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

[57Bill]

The King James bible on a string thing is good though.

 

[Church_Militant]

Even in your eyes…no sacraments?

Not generally, no.

Actually some of us do have sacraments

Okay, granted. Still my definition of sacraments is distinctly Catholic.

At least some sacraments, depending on who you ask.

Few use the term and most call them ordinances and do not have the same scriptural doctrine about them that we Catholics do.

I think he meant They don’t call them sacraments, and they don’t believe they are sacraments. They actually are though.

Not really Dmar. Anyone who counts communion as only symbolic and doesn’t teach the necessity of baptism and its sacramental cleansing from sin has nothing. That’s just the way it is.

Could have been the intent of the post (so to speak), yes.

Folks baptized with the Trinitarian formula and water are not routinely baptized if they covert to the RCC. Though some sub conditione

baptisms might be done, with respect to converts, from prudence, if things are unclear. The issue is that for an n-C baptism to be sacramental the person baptizing must intend to do what the church does in doing so and hence the common conditional baptism.

OTOH, you can find all sorts of folk not RC or Orthodox, who will call all 7 sacraments, sacraments.

Aside from the Episcopals and Anglicans I can’t think of any that would qualify, but again you have the fact that they teach the same thing we do about baptism and even baptize infants.

The King James bible on a string thing is good though.

Have no idea what you’re talking about with that. Sounds like a soap on a rope or something…

 

[rcwitness]

Few use the term and most call them ordinances and do not have the same scriptural doctrine about them that we Catholics do.And “ordinance” is preferred because it sounds less like “commandment”. It’s the same thing. Yet Sacrament, now that has more accurate understanding! It infers that grace is necessary to receive! Still… and ordinance or commandment (same thing) cannot be willfully rejected. And many, when pressed, will acknowledge that Baptism is essential to believing on Christ. And this Sacrament puts all into the economy of Salvation, as long as they remain in Him by faith and works.

Have no idea what you’re talking about with that. Sounds like a soap on a rope or something…

 

[GKC]

The issue is that for an n-C baptism to be sacramental the person baptizing must intend to do what the church does in doing so and hence the common conditional baptism.
Aside from the Episcopals and Anglicans I can’t think of any that would qualify, but again you have the fact that they teach the same thing we do about baptism and even baptize infants.
.

Yes. I know. I’m Anglican.

The requirement for valid sacramental intent is, as you note facere quod facit ecclesia, which is true for all sacramental actions. The normal approach is, since intent is an interior state, to consider any sacrament valid, if all other sacramental actions are valid. In which case, absent a definite condition which would permit a determinatio ex adiunctis, the intent would be assumed to be what the Church does, in that action.

I am not aware that sub conditione baptisms are common; generally performed on converts from mainline Trinitarian backgrounds, whose baptismal practices include valid form, matter and minister, as the RCC defines them. Indeed, I have only read as to the contrary. Certainly my sister and husband, from Baptist and Lutheran backgrounds, upon producing evidence of their (customary within those disciplines) baptisms, were not so treated.

My point was that you used too broad a brush, in a couple of senses.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Not really Dmar. Anyone who counts communion as only symbolic** and doesn’t teach the necessity of baptism and its sacramental cleansing from sin has nothing**. That’s just the way it is.

The issue is that for an n-C baptism to be sacramental the person baptizing must intend to do what the church does in doing so and hence the common conditional baptism.
Aside from the Episcopals and Anglicans I can’t think of any that would qualify, but again you have the fact that they teach the same thing we do about baptism and even baptize infants.
Have no idea what you’re talking about with that. Sounds like a soap on a rope or something…

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.

 

[rcwitness]

what is the Society of Friends?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

what is the Society of Friends?

The Quakers.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Yes. I know. I’m Anglican.

The requirement for valid sacramental intent is, as you note facere quod facit ecclesia, which is true for all sacramental actions. The normal approach is, since intent is an interior state, to consider any sacrament valid, if all other sacramental actions are valid. In which case, absent a definite condition which would permit a determinatio ex adiunctis, the intent would be assumed to be what the Church does, in that action.

I am not aware that sub conditione baptisms are common; generally performed on converts from mainline Trinitarian backgrounds, whose baptismal practices include valid form, matter and minister, as the RCC defines them. Indeed, I have only read as to the contrary. Certainly my sister and husband, from Baptist and Lutheran backgrounds, upon producing evidence of their (customary within those disciplines) baptisms, were not so treated.

My point was that you used too broad a brush, in a couple of senses.

As a Catholic priest, I rarely had recourse to conditional baptism; in fact, they are relatively rarely used by Catholic clergy.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I was involved with theological dialogue for many years before retiring. I still get pulled in to consult on this or that. From the Orthodox through to the Anglicans and the Lutherans and so forth. I remember on one trip in the United States, I was even invited by one group I had encountered to see their “church planting.” It was an interesting experience to have, in light of my particular work in that moment.

I frankly can’t imagine a more absolutely meaningless conversation to have had, as a theologian, than a discussion about the “number of denominations” existed. It would be a sheer waste of time to no purpose, other than the insight it would give into such a mindset that would consider it in any way a meaningful or utilitarian topic.

 

[rcwitness]

The Quakers.

oh, nice. They are inspiring!

 

[AbideWithMe]

There is one other aspect that has not been considered: The fact that ‘many denominations’ appears to be an American phenomenon.

As best as I’ve been able to learn over the years, I think this is true. And as best as I understand from my reading (open to correction), I think religious liberty and freedom of worship as we know it (and from which we all benefit) also pretty much got off the ground in America—early Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, first. I do know early Pennsylvania had loads of sects which were attracted to the experiment in freedom of worship William Penn offered (and our once thick woods which offered privacy and space for some of the more unusual sects.)

I think, then that the “many denominations” is rooted in our freedom to choose how we worship without penalty here, much more so than in SS or private interpretation. So all these endless arguments just turn me off. Ugh again.

 

[GKC]

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.

This is my layman’s understanding. I thank you.

 

[GKC]

As a Catholic priest, I rarely had recourse to conditional baptism; in fact, they are relatively rarely used by Catholic clergy.

Again, Father, my thanks.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

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.

Actually, I should even further clarify this point, lest it be thought this is a minimum threshold.

As a Catholic priest/hospital chaplain, I can instruct the neo-natal nurses on how to confer emergency baptism, in case the infant arrives at or near death, using a syringe with sterile water and before I can get there. The nurse could be Muslim or even an Atheist. I would not be surprised if the latter may think of it as the equivalent of blowing magic powder in the baby’s face. So long as she answers “Why do you do this?” with “I do this to baptise a baby” or “that’s how you baptise someone,” she has adequately met the minimum intention…even if she has no faith at all.

And, yes, before someone asks…this is not a made-up scenario.

 

[Duane1966]

I believe Duane is trying to say that there are millions (if not billions) of people who are their own authority and their own “pope,” even if they are members of the Catholic Church, an Anglican Church, agnostic, Muslim, Jewish, etc.

Many people don’t like to submit to the authority and follow their own conscience (even if sinful) instead of following the teachings of their religion.

So I think he’s saying that there are millions (if not billions) of denominations of 1

This is correct. Jesus said:

8k And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,* and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19l *I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. *Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” ***

Jesus granted the authority to bind and loose to His Church. Millions, if not over a billion Christians, Catholics included, have ignored Jesus’ words and taken the authority to bind and loose unto themselves. Yet someone, or some group, or both, still holds the authority to bind and loose. If the authority to bind and loose is gone, then Jesus’ promise to be with His Church in perpetuity, was a lie. I know one thing, Jesus did not grant the authority to bind and loose to a billion different individuals.

There are probably hundreds of millions of Catholics who go to church every Sunday, who maybe aren’t in a state of grace, that ignore the Church’s teaching on reception of the Eucharist, and receive anyway. They say they know better than the Church. They justify it by saying to themselves (I have been here), Jesus knows they are basically a good person, He really wouldn’t mind. Ergo, they have granted themselves the authority to bind and loose themselves. They have each individually, BECOME A DENOMINATION UNTO THEMSELVES. This is just one example.

Now take the various non-Catholic, and non-Orthodox Christians. I can guarantee if you ask hundreds of millions of them, if the leaders of their denominations can bind and loose them, you will get a resounding NO. They may say they are bound to God’s word in Holy Scripture, but nowhere in that Holy Scripture, do we see God granting the aforesaid authority to an inanimate object. In reality, they are bound to their own individual interpretation of the authority that they grant scripture. And the flip side of the coin is their leaders do not believe they have the authority to bind and loose. So there you have another few hundred million denominations. This is just another small example, there are many more.

Only when you get groups of people who believe that Jesus really did keep His promises, and the office to that He granted the authority to bind and loose lives on in perpetuity, and will live on until Jesus returns, do you get people who can not be counted as individual denominations. They will submit, whether they understand the whys of the binding, and whether they agree with the binding or loosing. They realize two things. (i) Jesus granted the authority to bind and loose, and it wasn’t to them. (ii) Jesus never says we will agree with the binding or loosing.

I will close with this. There are hundreds of millions of people, who are fine with going to a church every Sunday, and say they belong to a certain denomination, until the leaders of said denomination allow (or maybe not allow), something they don’t agree with. Then they move to the next Church that they feel comfortable with. Until something happens there. And on and on. They clearly have not allowed others to bind and loose them. They decide what to hod as dogma. Without a doubt, they are their own denomination.

“We do not really want a religion that is right where we are right. What we want is a religion that is right where we are wrong.” - Chesterton

 

[GKC]

Actually, I should even further clarify this point, lest it be thought this is a minimum threshold.

As a Catholic priest/hospital chaplain, I can instruct the neo-natal nurses on how to confer emergency baptism, in case the infant arrives at or near death, using a syringe with sterile water and before I can get there. The nurse could be Muslim or even an Atheist. I would not be surprised if the latter may think of it as the equivalent of blowing magic powder in the baby’s face. So long as she answers “Why do you do this?” with “I do this to baptise a baby” or “that’s how you baptise someone,” she has adequately met the minimum intention…even if she has no faith at all.

And, yes, before someone asks…this is not a made-up scenario.

Again, I am pleased that my understanding of the minister of the sacrament in baptism is …umm… confirmed.

 

[rcwitness]

Again, I am pleased that my understanding of the minister of the sacrament in baptism is …umm… confirmed.

… and the priesthood involved in Matrimony is that of the husband and wife!

 

[GKC]

… and the priesthood involved in Matrimony is that of the husband and wife!

So it is. Which leads to the general view that those sacraments (two) which do not depend on valid orders, are generally available to protestants, other factors being valid.

Anglicans might add a little to that, but that’s neither here nor there.

 

[jmcrae]

Every denomination believes they have sound doctrine. Yet how many profess they have sound doctrine?

What is the difference between “denomination” and “communion”?

Why would a congregation share Communion with others while saying they are separate denominations?

When we speak about “a communion” we’re not talking about Holy Communion, or who gets to receive it, but rather, who is the governing body, and who all is gathered beneath that governing body.

In the case of the Protestant organization that I grew up in, we would let anyone receive Holy Communion who wanted to, but only those who were “in communion” were allowed to vote, and that was a strictly regulated group of people.

 

[rcwitness]

When we speak about “a communion” we’re not talking about Holy Communion, or who gets to receive it, but rather, who is the governing body, and who all is gathered beneath that governing body.

In the case of the Protestant organization that I grew up in, we would let anyone receive Holy Communion who wanted to, but only those who were “in communion” were allowed to vote, and that was a strictly regulated group of people.

… and so is that more descriptive of “denomination”?

My ultimate point has been that the concept/practice of “denomination” is not approved by Christ. It is the result of division. And the “non-denominations” understand this. What they don’t understand, is that they aren’t avoiding it by rejecting the name.