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.
Wannano said:
You noticed I paranthasized “rewriting.” I am not interested in you twisting everything I say.
Click to expand...
I’m not twisting anything. Your post appears to accuse the last several Popes of rewriting history. Could you please explain what you really meant?
 
Michael68 said:
Protestants love to misuse the Inquisition and blame all kinds of atrocities on the Church. I see it is as very unfortunate and furthers the divide.
Click to expand...
As do I. There was plenty of blood on both sides, so much so that, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”, seems appropriate.
 
JustaServant said:
It’s NOT a factual number, which has been proved time and time again./QUOTE
The original source of that number was not Catholic
However it used a pretty broad definition of denomination. In 2001 Protestants generally accepted at least 9,000 denomination
Has it grown since than or has it shrunk?
I wouldn’t use any specific number as they are pretty difficult to verify.
Suffice it to say divisions are numerous. As a Catholic there is no need to cite specific numbers
Intrestingly
Protestant sources tend to dismiss any group not historically trinitarian
as not in their number even if the roots spring from a legitimate Protestant sources .
That’s also pretty dishonest .
Click to expand...
 
gus said:
The original source of that number was not Catholic
However it used a pretty broad definition of denomination. In 2001 Protestants generally accepted at least 9,000 denomination
Has it grown since than or has it shrunk?
I wouldn’t use any specific number as they are pretty difficult to verify.
Suffice it to say divisions are numerous. As a Catholic there is no need to cite specific numbers
Intrestingly
Protestant sources tend to dismiss any group not historically trinitarian
as not in their number even if the roots spring from a legitimate Protestant sources .
That’s also pretty dishonest .
Click to expand...
It is dishonest, but apparently doesn’t mean much to people who still see the ends justifying the means. Not much different than fundamentalists always citing the Two Babylons.
 
Wannano said:
I am sure the Amish would be inspired to know that you, a Roman Catholic are inspired by them. It is most interesting to me to note in most topics on these forums how time has affected people’s beliefs and formed different acceptance levels of practice and doctrines.

I am not sure what exactly inspires you in regards to the Amish but do you have any idea that admitting that statement a few centuries ago could have cost you your life at the hands of your very own chosen Church unless you would recant?

Some things have become better with time while many other things have not.:o
Click to expand...
Snarky and unnecessary Wannano.
 
Jharek, being an Irishman living in England, would you agree that ‘many denominations’ is an American distinctive?
 
What about ‘independent’ churches or ‘non-denominational’?
 
Wannano said:
It is a part of church history one does not want to be made aware of.
Click to expand...
No… it’s a very interesting party of history & is FAR more complex than people know.

It wasn’t just Church history… it was secular history too. The inquisition were called and the tribunals in place to protect people when they were accused of heresy.

Heresy was against CIVIL LAW in Europe. Even in England at this time, the official religion was the Church of England… others were persecuted or the civil authorities were suspicious of them.

In Spain, for example, after freeing the nation from Muslim rule in the south, Catholicism was eventually made the official religion of the Kingdom by the King & Queen. Non-Catholics had to either leave or faithfully convert. These converts (who were mostly of Jewish background) we called “Conversos.”

However, many lay people feared that many of the Conversos converted without faithfully converting and were secretly still practicing their old religion even though they were now Baptized & Confirmed Catholics. Even worse, these lay people felt that they were doing that to their baptized Catholic Children. Then, conspiracy theories started to grow that the Conversos were plotting against the King & Queen, which the King eventually bought into because he had a number of Conversos in the Spanish court.

Lynch mobs started breaking over fear of the Conversos, which lead to the Spanish Inquisition. The reason for the Inquisition was to stop the mob violence and determine if accused Conversos were really Catholic or not. If they were faking it, then the secular authorities would deal with them and issue punishment based on why the person was faking (aka: were they a threat to the Crown or just didn’t want to convert)

The Inquisition kept very detailed records and were the first courts in Europe to require a defense attorney and required that the accused be aware of their charges before their court date, so they could prepare a defense.

The Tribunals were so fair, that criminals, when arrested, would commit blasphemies after being arrested so they could be transferred to ecclesiastical courts instead of civil ones.

There are A LOT historians (even atheists) who are discovering the truth about the Inquisitions, Crusades, etc thanks to computerized searching of charters & court records.

We also have to keep in mind that the British and Spanish were at war with each other often during this time. So the British often used anti-Catholic propaganda (especially about the Inquisition) against the Spanish in an attempt to discredit them, because of their power in the New World, with other protestant nations and even with Catholic ones like France.

Remember anything the British (especially the British East India Company) could do to weaken the Spanish Crown was a win for British and the EIC in the New World.
 
Don_Ruggero said:
Sacramental theology does not agree with you. The intention is much more minimal for baptism than you have articulated. The sacrament has, in fact, been confected by the Baptist preacher who has baptised someone “because Jesus said in the Gospel to do it,” provided the preacher used water and the Trinitarian formula.
Click to expand...
Understood. Thanks Padre.

Still I wonder, since many routinely preach that it is simply a symbolic burial and resurrection and public profession of faith and that it offers no sacramental cleansing from sins if that doesn’t/shouldn’t be a factor of consideration. (I know this first hand having been encouraged to be re-baptized upon joining a Southern Baptist church many years ago and this was a common practice. Also in the Assembly of God.)

After all, at Mass we recite the Nicene Creed which in its last section says.“I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.” which many a non-Catholic cannot profess since that is not what was intended or professed at the time.
 
Wannano said:
Interestly enough your last two popes seem to be “rewriting” history. I assume that is ok with you though.
Click to expand...
Michael68 said:
Oh yeah? Please tell us these rewrites. i would like to hear them. BTW, rewriting history is not ok with me
Click to expand...
He can’t because it’s a baseless allegation.
Wannano said:
You noticed I paranthasized “rewriting.” I am not interested in you twisting everything I say.
Click to expand...
Then I suggest you be clear…thinking through your responses before hitting that submit button.🤷
Michael68 said:
I’m not twisting anything. Your post appears to accuse the last several Popes of rewriting history. Could you please explain what you really meant?
Click to expand...
Take note that he hasn’t…

Yep that’s what I said earlier. Regardless of how many there are there are still far too many…in violation of 1st Corinthians 14:33.
 
There’s a lot of that going around ain’t there?😃 Hope it ain’t contagious…
 
Church_Militant said:
He can’t because it’s a baseless allegation.

I haven’t because I am cleaning up a flooded basement this morning.

Then I suggest you be clear…thinking through your responses before hitting that submit button.🤷

You are a fine example of one being clear…what you just said here makes no sense to me. Your own advice should be heeded by yourself.

Take note that he hasn’t…

If you are referring to the fact that I have not yet responded be informed that it has nothing to do with your own preconceived judgements. I have been cleaning up a flooded mess leaving no time until now.

Yep that’s what I said earlier. Regardless of how many there are there are still far too many…in violation of 1st Corinthians 14:33.
Click to expand...
 
I haven’t because I am cleaning up a flooded basement this morning.
Click to expand...
If you are referring to the fact that I have not yet responded be informed that it has nothing to do with your own preconceived judgements. I have been cleaning up a flooded mess leaving no time until now.
Click to expand...
Sorry about that flood. We get 'em here too, but here we have no basements. Maybe it’s a blessing to just have water in the basement vs in the actual house…

Still pretty lousy though. Good luck.
You are a fine example of one being clear…what you just said here makes no sense to me. Your own advice should be heeded by yourself.
Click to expand...
Why don’t you knock off the aggressive wise cracks and make your case?

So far all you’ve done is make remarks without a shred of any kind of supporting fact.

Speaking of messed up apologetics devices and since you brought it up…tell me what you know of the Inquisition. Specifically how many casualties were involved?

Then…how about showing me precisely where you find these allegedly rewritten histories you asserted.
 
Michael68 said:
I’m not twisting anything. Your post appears to accuse the last several Popes of rewriting history. Could you please explain what you really meant?
Click to expand...
Hi Michael,

Sorry I had to dive out of conversation to attack a flooded basement. I am not avoiding answering you regardless of what Church Militant thinks.

Please note that by using parenthesis on the word rewrite I was not seriously accusing the popes of actually rewriting the facts of actual happenings. What I meant is that the changes that have been made and are being introduced to the Catholic Church at present would have changed the outcome of history if only they had been implemented back then. Example: instead of calling me a heretic and separated brother I am now to be a fellow Christian brother. At least this is what I gleaned from the articles from Don Ruggero who has contributed much positive material in my opinion. The fact that the Catholic Church is celebrating the Anniversary of the Reformation with the Lutheran community etc. Is what I mean as a "rewriting"of history.

Hope this helps.
 
That would be making history…not rewriting it then wouldn’t it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top