and it was there in the first century (and every century in between). This ONE Church is the BODY (not spirit) of Christ. Bodies are visible, are tangible. This ONE Church is something you can take a disagreement to and have it resolved (you can’t do that with an invisible church of all believers). Many churches and Christians groups can claim to be that Church, but one of them is right. We may disagree over which one is right, but one of them is right or Christ is a false prophet (in that case we might as well all stop being Christian).

To the OP, the Catholic position can perhaps best be summed up by Pope Pius IX in his Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus, in which he says

“For such dignity and authority belong to the Church that she alone is the center of truth and of Catholic unity. It is the Church in which alone religion has been inviolably preserved and from which all other Churches must receive the tradition of the Faith”

That is the Catholic position. It was the Catholic position centuries before there were Protestants. It will be the Catholic position centuries after there cease to be Protestants.

 

[Peter_J]

Have you seen the old movie Spartacus? Just because a hundred slaves stand up and say “I am Spartacus” doesn’t mean none of them are Spartacus.

I think I’m gonna have to vote for this for Best Comment On The Thread.

 

[JamesTheJust]

I think I’m gonna have to vote for this for Best Comment On The Thread.

Seconded.

 

[believerdoc]

They are not part of a different religion, but they are part of a different Church.

Catholicism is not a religion, it is a Church. Christianity is a religion of which all baptised Christians are part of.

Protestants are part of the same religion as Catholics, the religion of Christianity.

AMEN!!!

 

[JonNC]

=PietroPaolo;11569122]Your logic doesn’t follow. Have you seen the old movie Spartacus? Just because a hundred slaves stand up and say “I am Spartacus” doesn’t mean none of them are Spartacus. In fact, one is and the rest are impostures. Well meaning impostures, but impostures nonetheless. Simply saying “a bunch of communions claim to be the one true Church”, doesn’t mean “none of them are the one true Church.”

Who gets to say which is “Spartacus”?
It actually mean that, in one way or another, to some degree, all of them are part of the One True Church. So, I’ve never said that “none of them are the one true Church”. I’ve said that none can claim to be only and exclusively the one true Church. Even if one want to exclude western non-Catholic communions, it does not stand to history and reason, much less tradition and scripture, that the Roman see is only and exclusively the Church.

At the end of the day, Christ established ONE Church. He promised that ONE Church would exist forever. That means it is still hear today and it was there in the first century (and every century in between). This ONE Church is the BODY (not spirit) of Christ. Bodies are visible, are tangible. This ONE Church is something you can take a disagreement to and have it resolved (you can’t do that with an invisible church of all believers). Many churches and Christians groups can claim to be that Church, but one of them is right. We may disagree over which one is right, but one of them is right or Christ is a false prophet (in that case we might as well all stop being Christian).

We confess that one true Church, every time we say the creed. There is one Church, currently and sadly in Schism and division.

Jon

 

[JamesTheJust]

Who gets to say which is “Spartacus”?
It actually mean that, in one way or another, to some degree, all of them are part of the One True Church. So, I’ve never said that “none of them are the one true Church”. I’ve said that none can claim to be only and exclusively the one true Church. Even if one want to exclude western non-Catholic communions, it does not stand to history and reason, much less tradition and scripture, that the Roman see is only and exclusively the Church.

Just as Spartacus could have been identified by detailed knowledge of his appearance and through deep questioning, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church can be identified through study of Scripture, history, tradition, and reason. I’d be surprised if you could prove using these that the “Roman see” and those in communion with her are not (exclusively) the true Church.

 

[JonNC]

Just as Spartacus could have been identified by detailed knowledge of his appearance and through deep questioning, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church can be identified through study of Scripture, history, tradition, and reason. I’d be surprised if you could prove using these that the “Roman see” and those in communion with her are not (exclusively) the true Church.

Even if one disregards the Reformation era communions, the see of Rome is only one of the patriarchates of the early Church. Even a cursory study of the history of the Church shows that the Roman see is not the only see of the undivided Early Church. Even Rome recognizes the valid orders and sacraments of Orthodoxy, and others.

Jon

 

[JamesTheJust]

Even if one disregards the Reformation era communions, the see of Rome is only one of the patriarchates of the early Church. Even a cursory study of the history of the Church shows that the Roman see is not the only see of the undivided Early Church. Even Rome recognizes the valid orders and sacraments of Orthodoxy, and others.

Jon

Indeed, Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were important sees of the early Church. But Rome was first among them. The order of primacy was Rome, then Alexandria, then Antioch (and later: then Constantinople, then Jerusalem). Study of the early Church will prove this. I think this article demonstrates it best, using history and patristics:

catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/pope_are_the_other_patriarchs_dependent_on_rome.php

There are several other articles on that site that may also be of help.

Also, though we do recognize the valid apostolic succession and Sacraments of the Orthodox, this does not mean that they are the true Church. Valid apostolic succession only gives one canonical authority if one is in communion with the Apostolic (Roman) See.

 

[JonNC]

=JamesTheJust;11570576]Indeed, Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were important sees of the early Church. But Rome was first among them. The order of primacy was Rome, then Alexandria, then Antioch (and later: then Constantinople, then Jerusalem). Study of the early Church will prove this. I think this article demonstrates it best, using history and patristics:
.

I have no issue with the primacy of Rome, though I see no supremacy there, not from scripture or the early councils. Further, primacy does not mean exclusivity, either.
Thanks for the article.

Also, though we do recognize the valid apostolic succession and Sacraments of the Orthodox, this does not mean that they are the true Church. Valid apostolic succession only gives one canonical authority if one is in communion with the Apostolic (Roman) See.

From the Roman POV, perhaps. But history and Tradition show they are certainly part of the one True Church, whether in communion with the Bishop of Rome or not.

Jon

 

[JamesTheJust]

I have no issue with the primacy of Rome, though I see no supremacy there, not from scripture or the early councils. Further, primacy does not mean exclusivity, either.

From the Roman POV, perhaps. But history and Tradition show they are certainly part of the one True Church, whether in communion with the Bishop of Rome or not.

Do you have anything to back either of these statements up? It seems you just keep saying “history and Tradition support X” without any evidence.

Here’s a quote from Theodoret, who was a Nestorian heretic, mind you, writing in the fourth century:

“For that all holy throne (Rome) has the office of heading the Churches of the whole world.” (Theodoret, EP. cxvi.)

 

[JonNC]

Do you have anything to back either of these statements up? It seems you just keep saying “history and Tradition support X” without any evidence.

Here’s a quote from Theodoret, who was a Nestorian heretic, mind you, writing in the fourth century:

“For that all holy throne (Rome) has the office of heading the Churches of the whole world.” (Theodoret, EP. cxvi.)

Nicea canon 6 does not support supremacy.

Jon

 

[JamesTheJust]

Nicea canon 6 does not support supremacy.

Jon

From the article I provided:

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail that the Bishop of Alexandria has jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise, in Antioch and the other provinces, let the churches retain their priveledges." (Nicaea, Canon 6).

Now, … Here we see the “big three” one again. …And they are spoken about as if they have always (Traditionally) been in place. Also, … There has been much ink spilled over the phrase “the like” when refering to Rome above. Is Nicaea saying that Alexandria has local jurisdiction because Rome has similar local jurisdiction? Or, is Nicaea saying that Alexandria has jurisdiction in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis BECAUSE it is the custom of the Roman Church that Alexandria holds jurisdiction here? …That Rome recognizes the local jurisdiction of Alexandria …and of Antioch as well? Well, … I say it’s the latter. And, again … See the quote from Pope Damasus:

“The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish, nor anything like that. The second see is that of Alexandria, consecrated on behalf of the blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an Evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third see is that of Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Peter, where first he dwelled before he came to Rome, and where the name “Christians” was first applied, as to a new people.” (Decree of Damasus # 3, 382 A.D.)

See also the Epistle of Pope Julius I (A,D. 342) …a contemporary of Nicaea itself …where he writes to the Byzantine court to complain about St. Athanasius and St. Marcellus when they were deposed by the Arians from their sees of Alexandria and Antioch, respectfully:

“It behoved you to write to us that thus what is just might be decreed for all. For they who suffered were bishops, and the Churches that suffered no common ones, over which the Apostles ruled in person. And why were we (the Pope) not written to concerning the Church, especially Alexandria? Or are they (the Arians) ignorant that ****this has been the custom first to write to us, and thus what is just be decreed from this place (Rome)*****? If therefore, any such suspicion fell upon the bishop there (Alexandria), it was benefitting to write to this Church (Rome).” (Julius, Ep. n. 6,21.)

So, again, we have Rome defending the Traditional set up. And Julius’ statement that Rome has authority to give rulings over Alexandria (the 2nd See) places Canon 6 of Nicaea into its proper context. The jurisdiction of Alexandria (over Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis) was recognized by the Council because that was the custom of Rome (i.e., Peter --when at Rome --had sent his disciple Mark to preside over Alexandria, allowing that see to participate in the Petrine ministry of Rome through ties of discipleship). And, indeed, the Church father Theodoret of Cyrus (c. 450) --an Antiochian --echoes the very same Tradition, when he writes to Pope Leo the Great to complain about Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria:

“But this man (Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria) will not abide by the decrees (of Nicaea), but brings forward at every turn that his is the Throne of Mark; and yet he knows well that the great city of Antioch has the Throne of Peter, who was both teacher of Mark, and the first and the leader (coryphaeus) of the choir of the Apostles.” (Theodoret, T. iv. Ep. lxxxvi.).

Continued…

 

[JamesTheJust]

Continued:

Now, when he wrote this, Theordet was still under censure as a Nestorian heretic, pleading to be re-instated into communion with Rome. So, for various reasons, Pope Leo was to respond rebuking him …including for seeking to place Antioch over Alexandria (the very thing that the Byzantines at Chalcedon were trying to do with Constantinople). Yet, compare Theodoret to Damasus:

“The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish, nor anything like that. The second see is that of Alexandria, consecrated on behalf of the blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an Evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third see is that of Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Peter, where first he dwelled before he came to Rome, and where the name “Christians” was first applied, as to a new people.” (Decree of Damasus # 3, 382 A.D.)

“But this man (Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria) will not abide by the decrees (of Nicaea), but brings forward at every turn that his is the Throne of Mark; and yet he knows well that the great city of Antioch has the Throne of Peter, who was both teacher of Mark, and the first and the leader (coryphaeus) of the choir of the Apostles.” (Theodoret, T. iv. Ep. lxxxvi.).

And, indeed, Rome echoes this very same Tradition at the time of Theodoret, when Pope Leo writes to Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria directly, saying: "As the most blessed Peter received the Apostolic Primacy from the Lord, and the Roman church continues in his institutions, it is criminal to believe that his (Peter’s) holy disciple Mark, who was *the first to govern the church of Alexandria formed decrees by other rules of his own Traditions; since without doubt from the same source of grace was the spirit both of the disciple and of his master. (Pope Leo, T. i. Ep. ix. ad. Diosc. Ep. Alex.)

As for Theodoret’s reference to Antioch as possessing the “Throne of Peter” (in opposition to Alexandria’s “Throne of Mark”), this needs to be understood in context. For, Theodoret also writes to Pope Leo:

“If Paul, the hearld of truth, the trumpet of the Holy Spirit, hastened to the great Peter to convey from him the solution to those at Antioch, who were at issue about living under the law, how much more so do we, poor and humble, run to *your Apostolic Throne (Rome) to receive from you (Pope Leo) healing for the wounds of the Churches. For it pertains to you to have primacy in all things, for your throne is adorned with many prerogatives.” (Theodoret, Ep. cxiii.)

So, … Both Rome and Antioch are drawing from the very same Tradition …the Tradition that says Peter left St. Evodius in Antioch, while he went to set up Rome, sending his other disciple, St. Mark, to Alexandria …thereby covering the three known continents. In this, Peter was triangulating. Since “all roads led to Rome,” he could oversee a universal Church from there (thus the Quo Vadis story). However, his disciples (Mark and Evodius) were in place in Africa and Asia respectively, while Rome administered Europe directly (being the final court of appeal as well).

This Tradition is seen reflected again in an Epistle from the Eastern Bishops to Pope Symmachus c. 499 A.D. They write:

“But for the precious salvation, not only of the East, but of three parts (i.e., the three known continents), almost of the inhabited world, redeemed, not with corruptible gold or silver, but with the precious Blood of the Lamb of God, according to the doctrine of the blessed Prince of the glorious Apostles, whose See Christ, the Good Shepherd, has entrusted to Your Blessedness. …You are not ignorant of this malice, you whom Peter, your blessed Doctor, teaches always to shepherd, not by violence but by an authority fully accepted, the sheep of Christ which are entrusted to you in all the habitable world.” (Ep. ad. Symmachus, Mansi. viii, 221 seq.).

I’ll leave the rest of the article for you to read.

 

[JonNC]

Continued:

Now, when he wrote this, Theordet was still under censure as a Nestorian heretic, pleading to be re-instated into communion with Rome. So, for various reasons, Pope Leo was to respond rebuking him …including for seeking to place Antioch over Alexandria (the very thing that the Byzantines at Chalcedon were trying to do with Constantinople). Yet, compare Theodoret to Damasus:

As for Theodoret’s reference to Antioch as possessing the “Throne of Peter” (in opposition to Alexandria’s “Throne of Mark”), this needs to be understood in context. For, Theodoret also writes to Pope Leo:

So, … Both Rome and Antioch are drawing from the very same Tradition …the Tradition that says Peter left St. Evodius in Antioch, while he went to set up Rome, sending his other disciple, St. Mark, to Alexandria …thereby covering the three known continents. In this, Peter was triangulating. Since “all roads led to Rome,” he could oversee a universal Church from there (thus the Quo Vadis story). However, his disciples (Mark and Evodius) were in place in Africa and Asia respectively, while Rome administered Europe directly (being the final court of appeal as well).

This Tradition is seen reflected again in an Epistle from the Eastern Bishops to Pope Symmachus c. 499 A.D. They write:

I’ll leave the rest of the article for you to read.

Thanks, I’ll read it.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

Who gets to say which is “Spartacus”?
It actually mean that, in one way or another, to some degree, all of them are part of the One True Church. So, I’ve never said that “none of them are the one true Church”. I’ve said that none can claim to be only and exclusively the one true Church. Even if one want to exclude western non-Catholic communions, it does not stand to history and reason, much less tradition and scripture, that the Roman see is only and exclusively the Church.

I’m sympathetic to what you’re saying; but after spending quite a lot of time speaking with the Orthodox, I must say that their exclusivity claim are at least reasonable, even if incorrect.

 

[SamMonosov]

Thanks to those of you who provided careful answers and to those who gave references, especially to the Catechism and Vatican Council. These have been useful resources for answering many of my other questions.

Thank you all for your time and your help. Peace be with you all.