How many Protestant denominations? 33,820?

[Katholikos]

Received from an efriend,

**A few weeks ago, I was sitting in a waiting room at a doctors office and I was browsing through a magazine (*Newsweek, ***I think). I came across a short piece about a “Christian nudist colony.” The article quoted the founder who said that when Jesus washed the feet of the Apostles, He was nude! He also said that Peter was nude when he was fishing on the boat. Gee, I must have missed that in the Bible!

---

This illustrates perfectly the fallacy and folly of Luther’s doctrine of Sola Scriptura. It is a foundational doctrine of Protestantism, along with Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, and a couple of other less seismic “sola’s.”

This nudist colony spokesman read this idea into the Bible, just as Luther read Sola Scriptura and Sole Fide ***into ***the Bible, and thousands of Protestant denominations have read their conflicting and competing doctrines into the Bible.

It’s called eisogesis.

---

JMJ Jay

 

[Shibboleth]

Katholikos:

Received from an efriend,

**A few weeks ago, I was sitting in a waiting room at a doctors office and I was browsing through a magazine (*Newsweek, ***I think). I came across a short piece about a “Christian nudist colony.” The article quoted the founder who said that when Jesus washed the feet of the Apostles, He was nude! He also said that Peter was nude when he was fishing on the boat. Gee, I must have missed that in the Bible!

---

This illustrates perfectly the fallacy and folly of Luther’s doctrine of Sola Scriptura. It is a foundational doctrine of Protestantism, along with Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, and a couple of other less seismic “sola’s.”

This nudist colony spokesman read this idea into the Bible, just as Luther read Sola Scriptura and Sole Fide ***into ***the Bible, and thousands of Protestant denominations have read their conflicting and competing doctrines into the Bible.

It’s called eisogesis.

---

JMJ Jay

Did you give him supporting documentation on why you disagreed or did you just use the name Luther a few times and tell him that he has no opinion because of Sola Scriptura?

Has the Magisterium given any sort of comment on nudist colonies, I am curious – I do not know.

Let me ask you do you ever make comments or reference to scripture on issues that are not directly outlined by the Pope and the Magisterium? Be careful on how you answer this because I can look at all of your past posts.

 

[Katholikos]

I’ve opened a new thread, as promised, on the subect of WHY DO CATHOLICS BELIEVE IN PURGATORY AND PROTESTANTS DO NOT?
I hope you post your heart out, Churchmouse, and anyone else interested in the subject.

Oremus pro invicem, Jay

 

[Calvin]

… you know I was thinking about this question this morning:

A Protestant disagrees with his denomination, gathers some like-minded folks together, buys some property and starts a new congregation. Vola – a new denomination.

A Catholic disagrees with his Church (a la Kerry, Willis, Rainbow Sash, or the lady in the attached picture), gathers some like-minded folks together, publically complains about Catholic doctrine, writes books disputing Catholic doctrine, teaches others to subvert Catholic doctrine, goes on the internet and argues against Catholic doctrine and continues to present himself (herself) for the Eucharist…

In the first instance, we have a “new denomination.” In the second instance we don’t???

Which individual is better off in the end? The Protestant who honestly disagrees and forms a new group on the basis of his or her disagreement or the Catholic who claims the name but none of the discipline of his or her Church?

I don’t think we should penalize Protestants too badly for being honest in counting our disagreements. I recon if you counted every group of dissident Catholics (who have no outlets for their dissenting opinions) you would have similar numbers of “catholic denominations.” It seems to me if the Catholic Church got her own house in order through better teaching, cathechism, and discipline it would be more attractive to some Protestants. As someone on the outside looking in I see similar divisions in the Catholic Church as in the Protestant sects. We just call a spade a spade and adopt different names…

Just my two denari.

-C

 

[Churchmouse]

I opened a new thread called WHAT IS THE BIBLE? HOW SHOULD WE READ IT? (I think that’s what I called it.) That will get us started, Churchmouse.

I’ll open a new thread to address your concerns about purgatory early in the morning.

Well, if I feel like posting, and have the time, I’ll post. If not, I won’t. Like the immortal Bobby Brown sang in the early 90’s…“It’s my prerogative.” :dancing:

One thing I learned when I first started studying Catholicism: there’s no question that has not been already asked and answered by the Church many tiimes over in her long, 2,000-year history. But she gladly answers them again for me and for each new inquirer.

Hey, that’s the same thing I learned on my way out

Peace,
CM

 

[Churchmouse]

Katholikos:

Received from an efriend,

**A few weeks ago, I was sitting in a waiting room at a doctors office and I was browsing through a magazine (*Newsweek, ***I think). I came across a short piece about a “Christian nudist colony.” The article quoted the founder who said that when Jesus washed the feet of the Apostles, He was nude! He also said that Peter was nude when he was fishing on the boat. Gee, I must have missed that in the Bible!

---

This illustrates perfectly the fallacy and folly of Luther’s doctrine of Sola Scriptura. It is a foundational doctrine of Protestantism, along with Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, and a couple of other less seismic “sola’s.”

This nudist colony spokesman read this idea into the Bible, just as Luther read Sola Scriptura and Sole Fide ***into ***the Bible, and thousands of Protestant denominations have read their conflicting and competing doctrines into the Bible.

It’s called eisogesis.

---

JMJ Jay

Rest assured, Jay. Neither of these are the naked truth None of these are found in the Bible, thus there is nothing which appeals to Sola Scriptura. I guess the “Christian” who runs the nudist colony must have found some ancient oral tradition to support what the Bible didn’t say .

Peace,
CM

 

[Churchmouse]

Katholikos:

Churchmouse,

You’re taking this thread far from its original subject: the number of Protestant denominations and anything related. I’ve already answered one question concerning Mary, which should have been on a separate thread, and you have biblical interpretation, purgatory, the priesthood of all believers, Church authority, and other questions which you’re raising here as well.

I’m the one taking this thread in a different direction??? Isn’t this a double-standard? Let me see, a post is started detailing the “fragmentation” and “splintering” of “Protestants” (assumed and unassumed). Peppered throughout we get the same, tired arguments about the 2,000 year old church which never changed. I bring up that the early church didn’t hold to RC distinctives, someone questions some of my comments and now I am blamed. Sorry, but these things happen.

As evidenced by my responses, nothing has been answered regarding Mary and, if you look closely, no biblical evidence has been submitted regarding the other issues as well.

As a participant in this forum, I prefer it if the subject of the thread has some relation to its content. If I’m looking for information on purgatory, for example, I wouldn’t expect to find it in a thread on the number of denominations. I don’t read threads if I have no interest in the subject. I simply don’t have time to read them all.

None of us have the time to get into everything, so we focus on our strengths as God has given us, but once again, I am not the one culpable in regards to this. I am a participant as well and if folks are directing their posts to me, I will do my best in responding to them. It’s unfortunate that the intent of the post gets obfuscated along the way, but sometimes, that’s just the nature of the beast.

Please, let’s separate your issues and deal with them one at a time. I’ll start a thread on biblical interpretation first, since that’s basic to any Christian discussion, and then open one on purgatory. Feel free to start a thread on any topic at any time and we’ll all chime in.

That’s fine, and depending on time, I’ll see what I can do. More than likely, I’ll participate in just one at a time.

Peace,
CM

 

[Churchmouse]

Jesus left his Blessed Mother in the care of St. John, the beloved disciple. How do we know the name of the beloved disciple when Scripture doesn’t tell us? The Church was there – an eyewitness – and her Traditions inform the Scriptures. The beloved disciple himself wrote about this event in his Gospel.

“And from that hour the disciple took her into his home” Jn 19:27.

Yea, kind of strange isn’t it. This Gospel was written after the fact and John barely mentions Mary. He didn’t even mention that she was “Queen of Heaven,” Mediatrix/Co-Redemptress, Mother of the Church, Immaculate Conception, etc. Considering that he was given to her as a son, he didn’t include a single iota on how Mary was “our” mother as well, nor that she was miraculously “assumed” into heaven. Given the importance of Mary to the Church he must’ve been one lousy son to practically ignore her in his Gospel. Guess it slipped his mind. Truth is, Mary needed spiritual, financial, and probably some emotional help so—being a good son—Jesus wanted his earthly mother to be taken care of, thus He gave her to the only one who didn’t abandon him at the Cross. Another odd thing is that, after Christ arose, you would think that one of the Gospels would’ve emphasized a little bit of Mary, so as not to undermine her importance. According to Catholicism, after the Godhead, she is the single-most important person, the “mother” of the Church, yet we are met with complete Scriptural silence on the many attributes given to her by Catholics. Oh, well.

“When they entered the city they went to the upper room where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. All these devoted themselves with one accord to prayer, together with some women, and Mary, the Mother of Jesus, and his brothers.” [They – Mary and the Apostles – were in the Upper Room, in prayer, for nine days. . . making the first novena, Latin for “nine.”] "And when the time for Pentecost was fulfilled, they were all in one place together. And suddenly there came from the sky a noise like a strong driving wind, and it filled the entire house in which they were. Then there appeared to them tongues as of fire and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit . . . (Acts 2:1-4).

The beloved disciple who had direct responsibility for Mary’s care and protection took her with him when the Apostles gathered, so they all could be together with her, to comfort her, to love her, to share in her care. She was one of the “they.”

[continued…]

 

[Churchmouse]

[Part 2]

So when the Holy Spirit, promised by Jesus Christ, came that Pentecost morning, after Mary and the Apostles had prayed for nine days, He descended upon the Blessed Mother as well as upon the Apostles. Mary was cared for and loved by all of her Son’s disciples. Could they ever do enough for the Mother of their crucified Savior? Pentecost is the birthday of the Church. Mary, Mother of the Church, was there to witness the birth of Her Son’s Church, just as she witnessed the birth of Her Son – the God-Man, Jesus Christ – whom she nurtured Him in her womb for nine months.

Mary was simply a servant and disciple of our Lord. By this time, she had already seen the risen Lord and was comforted by this fact. In the Upper Room, she shared in the blessing along with the other disciples. Considering that she was given to John, her daily cares were given by him, but does this mean in any way that he or they were devoted to her in the ways Catholics claim devotion for her today? Sorry, not according to the biblical accounts. I know you hate the word “assumption” unless it pertains to Mary, but nonetheless, you’re injecting your preconceived notions and coming up with a story foreign to the context of Acts 2.

Peace,
CM

 

[E.E.N.S]

Satan uses a very simple, yet effective technique, “divide and conquer”…something that is used in the art of war…

here is a thread about objections and sola scriptura…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=5665&highlight=objections

ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTALIC!

 

[Churchmouse]

Hi again df,

Quick question,
since Ignatius was taught by the Apostle John, does not his view on Mary stem directly from the apostle himself?

No, not necessarily and what views are you referring to? If you are referring to the quote you submitted earlier, I would agree with Ignatius. Who wouldn’t want to meet the woman God chose to bear His son. I sure would, but I would also love to meet any of the players from that era.

Also, who is John referring to in Revelation as the woman clothed with the sun who gives birth and is then flees into the desert. Sounds vaguely familiar, like the story of Mary, Joseph and Jesus our of Luke, doesn’t it?

No, it doesn’t. If you look at approximately the first 400 years of the Church, the verse was always the Church. After this, the views vary.

Again, just some meandering thoughts.

But good thoughts, nonetheless.

Peace,
CM

 

[E.E.N.S]

Churchmouse:

Mary was simply a servant and disciple of our Lord. By this time, she had already seen the risen Lord and was comforted by this fact. In the Upper Room, she shared in the blessing along with the other disciples. Considering that she was given to John, her daily cares were given by him, but does this mean in any way that he or they were devoted to her in the ways Catholics claim devotion for her today? Sorry, not according to the biblical accounts. I know you hate the word “assumption” unless it pertains to Mary, but nonetheless, you’re injecting your preconceived notions and coming up with a story foreign to the context of Acts 2.

Peace,
CM

Check this out…just a small tidbit, but perhaps you may find yourself in a different opinion…
catholicapologetics.net/refom_on_mary.htm

 

[E.E.N.S]

Churchmouse:

No, it doesn’t. If you look at approximately the first 400 years of the Church, the verse was always the Church. After this, the views vary.
Peace,
CM

Jesus (new Adam), Mary (new Eve);
Jesus (Head of Church), Mary (?)…
there are some amazing/astounding things our Lord has in store for us all…
hmmm…

 

[E.E.N.S]

…and with Mary being co-redeemer…

we all believe that God is unchanging, right?
God CHOSE to use Mary to bring our Lord into this world…

…something to ponder/study…

 

[Churchmouse]

St. John wrote that to one of the early churches after certain heretics had come in teaching something different than Christ’s teachings. St. John was affirming that his “little ones,” (speaking as a bishop to his faithful) knew the Truth as a benefit of their annointing, and didn’t need to be taught from others, basically from others who were teaching against Christ. That exerpt in no way implies that everyone who accepts Christ is infallible in interpretting Scripture!

You’re partially correct! He wrote it to the “church” considering the battle against the Gnostics, in particular Cerinthus, but you cannot pigeonhole the interpretation to mean what you say it does. He is speaking in general terms and not selectively. He is saying that every true believer will, through the Spirit, know truth. He will not fail those who put there trust in Him.

If you deny me before men, I will deny you before My Heavenly Father.

I don’t know why you quote this. I said that He will not forsake those who trust in Him. Obviously, those who trust in Him aren’t denying Him.

You declaring these as errors doesn’t make it so! If you had ~ and believed in ~ a complete Bible, you’d know that the Apostles and Early Church Fathers believed that praying for the dead was a noble act. It’s in Maccabees, one of the books scrapped by your buddy Martin Luther.

There are a few Catholics on this forum who seem to like provoking anger; probably due to their own lack of answers, but [my] ”…buddy Martin Luther”??? If you can’t dialogue responsibly than you shouldn’t be dialoguing at all. I believe in a complete Bible and I already told you that the issues are deeper than what you let on. Luther followed an older tradition, one where other Catholics denied these books throughout history up until the time of Luther himself (Cajetan, Ximenes, etc.). Are you ignoring this purposely?

The Apostles were devoted to Mary, as Christ entrusted Her to His beloved Apostle from the Cross, calling Her John’s mother, and calling John the son of Mary. From that day forward, the beloved Apostle took her into his care. That’s Marian devotion. And Jesus requested it be that way.

[continued…]

 

[Churchmouse]

[Part 2]

Once again, you’re taking a simple Scriptural quote and adding thoughts not found in the context. In this case, Jesus gives Mary to John and John to Mary, but you take it one step further and now all the Apostles are devoted to Mary. Once again, give me the Scriptures proving that the Apostles were “devoted to Mary.” Jesus gave Mary to John’s care because Mary needed help whether that be spiritual, financial, emotional, etc. This isn’t the type of devotion Catholics claim. If John recognized Mary as being much more than simply a servant, he would have stated more in his Gospel about her. After all, she is the “mother” of the Church. You would see the Apostles, such as Peter and Paul, putting more emphasis on the “mother” as they built the Church, but instead what we find is nothing.

After Judas betrayed Jesus and committed suicide, the Apostles sought a replacement for him. Two candidates came forth, Matthias and Barnabus. Why was Barnabus excluded? Because there was, already, an exclusive priesthood.

Ah, yes. An “exclusive priesthood” complete with celibates and levels of authority such as priests, monsignors, bishops, cardinals, etc. Did Barnabas eventually become a cardinal? Although Catholics give a lot a lip service to the verses showing this, we are ALL kings and priests in Christ.

yeah, right Churchmouse, calling the church “the pillar and bulwark of truth” still means she can and does err… Actually, I was thinking of when Jesus told His Apostles, the first bishops, “He who hears you, hears Me.” He didn’t say, “He who reads the Bible, hears Me,” though we all do believe that the Bible is the Word of God. He instituted an authority to speak for Him on earth once He was ascended into heaven. If that’s not enough, He gave them the authority to forgive men’s sins, “If you forgive men’s sins they are forgiven them; if you hold them bound, they are held bound.” He gave to Peter, the keys to the kingdom, and told him whatever he bound on earth would be bound in heaven and whatever he loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven. Jesus promised that when the Church spoke, heaven would back it up!!!

[continued…]

 

[Churchmouse]

[Part 3]

It’s amazing to see how you must first inflict Catholic thought and then expect me to follow right along. Sorry, being the “pillar and bulwark of truth” isn’t a guarantee against error. The words or context don’t even hint as much. Of course Jesus told his “Apostles” that “he who hears you, hears me.” Why, because they were his “Apostles.” The ability to forgive sins comes in the context of sharing the Gospel—those who accept, their sins are forgiven—those who reject, their sins are retained. Fact is, if you go back to the passages where Christ first mentions this (Mt. 16:19; Mt. 18:18), the correct translation of this verse is “*Whatever you shall bind on earth shall occur, having been bound in Heaven; and whatever you shall loose on earth shall occur, *having been loosed ** in Heaven.” What this means is that the Apostles are declaring what has *already been declared * in heaven. So, no, it isn’t that the Church is “backed up” by heaven, but that the Church is reaffirming what heaven has already declared.

Peace,
CM

 

[Katholikos]

Irish Melkite:

I suggest as a best source:

CNEWA - Eastern Christian Churches - Roberson

For a list by Rite and Tradition, see:

Rite, Tradition, Church - Part 1

Rite, Tradition, Church - Part 2

Neil

Much obliged, Neil. You prolly noticed one of the sites giving the # as 22 is the Melkite site. You might want to make sure they get the word also. Thanks! JMJ Jay

 

[Churchmouse]

wrong, wrong, wrong!

Well, that says a lot. Doesn’t prove anything but says a lot.

Nope. A little thing called Sacred Tradition. That, for those of you whose church is somewhere between 500 years and 5 minutes old, means that 2,000 years ago, our Fathers were teaching this stuff!

Thus, I was correct. The Church tells you what this “Sacred Tradition” is and you follow, but when asked to show me the records proving that these were truly taught by the Apostles and silence. For instance, you claimed that the Apostles were devoted to Mary, I asked you to prove it, and notice what you did? You appealed to “Scripture”! Why? Because you didn’t have any “Sacred Tradition” within the Apostolic period to prove otherwise. So much for “Sacred Tradition.”

Nope. A little thing called history. Jesus founded a Church upon the man He chose to lead the faithful. Providentially, it sometimes appears that He chose the weakest of the Apostles to be the leader. Perhaps that was just to illustrate how weak men would still be able to lead His Great Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit!

Pedigree is hardly a barometer of truth when you consider that the early church didn’t hold to distinctive Roman Catholic doctrines and dogmas. IOW, that Church isn’t teaching some of what your Church claims they did.

Again, Sacred Tradition and history, neither of which you can claim to back up your beliefs.

Au contraire, one doesn’t have to be Catholic to appreciate the traditions and history of the Church and to use these sources to evaluate what comprised their beliefs. Yes, they can be used to show how the early church didn’t teach what you would claim it did, but of course, when questioned about these beliefs and their absence in early church history, you would just appeal to Newman’s argument for “development.” The bases are conveniently “covered.”

Could it be because you’re prideful and refuse to submit to any authority besides yourself?

How would you know if I’m prideful? You aren’t the one who searches the hearts, are you? Could it be that some of us actually have a desire to know God and to follow him “in Spirit and in truth”? Thus, we put our trust squarely on Him and rely on His daily bread. Could that possibly be a possibility???

Biblically and historically, the Apostles appointed successors. And those successors wrote much on the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. The Bible even says that there’s much more than all the books in the world could contain.

Yet, we cannot p(name removed by moderator)oint which Apostle stated “what” and if he truly stated it, regardless of these successors? John 21:25 speaks about the things Christ “did” pertaining to the signs, the wonders, and the miracles, the things not recorded within the Gospels or the epistles.

[continued…]

 

[Churchmouse]

Oh, there is plenty of evidence!!! You simply choose to ignore it!!! Christ instituted seven tangible Sacraments. How many of them do you accept?

If there is plenty than why haven’t you submitted any? How can I ignore the evidence which isn’t there? The Sacraments have nothing to do with this dialogue, unless you are saying that these sacraments were taught by Christ to the Apostles through oral traditions, which would bring us back to my original point: Prove it.

Even Jesus willed to be subject to authority here on earth. He was submissive to His mere mortal parents,

Not when it came to his Father’s work. Look at Luke 2:42-51 and John 2:4. No authority should be followed if it impedes the Father’s work. This would include the Church if it teaches what the Father never authorized.

to the Will of His Heavenly Father,

Of course! First and foremost!

and even to the corrupt pharisees and saducees and political leaders of His day.

You’re half right. Jesus told them to “observe” what the Pharisees tell them to observe (Mt. 23:2-3). The Sadducees were bogus and didn’t believe in the afterlife or in spiritual entities, such as angels. Things had become so awry that a Sadducee was the high priest that year (Caiaphas). Thus, considering that the Sadducees weren’t teaching the God-ordained tenets of the Jewish faith, Jesus tells them to follow what the Pharisees teach because they rightfully sit on Moses’ seat. So, what does this all mean? It means that we are not to follow any authority which doesn’t teach the God-ordained tenets of the faith regardless if they are in authority.

He exemplified submission to authority, and He established an authority, to whom Catholics pledge their filial loyalty.

Authority means nothing if it goes against God-given tenets. IOW, ultimately God is the final authority and not the Church.

It’s your funeral.

Oh, that’s a nice “Clint Eastwood” type ending, but considering that you aimed it at someone who trusts the Lord with all his heart….it shoots blanks. Save the emotionalisms for someone who truly buys them.

Peace,
CM