How divided are Protestants?

[humble_in_doubt]

cuicinfo.org/members/members.html
cuicinfo.org/whatiscuic/cuic.html

It is quite a bit more tangible than that.
BH

there you go Catholics … the protestants are starting to team up

 

[josie_L]

Josie & Rom. Cath:

The reason I say it’s better for Christianity to have multiple denominations is because under one banner there would be no checks & balances system & no competition for hearts and minds. Moreover, protestantism (and its multiple denominations) is a testament to the greatness of western civilization. They rebelled against what was once an oppressive church, and to spite remaining mired in its ancient folklore and mythology our civilization has moved forward at lightening speed at least partly as a result of that rebellion.

Obviously any good Catholic would argue against the idea that the protestant reformation formed part of the impetus for the industrial revolution, the enlightenment, etc. etc. However, almost every great period in human history was preceded by a revolution of some sort.

It was the CC that created the first universities or centers for learning, it was the CC that created hospitals for the sick, it was the CC that patronized the arts and sciences, it was the CC that tended and took care of the poor . . . oppressive indeed!

If we look at history what the reformation did was to concentrate more power into the hands of the Monarch and/or state:

“Very soon secular princes and municipal magistrates made the Reformation a pretext for arbitrary interference in purely ecclesiastical and religious affairs, for appropriating ecclesiastical property and disposing of it at pleasure, and for deciding what faith their subjects should accept. Some followers of Luther went to even greater extremes. . . . Ecclesiastical affairs were now reorganized on the basis of the new teachings; henceforth the secular power is ever more clearly the supreme judge in purely religious matters, and completely disregards any independent ecclesiastical authority.”

continued:

“Advantage was also taken of the divisions existing in many places between the ecclesiastical and civil authorities. The development of the State, in its modern form, among the Christian peoples of the West gave rise to many disputes between the clergy and laity, between bishops and the cities, between monasteries and the territorial lords. When the reformers withdrew from the clergy all authority, especially all influence in civil affairs, they enabled the princes and municipal authorities to end these long-pending strifes to their own advantage by arbitrarily arrogating to themselves all disputed rights, banishing the hierarchy whose rights they usurped, and then establishing by their own authority a completely new ecclesiastical organization. The Reformed clergy thus possessed from the beginning only such rights as the civil authorities were pleased to assign them. Consequently the Reformed national Churches were completely subject to the civil authorities, and the Reformers, who had entrusted to the civil power the actual execution of their principles, had now no means of ridding themselves of this servitude.”

newadvent.org/cathen/12700b.htm

The end result is that the concentration of power into the hands of the Monarchy/State led to oppression. It substituted what you claim as the “oppression” of the Church for the oppression of the State. And history has already revealed how oppressive states can be.

P.S. There is such a system in the Church that offers checks and balances it’s a system which incorporates the Magisterium (guided by the Holy Spirit through Apostolic succession), Scripture and Tradition.

 

[josie_L]

That is my point exactly. One church with all the patriarchs in unity. The Holy Catholic Church, which includes Catholics of the Augsburg Confession, such as myself.
Josie, be blest in word and sacrament tomorrow.

Jon

Jon why haven’t you joined the CC, what has kept you from swimming the Tiber? And how do you profess to being a Catholic (as the Nicene writers were), if you are not in full communion with the CC (yet)?

P.S. I do realize that you are a part of the CC, but not perfectly so. Anyways, have a Happy Palm Sunday, Jon.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It was the CC that created the first universities or centers for learning,

Not quite - Catholics imitated & learned from Islam; Cordova was a centre of learning before the universities of Salerno & Paris were founded. It depends what one means by “centers for learning” - Athens & Alexandria could be so described, & they were both pre-Christian.​

it was the CC that created hospitals for the sick, it was the CC that patronized the arts and sciences, it was the CC that tended and took care of the poor . . . oppressive indeed!

That is all compatible with being oppressive, though. Others “patronized the arts and sciences” long before Christianity came along.​

If we look at history what the reformation did was to concentrate more power into the hands of the Monarch and/or state:

Catholic rulers from 1500 onward were jealous for their authority; Protestant rulers merely went one step further than some Catholic rulers, & ceased to be in union with Rome. Henry VIII & his Protestant successors were hardly distinguishable from Philip IV of France - at least no Protestant ruler ever tried to use an Ecumenical Council to condemn a pope posthumously, as he did. No Protestant ruler arrested a Pope as he did, either. It is a delusion to imagine that the Reformation was the beginning of the dependence of the Church on the state - that had been Byzantine practice for 1100 years. Constantine I was as eager to control the Church as any Protestant or Catholic ruler of the 16th century.​

The article is very one-sided.

“Very soon secular princes and municipal magistrates made the Reformation a pretext for arbitrary interference in purely ecclesiastical and religious affairs, for appropriating ecclesiastical property and disposing of it at pleasure, and for deciding what faith their subjects should accept. Some followers of Luther went to even greater extremes. . . . Ecclesiastical affairs were now reorganized on the basis of the new teachings; henceforth the secular power is ever more clearly the supreme judge in purely religious matters, and completely disregards any independent ecclesiastical authority.”

continued:

“Advantage was also taken of the divisions existing in many places between the ecclesiastical and civil authorities. The development of the State, in its modern form, among the Christian peoples of the West gave rise to many disputes between the clergy and laity, between bishops and the cities, between monasteries and the territorial lords. When the reformers withdrew from the clergy all authority, especially all influence in civil affairs, they enabled the princes and municipal authorities to end these long-pending strifes to their own advantage by arbitrarily arrogating to themselves all disputed rights, banishing the hierarchy whose rights they usurped, and then establishing by their own authority a completely new ecclesiastical organization. The Reformed clergy thus possessed from the beginning only such rights as the civil authorities were pleased to assign them. Consequently the Reformed national Churches were completely subject to the civil authorities, and the Reformers, who had entrusted to the civil power the actual execution of their principles, had now no means of ridding themselves of this servitude.”

newadvent.org/cathen/12700b.htm

The end result is that the concentration of power into the hands of the Monarchy/State led to oppression. It substituted what you claim as the “oppression” of the Church for the oppression of the State. And history has already revealed how oppressive states can be.

P.S. There is such a system in the Church that offers checks and balances it’s a system which incorporates the Magisterium (guided by the Holy Spirit through Apostolic succession), Scripture and Tradition.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Agreed. I wouldn’t want you to compromise, and neither will Lutherans and others. So, we must together look to the guidance of the Holy Spirit to reconcile our differing expressions of His truth.

Jon

if Lutherans do not believe that the CC is the One entrusted with the Truth of our Lord from the beginning, why are you people seeking reconciliation with the CC?
it does not make any sense.

:bowdown:

 

[kalt]

Ignorance declares that the CC was anti-intellectual. It also declares that it is the sole source of intelligence.

Can’t we all just read the history and agree that the CC isn’t the monster that Protestants would like people to believe it is?

So many Protestants need to believe that the CC was a tyrant that stopped learning in its tracks. They need to believe that the Reformation was the answer to stupidity.

They make themselves look incredibly stupid when, in 2009, with Google and a million other sources available to them, they insist that the CC is the root of all that is (and I mean is, not was) wrong with the world.

To the OP, I say again, if the Protestants dealing with each other have enough of a difference of opinion on their faith that they continually divide and found new churches, these differences are obviously make-or-break differences to them.

How divided is Protestantism? Protestants decide that for themselves when they determine that their beliefs are different enough to warrant a new church.

Count the number of Protestant churches that operate independantly and declare themselves seperate from their mother church, and you have the answer to your question.

I still can’t figure out why you asked the OQ. Isn’t the answer as simple as counting up the number of churches? Haven’t THEY decided that they are divided on faith? Why are you asking this question on a Catholic forum, as if it is the Catholics who decide that they are divided.

When a group of Protestants decide that their beliefs are different enough from the mother church to form a new church, they divide THEMSELVES.

Why don’t you ask this question on a Protestant forum?

 

[Florianus]

Unfortunately, Christianity is very, very divided. Only to speak for myself, I know people from 6 different protestant denominations in my near social sorounding. I guess that say’s a lot…

 

[humble_in_doubt]

It was the CC that created the first universities or centers for learning, it was the CC that created hospitals for the sick, it was the CC that patronized the arts and sciences, it was the CC that tended and took care of the poor . . . oppressive indeed!

that’s ridiculous … the “university” goes back to academy of Plato (long before Christianity). Stop inflating the CC’s accomplishments (you only strip your own credibility).

If we look at history what the reformation did was to concentrate more power into the hands of the Monarch and/or state:

that’s absurd, since just the opposite is true (or at a minimum we cannot quantify what actually led to the eventual rebellion against absolutism, but we might assume the reformation set the fire of rebellion against the social order of things throughout Europe).

“Very soon secular princes and municipal magistrates made the Reformation a pretext for arbitrary interference in purely ecclesiastical and religious affairs, for appropriating ecclesiastical property and disposing of it at pleasure, and for deciding what faith their subjects should accept. Some followers of Luther went to even greater extremes. . . . Ecclesiastical affairs were now reorganized on the basis of the new teachings; henceforth the secular power is ever more clearly the supreme judge in purely religious matters, and completely disregards any independent ecclesiastical authority.”

just think about how convoluted your line of reasoning is? Because Europeans (at least a large number of them) were able to rid themselves of one oppressive force (the CC) some degree of chaos ensued (which of course nearly always happens when radical change is introduced into society). Some of the existing rulers were able to exploit that chaos for a short period, but eventually the gavel of justice swung their way as well (since absolutism is history).

It’s far more likely that if the reformation never took place absolutism would have been around for much longer. Heck it might still be around (God only knows if there would have ever been an industrial revolution, enlightenment period, or American revolution).

I’d thank God for the reformation … but I don’t believe an invisible God exists (and thankfully I’m free to believe that because your church has been dethroned).

The end result is that the concentration of power into the hands of the Monarchy/State led to oppression. It substituted what you claim as the “oppression” of the Church for the oppression of the State. And history has already revealed how oppressive states can be.

P.S. There is such a system in the Church that offers checks and balances it’s a system which incorporates the Magisterium (guided by the Holy Spirit through Apostolic succession), Scripture and Tradition.

this is all nuts & wishful thinking on the part of your church (golly, if the world would only let us control it). Give me a break … I can’t believe people buy into this garbage?

 

[wisdomseeker]

that’s ridiculous … the “university” goes back to academy of Plato (long before Christianity). Stop inflating the CC’s accomplishments (you only strip your own credibility).

that’s absurd, since just the opposite is true (or at a minimum we cannot quantify what actually led to the eventual rebellion against absolutism, but we might assume the reformation set the fire of rebellion against the social order of things throughout Europe).

just think about how convoluted your line of reasoning is? Because Europeans (at least a large number of them) were able to rid themselves of one oppressive force (the CC) some degree of chaos ensued (which of course nearly always happens when radical change is introduced into society). Some of the existing rulers were able to exploit that chaos for a short period, but eventually the gavel of justice swung their way as well (since absolutism is history).

It’s far more likely that if the reformation never took place absolutism would have been around for much longer. Heck it might still be around (God only knows if there would have ever been an industrial revolution, enlightenment period, or American revolution).

I’d thank God for the reformation … but I don’t believe an invisible God exists (and thankfully I’m free to believe that because your church has been dethroned).

this is all nuts & wishful thinking on the part of your church (golly, if the world would only let us control it). Give me a break … I can’t believe people buy into this garbage?

it is interesting to me that all this come from you because you dont even know what you believe. yet you are here argueing against the Truth. there is only One Truth, One God, One Lord, One Spirit, therefore One Church, One True teaching. absolutism? monopoly on Truth?, i heard them all. it does not matter. One Lord found One Church, One Truth and not many lords and not many churches, certainly not many truths.

i understand how satan works on people. he first lies to them about the Church Jesus found blinding them to the Truth with his lies. with his lies he keeps people from the True Church. satan has, from the beginning, decided that he would take possession of everything God has created. he cannot take the Church from Christ but he will keep many away from her because many believes his lies.

think about this for once.

:bowdown:

 

[josie_L]

Not quite - Catholics imitated & learned from Islam; Cordova was a centre of learning before the universities of Salerno & Paris were founded. It depends what one means by “centers for learning” - Athens & Alexandria could be so described, & they were both pre-Christian.​

"The university was an utterly new phenomenon in European history. Nothing like it had existed in ancient Greece or Rome. The institution that we recognize today, with its faculties, courses of study, examinations and degrees, as well as the distinction between undergraduate and graduate study, comes to us directly from the medieval world. The Church developed the university system because, according to historian Lowrie Daly, it was "the only institution in Europe that showed consistent interest in the preservation and cultivation of knowledge."

Again, how is this oppressive by anyones standard?

“Aside from the Church’s intellectual role in fostering the universities, the papacy played a central role in establishing and encouraging them. Naturally, the granting of a charter to a university was one indication of this papal role. Eighty-one universities had been established by the time of the Reformation.”

So the CC did create the college/university system, and furthermore, monks of old in Europe, preserved “the works of the classical world and of the Church fathers, both of which are central to Western civilization, the monks performed another immeasurable importance in their capacity as copyists: the preservation of the Bible.”

“The monastic contribution to Western civilization . . . is immense. Among other things, the monks taught metallurgy, pioneered in technology, invented champagne, improved the European landscape, provided for wanderers of every stripe and looked after the lost and shipwrecked.”

Again, how is this oppressive?

That is all compatible with being oppressive (what in tarnation does this mean?), though. Others “patronized the arts and sciences” long before Christianity came along.​

I am talking about what the CC did for the Sciences and the Arts, so as to prove that the CC was at the centre of learning and culture and not the backward and oppressive institution that humble in doubt thinks it is.

"For the last fifty years, virtually all historians of science- including A.C. Crombie, David Lindberg, Edward Grant, Stanley Jaki, Thomas Goldstein, and J.L. Heilbron have concluded that the Scientific Revolution was indebted to the Church. The Catholic contribution to science went well beyond ideas - including theological ideas -to accomplished practicing scientists, many of whom were priests. For example, Father Nicholas Steno, a Lutheran convert who became a Catholic priest, is often identified as the father of geology. The father of Egyptology was Father Athanasius Kircher. The first person to measure the rate of acceleration of a free falling body was yet another priest, Father Giambattista Riccioli. Father Roger Boscovich is often credited as the father of modern atomic theory. Jesuits so dominated the study of earthquakes that seismology became known as “the Jesuit science.”

"Even though some thirty-five craters on the moon are named for Jesuit scientists and mathematicians the Church’s contributions to astronomy are all but unknown . . . Yet, as J.L. Heilbron of the University of California at Berkeley points out, “The Roman Catholic Church gave more financial aid and social support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning during the late Middles Ages into the Enlightment, than any other, and probably, all other institutions.”

All quotes were taken from “How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” by Thomas E. Woods, Jr., Ph.D.

I will continue my argument of the “oppressive” Catholic Church, on another post.

 

[josie_L]

that’s ridiculous … the “university” goes back to academy of Plato (long before Christianity). Stop inflating the CC’s accomplishments (you only strip your own credibility).

Please read my response to Gottle of Geer on who created the university system.

that’s absurd, since just the opposite is true (or at a minimum we cannot quantify what actually led to the eventual rebellion against absolutism, but we might assume the reformation set the fire of rebellion against the social order of things throughout Europe).

Speculation is not an argument.

I was just think about how convoluted your line of reasoning is?

How so, I never claimed the CC was oppressive, you did.

Because Europeans (at least a large number of them) were able to rid themselves of one oppressive force (the CC)

You keep stating “oppressive” but that humble in doubt is merely your opinion, and that does not therefore make it factual.

some degree of chaos ensued (which of course nearly always happens when radical change is introduced into society). Some of the existing rulers were able to exploit that chaos for a short period, **but eventually the gavel of justice swung their way as well (since absolutism is history). **

Oh, yes the gavel of justice, as in the wonderful ideology of Communism, Nihilism, Nazism, Fascism, and any other isms we have experienced upon our release from the oppressive CC.

It’s far more likely that if the reformation never took place absolutism would have been around for much longer. Heck it might still be around (God only knows if there would have ever been an industrial revolution, enlightenment period, or American revolution).

This is all speculation, and mere ranting.

I’d thank God for the reformation … but I don’t believe an invisible God exists (and thankfully I’m free to believe that because your church has been dethroned).

My Church is the representative of Jesus Christ, the King of Kings, it will never be dethroned.

this is all nuts & wishful thinking on the part of your church (golly, if the world would only let us control it). Give me a break … I can’t believe people buy into this garbage?

No, it is truth, and truth is not relative. God bless you!

 

[SSTeacher]

Ignorance declares that the CC was anti-intellectual. It also declares that it is the sole source of intelligence.

Can’t we all just read the history and agree that the CC isn’t the monster that Protestants would like people to believe it is?

So many Protestants need to believe that the CC was a tyrant that stopped learning in its tracks. They need to believe that the Reformation was the answer to stupidity.

They make themselves look incredibly stupid when, in 2009, with Google and a million other sources available to them, they insist that the CC is the root of all that is (and I mean is, not was) wrong with the world.

To the OP, I say again, if the Protestants dealing with each other have enough of a difference of opinion on their faith that they continually divide and found new churches, these differences are obviously make-or-break differences to them.

How divided is Protestantism? Protestants decide that for themselves when they determine that their beliefs are different enough to warrant a new church.

Count the number of Protestant churches that operate independantly and declare themselves seperate from their mother church, and you have the answer to your question.

I still can’t figure out why you asked the OQ. Isn’t the answer as simple as counting up the number of churches? Haven’t THEY decided that they are divided on faith? Why are you asking this question on a Catholic forum, as if it is the Catholics who decide that they are divided.

When a group of Protestants decide that their beliefs are different enough from the mother church to form a new church, they divide THEMSELVES.

Why don’t you ask this question on a Protestant forum?

You seem to be very angry about my post.

Observantly,
Mick

 

[josie_L]

That is all compatible with being oppressive, though. Others “patronized the arts and sciences” long before Christianity came along.

**I didn’t say the CC was the first to “patronize the arts and sciences” so your above comment is irrevelant. **

Catholic rulers from 1500 onward were jealous for their authority; Protestant rulers merely went one step further than some Catholtic rulers, & ceased to be in union with Rome.​

They only went one step further . . . **how about they took one unprecedented giant leap that included: ** stealing church lands and all the treasures of the monasteries they gutted (for gold, jewels and any other priceless works of art), as well as stealing Catholic universities and cathedrals, and killing any and all who stood in the way of their greed.

Their purpose or involvement in the Reformation was not altruistic but self-aggrandizing. The state now had full religious/ecclesiastical authority which no other past monarch had, hence, more power was concentrated into their hands.

Henry VIII & his Protestant successors were hardly distinguishable from Philip IV of France - at least no Protestant ruler ever tried to use an Ecumenical Council to condemn a pope posthumously, as he did. No Protestant ruler arrested a Pope as he did, either. It is a delusion to imagine that the Reformation was the beginning of the dependence of the Church on the state - that had been Byzantine practice for 1100 years. Constantine I was as eager to control the Church as any Protestant or Catholic ruler of the 16th century.

You’ve just proven my point that the Church was not the oppressor as was claimed by humble in doubt. It was always struggling with a state that was hungry for power (ecclesial and otherwise). The Reformation however made it possible for the state to attain religious/ecclesiastical authority which it never previously had, i.e., to be supreme head of.

The article is very one-sided.

First, did you read the whole article? And secondly, if by one-sided you mean it delineates the Catholic perspective, good, it’s about time.

 

[kalt]

You seem to be very angry about my post.

Observantly,
Mick

I think your question is stupid. It assumes that Catholics have decided, without cause, that Protestantism is a divided lot.

As I said in my previous post, it is the Protestants who divide themselves.

Why ask Catholics how divided Protestants are? Why not find a Protestant forum and ask those who divide themselves?

If those involved in Protestantism decide that they are divided, why do you need someone else’s opinion? Why not go to the source?

You seem to believe that it’s Catholics who decided that Protestants are divided. Are you being insulting to Protestants, who you must believe don’t know if dividing means divided, or are you trying to accuse Catholics of saying there is division where you don’t think there is division, despite the Protestants’ action of dividing?

Whatever your goal is, the question is just stupid.

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;5038947:

You seem to be very angry about my post.

Observantly,
Mick

I think your question is stupid. It assumes that Catholics have decided, without cause, that Protestantism is a divided lot.

As I said in my previous post, it is the Protestants who divide themselves.

Why ask Catholics how divided Protestants are? Why not find a Protestant forum and ask those who divide themselves?

If those involved in Protestantism decide that they are divided, why do you need someone else’s opinion? Why not go to the source?

You seem to believe that it’s Catholics who decided that Protestants are divided. Are you being insulting to Protestants, who you must believe don’t know if dividing means divided, or are you trying to accuse Catholics of saying there is division where you don’t think there is division, despite the Protestants’ action of dividing?

Whatever your goal is, the question is just stupid.

Comment duly noted.

Grace and peace,
Mick

 

[JonNC]

=josie L;5037104]Jon why haven’t you joined the CC, what has kept you from swimming the Tiber?

Hi Josie,
There are some issues that prevent me from leaving my current communion and joining yours, but the number of reasons has decreased of late. Suffice: the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, I remain unsure about purgatory, and intercessory prayer.
Curious, why do you ask the question?

And how do you profess to being a Catholic (as the Nicene writers were), if you are not in full communion with the CC (yet)?

The question presumes, again, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, which I’m not ready to accept, even historically. Would you ask the same if I were Orthodox? Are the Orthodox, as they were, in part, the Nicene writers, Catholic? But yes, I consider myself Catholic, albeit evangelical Catholic, since the separation between our communions happened long after. IOW, the councils are part of our history, too.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

if Lutherans do not believe that the CC is the One entrusted with the Truth of our Lord from the beginning, why are you people seeking reconciliation with the CC?
it does not make any sense.
:bowdown:

The Catholic Church is seeking reconciliation with us, as well - dialogue goes both ways, and it can be said that, through Vatican II, the CC played a larger role in initiating it, thank God. Why do so if you don’t believe we are entrusted of our Lord from the beginning?

My answer is because separated we are wounded, both communions. We have an obligation to Christ to unify His church, or at least try. To love and respect each other as brothers and sisters in Christ.
We are in dialogue with the Orthodox, as well, and others, and so are you.
May the Holy Spirit guide us.

But perhaps another answer is we recognize the Bishop of Rome as the western patriarch, a nd we are part of the western church,

Jon

 

[kalt]

Comment duly noted.

Grace and peace,
Mick

“Grace and peace.” :tsktsk:

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

One of the criticisms made by Catholics about the Protestant movement is that it is continually dividing into more and more “denominations.” The number of denominations cited can be anything from 33,000 and upward. The reason invariably given to explain this state of affairs is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

I’m not so sure that this argument is quite as overwhelming as Catholics might like to think. The logic seems unsound. If it were sound then when we Protestants see division in the ranks of the Catholic Church we would by using the same logic suggest that the Catholic Magisterium is to blame for the differences of viewpoint. Presumably, most Catholics would see such an assertion as wayward? Well, then, if a Protestant believes that the Bible rather than the Magesterium is a sufficient rule of faith how is it that Catholics conclude that a difference of opinion abut our sufficient source is a valid argument against its sufficiency?

Whatever. That’s merely an en passant observation since my focus here is not upon the method of argumentation used against the doctrine of Sola Scriptura but upon the actual division within the Protestant movement since that division is undoubtedly a reality. The suffix that Catholics usually add to their argument against the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is that the denominations “all disagree with each other.”

Does that assertion adequately describe the reality? Do we Protestants all disagree with each other? The 33,000 figure (apparently lifted from the World Christian Encyclopedia – check it out, it’s only $300+) implies that there are 33,000 different viewpoints or opinions i.e. total cacophony. But I respectfully submit that an objective analyst would probably not draw that conclusion. We Protestants do not disagree about everything. For example, it’s reasonable to assume that most Protestants have no trouble reciting the Nicene Creed – including the filioque, incidentally – as a public profession of faith.

So, how “divided” are Protestants? Not as much as some might suggest, perhaps?

Cordially,
Mick

The differences among Catholics are due to a lack of obedience by certain individuals, not a lack of doctrinal unity.

Among protestant denominations, there are major doctrinal differences on central matters of faith and morals.

 

[Bill_Pick]

I think your question is stupid. It assumes that Catholics have decided, without cause, that Protestantism is a divided lot.

As I said in my previous post, it is the Protestants who divide themselves.

Why ask Catholics how divided Protestants are? Why not find a Protestant forum and ask those who divide themselves?

If those involved in Protestantism decide that they are divided, why do you need someone else’s opinion? Why not go to the source?

You seem to believe that it’s Catholics who decided that Protestants are divided. Are you being insulting to Protestants, who you must believe don’t know if dividing means divided, or are you trying to accuse Catholics of saying there is division where you don’t think there is division, despite the Protestants’ action of dividing?

Whatever your goal is, the question is just stupid.

Thats Christian like telling some one their question is stupid…