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

  • Thread starter Thread starter JustaServant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
phil19034 said:
While I agree that the math used to reach that number is greatly flawed, I believe the number might not be off.

Reason: each “non-denominational” church is really it’s own denomination
Click to expand...
This is how I see it also
 
phil19034 said:
While I agree that the math used to reach that number is greatly flawed, I believe the number might not be off.

Reason: each “non-denominational” church is really it’s own denomination
Click to expand...
:banghead::banghead:
A denomination, by it’s very definition is “being numbered” with something else. NDs are in fact numbered with other churches of its like, a college, a camp, a group.
You cannot be numbered with yourself.
 
JustaServant said:
:banghead::banghead:
A denomination, by it’s very definition is “being numbered” with something else. NDs are in fact numbered with other churches of its like, a college, a camp, a group.
You cannot be numbered with yourself.
Click to expand...
True, but I suppose our buddies here see each one as a denom. Still the fact is that it’s a useless tool and should be discarded.

It’s enough that there just too many.
 
JustaServant said:
:banghead::banghead:
A denomination, by it’s very definition is “being numbered” with something else. NDs are in fact numbered with other churches of its like, a college, a camp, a group.
You cannot be numbered with yourself.
Click to expand...
I think you’re confused. Non- denoms don’t want to be affiliated with denoms. Hence the name
 
Michael68 said:
I think you’re confused. Non- denoms don’t want to be affiliated with denoms. Hence the name
Click to expand...
No, I’m not ‘confused’, I used to attend “non-denominational” churches, so I know of what I speak.
They can say they are ND all they want. But they are in fact associated with other churches of their kind. Thus fitting the definition of a denomination. Being numbered with other churches of their kind.
 
JustaServant said:
No, I’m not ‘confused’, I used to attend “non-denominational” churches, so I know of what I speak.
They can say they are ND all they want. But they are in fact associated with other churches of their kind. Thus fitting the definition of a denomination. Being numbered with other churches of their kind.
Click to expand...
Will agree to disagree
 
GKC said:
It only claims there are 200+ RC denoms, when denom is defined specifically as they define it. And since that means it counts as one denom (for the CWE) for every country it appears in, that definition is not hard to comprehend, or to confirm/refute. How many countries in the world does the RCC have a formal presence in?

Non-denoms would likely be counted the same as the RCC, if they have no higher structural ecclesial organization. Once for every country they have a formal presence in.
Click to expand...
Oh I agree, but the fact that the source of the 33,000 number counts over 200 denominations based on geographical difference in Catholicism, and makes the same mistake with Protestant denominations, to my mind that immediately invalidates the 33,000 number as having any basis in reality.
 
JustaServant said:
No, I’m not ‘confused’, I used to attend “non-denominational” churches, so I know of what I speak.
They can say they are ND all they want. But they are in fact associated with other churches of their kind. Thus fitting the definition of a denomination. Being numbered with other churches of their kind.
Click to expand...
I would agree with this statement. The non-denoms I’ve visited over the years call all be folded into one of the existing denominations if one is so inclined to do so. They all have come from either the Baptist family of churches or from the Pentecostal family in my experience. And their theology tends to fit squarely into one of those two families that they’ve descended from with little or no variation.

And another thing to consider is that many churches that appear non-denominational are actually members of a denomination officially. I use the church right near the exit I get off my nearest freeway every afternoon on the way home from work. I’d been driving by them for almost 2 years before I found out they were a Southern Baptist Church. The only mention they even make of the connection is a small print blurb on the bottom of their main webpage. That’s it. They make no other reference to the SBC and by all appearances to any outsider are a non-denominational church. They use “baptist” no where in their church name, literature, website, statement of belief, etc…
 
I don’t think the term is Catholic. I think it originated in the 15th century. But who first used it and how?
 
Padres1969 said:
I would agree with this statement. The non-denoms I’ve visited over the years call all be folded into one of the existing denominations if one is so inclined to do so. They all have come from either the Baptist family of churches or from the Pentecostal family in my experience. And their theology tends to fit squarely into one of those two families that they’ve descended from with little or no variation.

And another thing to consider is that many churches that appear non-denominational are actually members of a denomination officially. I use the church right near the exit I get off my nearest freeway every afternoon on the way home from work. I’d been driving by them for almost 2 years before I found out they were a Southern Baptist Church. The only mention they even make of the connection is a small print blurb on the bottom of their main webpage. That’s it. They make no other reference to the SBC and by all appearances to any outsider are a non-denominational church. They use “baptist” no where in their church name, literature, website, statement of belief, etc…
Click to expand...
You have it exactly. That is the point I have been trying to make.
I know of an “independent” Baptist church in a certain city (I used to live in) that was clearly affiliated with Liberty University (pastor went to LU, the Doctrinal Statement is LU approved). Being nosey a month ago I looked them up on Facebook and discovered they dropped ‘Baptist’ from their name. They ARE still Baptist, AND still affiliated with LU. But they claim to be ND.
 
JustaServant said:
You have it exactly. That is the point I have been trying to make.
I know of an “independent” Baptist church in a certain city (I used to live in) that was clearly affiliated with Liberty University (pastor went to LU, the Doctrinal Statement is LU approved). Being nosey a month ago I looked them up on Facebook and discovered they dropped ‘Baptist’ from their name. They ARE still Baptist, AND still affiliated with LU. But they claim to be ND.
Click to expand...
Oh, I know LU, their main campus is right near me and they have little satellite congregations all over the place.🤷 Maybe a better term would be a sort of loose confederation than a denom per se, but in reality they are much the same as it comes down to who ordains their preachers. I think that the ones I find most weird are the self ordained guys. They often come off as cultish…

I think that the important thing here is that we recognize the weakness of the argument and consider better and more effective alternative terminology.
 
Church_Militant said:
Oh, I know LU, their main campus is right near me and they have little satellite congregations all over the place.🤷
Click to expand...
As does Bob Jones.
In fact (how’s about this for control freaks), if you are a student at BJU they give you a list of churches you can attend. You go outside that list, you’re expelled.
These are “independent” Baptist churches.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top