Catholics need to stop using the "33,000 denominations" apologetic device

[rcwitness]

That would leave out all congregational churches, autonomous churches that come together as a group, and any church that doesn’t practice communion. It would include LDS.

What do you mean… “leave out”?

… and LDS does not have a valid Baptism, though some genuine members may have a Baptism of Desire… ?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

This thread reminds of St. Pauls first letter to the Corinthian Church. Who were trying to mix Greek philosophy with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Apollos and Chloe’s people reached out to Paul, while he was in Ephesus. They informed Paul of the disputes among these Gentile (Corinthian) Christian converts.

Paul learned that the Corinthians were interpreting the True Gospel in a secular and humanistic way that caused divisions, while comparing and laying claims to following a distinct eloquence of Christian preachers, as well as boasting and comparing them to Greek Philosophers. Paul discovered such Corinthian division as to making public claims; " I belong to Apollos, I belong to Cephas or I belong to Christ".

What is interesting from both of Pauls Letters to the Corinthians, He establishes a unity between the Evangelizer, the Gospel and the Evangelized teaching that “all this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to Himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation”. Paul also removes any Greek Philosophical understanding from the crucifixion, resurrection and especially the liturgical practice of the Eucharist as the True body and blood of Jesus Christ.

Presently after 2000 years, the Church Peter and Paul formed in Rome (Catholic Church) finds herself separated by Christians laying claims to their particular founders eloquence of preaching albeit by a certain Man or Woman.

These new Christian preachers have gained a following of large and small separated community members, which fall under distinct labels under Protestantism or will make the self claim of a non- denomination. A non-denomination does not have a back bone, creed or liturgy, these come and go frequently, which adds and subtracts from the number of any particular survey, that tries to count or categorize a diversity of Christian communities in the present at any time.

No, St. Paul did not go as far as counting the different divisions among the Christian communities of his day. St. Paul exposed the divided communities to the True Gospel of Jesus Christ which comes from God not from men.

Paul preaches and teaches from his letters, that there is only One body of Christ, One Faith, One baptism, One Lord. If one makes a claim for more than one of the above, that one has one too many.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ comes from God, not men. The ministry of reconciliation and the Eucharist was given to the body of Christ, His Church.
I think any one Christian community founded by a man or a woman, are counted among the 30,000 +/-.

This number does not disclaim any ones personal faith in Jesus Christ. It is a fluctuating number of the present to which Christian communities fall under the name of their founder. This number points to the fact, that their exist Christian communities that are recorded and numbered for tax exempt purposes, who are listed under their founder’s name, by a certain man or woman. Some of these men and woman are publicly well known others do not preach with such eloquence to gain such a large following.

Peace be with you

 

[rcwitness]

This thread reminds of St. Pauls first letter to the Corinthian Church.

I believe his first letter was lost.

 

[rcwitness]

Sorry Gabriel, I didn’t mean to disrespect your post. But I have decided to be lighthearted in the thread, since it has been affirmed by the majority that the number is impractical, and unreliable.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Sorry Gabriel, I didn’t mean to disrespect your post. But I have decided to be lighthearted in the thread, since it has been affirmed by the majority that the number is impractical, and unreliable.

No disrespect taken 1st, 2nd Corinthians were not in refute of the canonized books. Although 3rd Corinthians kept showing up in the East after the canonization of the bible. Not to go to far off subject here; it is True as you stated, there is one letter to the Corinthians from Paul that is considered in theory, two more letters, the so called “tearful letters”. One Paul corrects those who have offended him, and the other where relations between Paul and the Corinthians are restored.

But I may have missed something in your translation of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians is lost?

Recorded tax exempt forms from each protestant (registered) Church and non- denomination (registered) Church numbered in the 30,000’s, when the survey was taken many years ago. I don’t think anyone of the “majority” here, can refute this fact.

How one interprets this over 30,000 different Protestant and non-denomination church communities registered in the U.S alone is, as they say; “beauty is in the eye’s of the beholder”.

Enjoy and celebrate our Freedom and Liberty, it comes at a very high price paid in full

 

[Tomyris]

I think we have demonstrated there are at least 33,000 definitions of what a denomination is, anyway, without examining the supposition that a multiplicity of denominations is bad.

 

[rcwitness]

I think we have demonstrated there are at least 33,000 definitions of what a denomination is, anyway, without examining the supposition that a multiplicity of denominations is bad.

Here is maybe a new direction of the thread…

Do you (anyone) think denominations are good, natural, or the intended way of the Lord?

 

[pgepps]

I agree with what he is saying. The problem is though that no one else proposes an alternative number. I take the Dave Armstrong approach and stick with saying “hundreds.” It still gets the point across without being easily accused of over inflation.

I think the amount of stress this question caused a lot of people over several pages pretty well identifies the difficulty we’re interested in, here–that it is almost impossible to see in what way one can be Protestant and responsive to the high premium Sacred Scripture places on unity. Don’t y’all agree?

In any case, I avoided this question by purchasing a copy of Handbook of Denominations in the United States, which is a pretty substantial volume, for the parish library. Early in RCIA times, I often keep it handy in case someone brings up a question about other denominations. The page-flipping helps to reinforce the point.

(Of course, it does include “Roman Catholicism” as a “denomination,” but that’s just because its authors are Protestant.)

Cheers,
PGE

 

[Tomyris]

Here is maybe a new direction of the thread…

Do you (anyone) think denominations are good, natural, or the intended way of the Lord?

I KNEW that was coming. I knew it. I knew it. I knew it.

But first, how many of GKC’s books are duplicates? On loan? Sets of threes? Multiple editions? Hmmmmm?

A few scattered thoughts:

I have heard it said that denominations are good because they allow us to worship with people who are like-minded.

Last week we had a members’ meeting at our church. One person made a reference to the larger the denomination, the more chance it has of going into error (as we have sen with the mainline denominations).

Being in separate denominations does not mean one does not recognize those in other denominations as not being Christian, or denying them Communion, or even that they are necessarily wrong on things we disagree on. Men (and women, ahem) of good will can come to separate conclusions and opinions based on the evidence and should be allowed to follow their conscience rather than having their conscience forced against their own will into a system they would otherwise freely disagree with.

Our unity is in Christ. Perhaps He is happy to express it the way it is now, and simply because we think it is bad, or someone says it is bad, does not mean that it is a bad situation. He is perfectly capable of gluing it back together.

The whole question of the number of denominations seems to place the onus on the Protestants with this argument. The Catholic Church in her catechism admits there is fault on both sides. With the claim that the Pope is in charge, and the role of the pope in the various schisms, the fault lies more with Rome than with those who departed or were kicked out.

Sometimes the idea that the reformers “left” is a euphemisim. Excommunicated and threatened with death, and seeing their friends getting burned at the stake, of course they “left”. Shame on them.

I commend the recent postings of Don Ruggero regarding this issue. I also agree with the statement that Catholics need to stop the overly polemic 33,000. For a long time I have muttered “troll” when I see someone bring it up, meaning I am not going to listen to the creep from that point on. I stop listening. Since you WANT people to listen, it is self defeating. It comes off as smug and spiritually proud. And lazy and untrue, to boot,. If you read the article, only 9,000 denominations are actually Protestant, so saying it says there are 33,000 Protestant denominations is wrong. But it seems to accepted as gospel on CAF.

 

[Tomyris]

I think the amount of stress this question caused a lot of people over several pages pretty well identifies the difficulty we’re interested in, here–that it is almost impossible to see in what way one can be Protestant and responsive to the high premium Sacred Scripture places on unity. Don’t y’all agree?

In any case, I avoided this question by purchasing a copy of Handbook of Denominations in the United States, which is a pretty substantial volume, for the parish library. Early in RCIA times, I often keep it handy in case someone brings up a question about other denominations. The page-flipping helps to reinforce the point.

(Of course, it does include “Roman Catholicism” as a “denomination,” but that’s just because its authors are Protestant.)

Cheers,
PGE

Oh, and regards SS and this issue? The focus rather should be on the failure of the popes to unify all them there denominations - another indictment, in Protestant eyes, as to why the office is illegitimate.

We regard SS as the principle in play from the beginning. The Church was happily unified until the popes decided they were in charge.

Consider Leo X and Exsurge. What a master politiian, wasn’t he? Di he recognize the signs of the times and take the right action in calming down the enormous storm to the north? No, he went to his amusements and thought it would settle everything.

And laying a bull of excommunication on the altar in Constantinople sure settled things between the Catholics and the Orthodox. They are still divided.

Sure. Use the 33,000 issue. Protestants should point out how popes have performed in response.

 

[GKC]

But first, how many of GKC’s books are duplicates? On loan? Sets of threes? Multiple editions? Hmmmmm?

Not many. Literal duplicates, unless possessing collectible value, and multiple copies of identical books, usually set aside for gifting purposes, were not included in the estimate. On loan, 100+, not included in the estimate, mainly to my daughter/SIL. If sets of threes means multiple volume titles, each distinct book counts as a separate one. Multiple editions usually count as separate titles, since a separate edition, as opposed to a sequential printing, counts as enough of a difference to count each book as unique. Same for books published radically cut or expanded, particularly if given a separate title, as in Lewis’ THE TORTURED PLANET/THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH.

Not many in any of these categories. But definitions of what one is counting do need to be precise. Which makes this a good point to ponder, as to denoms.

 

[pgepps]

Oh, and regards SS and this issue? The focus rather should be on the failure of the popes to unify all them there denominations
…]
Consider Leo X and Exsurge. What a master politiian, wasn’t he?
…]
And laying a bull of excommunication on the altar in Constantinople sure settled things between the Catholics and the Orthodox. They are still divided.

Sure. Use the 33,000 issue. Protestants should point out how popes have performed in response.

Sure, the papacy has not always been given to efficient or wise people; it has occasionally been given to extraordinarily wicked men. And Judas was given the power to cast out demons, and do many other mighty deeds, before he betrayed our Lord.

It is definitely something you have to grapple with.

OTOH, if political savvy is crucial, one might argue that Jeremiah and John the Baptist and our Lord were pretty deficient, too. Takes a fair lot of choosing the inexpedient route to end up being kidnapped by your own people in defiance of your prophecy, or to end up getting beheaded by a crass lout at his daughter’s request, or to be crucified along with terroristic criminals when you spent your life healing and casting out demons. I do think that political savvy, used for good, is truly good–but I’m not sure St. Paul was wise when he caused the Pharisees and Sadduccees to ignore him and attack each other, but foolish when he let himself get carted off to witness to Caesar’s household at, as it were, a command performance.

So if we admit that Exsurge is hardly a masterpiece of clarity, perhaps we could ask what you’d prefer? A miraculous alteration of the views of the Lutheran rebels? A more forceful suppression of the renegade elements of the Spiritual Franciscans, and the Lollards, and the Hussites, in order to prevent the political and ecclesial dynamics that made it seem sensible that there should be Augsburg, Heidelberg, Belgic Confessions, etc.?

I’m a little curious what you think the papacy was intended to do about these matters. It doesn’t seem at all obvious to me that even Hildebrandt and St. John Chrysostom combined could have done what, in all honesty, Exsurge did not come very close at all to doing.

There are centuries of reasons, but at that moment, people were either going to believe that unity was worth fighting for–and reform while remaining in unity, however much harder that made it seem–or that reform was worth breaching the peace of Christ for. It seems to me that, after plenty of blame is smeared all over everyone, they chose poorly.

Cheers,
PGE
[Bob Jones U, The Master’s College–BA; Baylor–MA & PhD; Tiber Swim Team 2011]

 

[pgepps]

I KNEW that was coming. I knew it. I knew it. I knew it.

Heh. Yeah, some things are perennial.

Here, you might find this interesting.

evanreunion.blogspot.com/2005/06/first-things-first.html

I’m linking the first post of an old (finished of a decade ago, shuttered for the past 5 years) joint blog series I did with another evangelical blogger. This is 2005-6, so about five years before being Catholic would even seem like a possibility of thought for me, as you’ll see throughout the conversation.

But notice what’s happening to the concept of denominations, here.

I just think you might find it interesting. Cheers!
PGE

 

[Tomyris]

S . It seems to me that, after plenty of blame is smeared all over everyone, they chose poorly.

I think there were poor choices all around.

The question is, what are we going to do about it now?

Since you have BJU in your background, you are well acquainted with those who,uh, don’t think very highly of the Catholic Church - who, in fact, think it apostate - if I read BJU correctly.

The Reformed are a little milder. We accuse the papacy of incompetence, illegitimacy, corruption,the arrogation of powers God reserves for Himself, the burial of the Gospel under piles of man-made superstition and filth, etc. but we do not, in the main anyway, consider the Catholic Church apostate. We recognize there are Christians who are Catholic, which means we should find a way to be one.

At this point I am not sure what that would ever look like. But perhaps, if we cannot live under the same roof we can learn to be good neighbors. Currently, at least on CAF, a lot of effort is made in throwing rocks through each others’ windows. There is a mindset that Catholic apologetics means slamming Protestants. If Luther is not smeared in a day, some people cannot sleep at night. That attitude is not really tolerable in a Catholic, given the ecumenical impetus of late.

What I am doing about it is attempting, in my feeble and inarticulate way, to communicate with Catholics and correct errors when they are made, and learn what Catholicism is really teaching and really is. I run into ex-Catholics who are furious at the Church, and Catholics who are ill-informed about their own Church.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

I think there were poor choices all around.

The question is, what are we going to do about it now?

Since you have BJU in your background, you are well acquainted with those who,uh, don’t think very highly of the Catholic Church - who, in fact, think it apostate - if I read BJU correctly.

The Reformed are a little milder. We accuse the papacy of incompetence, illegitimacy, corruption,the arrogation of powers God reserves for Himself, the burial of the Gospel under piles of man-made superstition and filth, etc. but we do not, in the main anyway, consider the Catholic Church apostate. We recognize there are Christians who are Catholic, which means we should find a way to be one.

At this point I am not sure what that would ever look like. But perhaps, if we cannot live under the same roof we can learn to be good neighbors. Currently, at least on CAF, a lot of effort is made in throwing rocks through each others’ windows. There is a mindset that Catholic apologetics means slamming Protestants. If Luther is not smeared in a day, some people cannot sleep at night. That attitude is not really tolerable in a Catholic, given the ecumenical impetus of late.

What I am doing about it is attempting, in my feeble and inarticulate way, to communicate with Catholics and correct errors when they are made, and learn what Catholicism is really teaching and really is. I run into ex-Catholics who are furious at the Church, and Catholics who are ill-informed about their own Church.

Are you actively TRYING to get yourself banned?

 

[Tomyris]

Are you actively TRYING to get yourself banned?

Not at all. But that illustrates the difficulties I encounter in trying to discuss our theologicial differences, some of which are red-hot.

And I did not say I believe that. I said that is the accusation. If you use the 33,000 argument you can expect the accusation to be raised, at least if you are dealing with someone from a Reformed background.

Most Reformed people do get banned from CAF, or leave in disgust. That is something I think about every time I post. I am not trying to offend.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

Not at all. But that illustrates the difficulties I encounter in trying to discuss our theologicial differences, some of which are red-hot.

And I did not say I believe that. I said that is the accusation. If you use the 33,000 argument you can expect the accusation to be raised, at least if you are dealing with someone from a Reformed background.

Most Reformed people do get banned from CAF, or leave in disgust. That is something I think about every time I post. I am not trying to offend.

I don’t use the 33,000 number, and many Catholics on here do not. That’s what the whole thread is about. Just because a few right-wing trad-leaning Catholics use it is no reason for sarcasm. Catholics like us are trying to be logical and fair with this issue.

 

[Tomyris]

I don’t use the 33,000 number, and many Catholics on here do not. That’s what the whole thread is about. Just because a few right-wing trad-leaning Catholics use it is no reason for sarcasm. Catholics like us are trying to be logical and fair with this issue.

To clarify: I don’t necessarily agree with Reformed theology. I should have made that clearer and abstracted “what Reformed people say” away from me personally more clearly. But that is what they say.

I did not mean “you” as “you, singular” use the 33,000 number. I think the Catholics on this thread, on the whole, are trying to be logical and fair with the issue. I agree with most of the discussion.

Where was I sarcastic? Sarcasm never comes across well. Whoops. Perhaps you thought I was sarcastic when I was dead serious, or vice versa.

 

[rcwitness]

I don’t use the 33,000 number, and many Catholics on here do not. That’s what the whole thread is about. Just because a few right-wing trad-leaning Catholics use it is no reason for sarcasm. Catholics like us are trying to be logical and fair with this issue.

Right. And as if it’s anywhere close to a teaching from the Church anyhow…

 

[rcwitness]

I KNEW that was coming. I knew it. I knew it. I knew it.

Prophecy!

A few scattered thoughts:

I have heard it said that denominations are good because they allow us to worship with people who are like-minded.

I don’t understand. Why do denominations help worship together? Don’t they do the opposite? Aren’t they in separate denominations because they do not profess the same doctrine?

Last week we had a members’ meeting at our church. One person made a reference to the larger the denomination, the more chance it has of going into error (as we have sen with the mainline denominations).

Who determines what the errors are? Obviously each denomination thinks others have some error. And the Catholic Church, since it has existed since the earliest of days, has naturally aquire a larger body of doctrine than those in recent hundred or so years. How could it not, after needing to address every issue under the sun and offer a judgment on them?

Being in separate denominations does not mean one does not recognize those in other denominations as not being Christian,

This is true for the Catholic faith

… or denying them Communion, or even that they are necessarily wrong on things we disagree on.

This is not true for the Catholic, and other traditions. Also, there are many aspects of the faith that we are free to disagree with. But there are matters, which the Church officially declared, that are not subject to opinions and questioning to remain in good standing. That is how matters become resolved, and we move on.

Men (and women, ahem) of good will can come to separate conclusions and opinions based on the evidence and should be allowed to follow their conscience rather than having their conscience forced against their own will into a system they would otherwise freely disagree with.

If one’s conscience rejects the Church’s official Teaching, we consider that not from above, but human reasoning. Scripture does not tell us to follow our conscience over Church judgement. The two should not be opposed to one another.

Our unity is in Christ. Perhaps He is happy to express it the way it is now, and simply because we think it is bad, or someone says it is bad, does not mean that it is a bad situation. He is perfectly capable of gluing it back together.

It starts with the cooperation of man with His will. He does will that we are all one, with one judgment, and with one mind. That is not what denominations arose from. Our unity in Christ is real, yet when the issues are pressed and we are forced to choose a path that Christ leads, then that unity becomes less apparent. This is why Jesus Himself set His bodily Communion up as a stumbling block for those who were not following with belief.

The whole question of the number of denominations seems to place the onus on the Protestants with this argument. The Catholic Church in her catechism admits there is fault on both sides. With the claim that the Pope is in charge, and the role of the pope in the various schisms, the fault lies more with Rome than with those who departed or were kicked out.

The fault that the catechism refers to is individual members who did not behave as one should in the Church of God. It has nothing to do with doctrine, but abuse of doctrine and pride.

Sometimes the idea that the reformers “left” is a euphemisim. Excommunicated and threatened with death, and seeing their friends getting burned at the stake, of course they “left”. Shame on them.

Left what? The Church of God? Establishing a separate Eucharist is not a valid solution.

I commend the recent postings of Don Ruggero regarding this issue.

Sure.

I also agree with the statement that Catholics need to stop the overly polemic 33,000. For a long time I have muttered “troll” when I see someone bring it up, meaning I am not going to listen to the creep from that point on. I stop listening. Since you WANT people to listen, it is self defeating. It comes off as smug and spiritually proud. And lazy and untrue, to boot,. If you read the article, only 9,000 denominations are actually Protestant, so saying it says there are 33,000 Protestant denominations is wrong. But it seems to accepted as gospel on CAF.

It is not accepted as gospel here. The majority does not support the research (and it’s definition) result as a legitimate apologetic resource. It is not constructive. St Paul simply admonished divisions and pointed to Christ’s sacrifice as the means to compel us to come together with one mind and judgment. He assured us that the Apostles and leaders are not opposed to each other. And he himself, went directly to Peter to lay before the Church the Gospel that he was preaching. This is what all clergy should do. Many preachers have an Apostle complex, thinking they have been given personal, private revelation and do not have the obligation to confirm their beliefs and teachings with the universal Church of God. St Paul was even an Apostle and he realized (by way of revelation) the importance of Petrine confirmation. He, of course, happened to be in complete alignment with the Church, and so was affirmed and given the right hand of the Magisterium.