EXACTLY! Because it is more than just belief-right? You gave reasons which in no shape or form support your position. Again, tell me where Jesus or the Apostles advocated anyone can found/establish their own church and teach different doctrines and still be part of His ONE Body? That is where you go in circles.
You need to deal with me on my own terms and interact with what I actually say. I will not permit you to put words in my mouth and then demand that I defend what you put there.
LOL! Still no scripture chapter or verse-eh? New denominations since the first missionary journey? And I am sure you have concrete historical proof showing us Catholics the immense list of denominations since the 1st century?
All that is necessary for one denomination to be a “different” one from the next is that the Church be present in two different countries. By that method of counting, there are technically over 240 Catholic denominations in the world (and that’s just the Catholics in full communion with Rome). The Eastern Orthodox, when counted by the same rules as Protestants, have over 1,000 because each of the national churches is counted as a denomination to start with, and then each of those is counted by as many countries in which it is represented. That is the manner in which the 1,000+ figure goes to the Orthodox, and that is the way in which the 30k figure comes about for Protestant denominations. Let’s not forget that all of this is happening in the West, which was formerly under the control of the pope. Then there was a great deal of disunity in the Western church (although it did not cause the Church itself to be divided), and that disunity has shown itself to be pervasive, irreversible, and permanent. That means the West became disunited (with regard to ecclesial authority) and it never stopped being disunited. That also means all of our ecclesial disunity has something to do with you as well. I will contend, however, that it hasn’t affected the intrinsic and mysterious unity of Christ’s Body, the Church.
LOL! Here do not choke on the following:
Well, that’s charitable.
“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).
I’m familiar with that, and it does not talk about baptizing infants. Baptism is talked about in this source, but it does not talk about baptizing them. Baptism and infants are spoken of separately, but again, it does not talk about infant baptism.
False again and a modern novelty.Oh I see, so one had to some sort of intelligence to understand? Chapter and verse from the NT where children raised in the first Christian homes, were baptized only upon making a "decision for Christ?”
Let me see if I can make this very clear to you.
No one likes the guy who demands “chapter and verse” in every third paragraph. No one likes the sarcasm. No one likes your lack of respect and your dismissive attitude. You have a habit of treating people very badly, and I don’t mind telling you it needs to stop.
Are we clear?
And I asked you one and you have still to give a single shred of scriptural or historical proof Christ gave anyone the authority to found thousands of different denominations.
When people in Israel started gathering in what they called an “ekklesia,” that (by modern definitions of a denomination) was one denomination. When people in Antioch became Christians and started gathering in an ekklesia there, that (again, by the modern definition) was a second denomination. When Christians in Rome began gathering in their own ekklesia, that- by the standard of “denomination” that yields a figure of 240+ for the CC, 1,000+ for the EOC, and 30k+ for non-Catholics in the West- was a third denomination.
You need to start interacting with this concept of what a “denomination” is and how we arrive at a number as high as 30k. You’re familiar with the Anglican communion, yes? When statisticians count the number of denominations in the Anglican communion and use the same method that’s responsible for all the other large numbers, the Anglicans wind up being responsible for hundreds of denominations all by themselves. But there aren’t hundreds of different Anglican churches- there are hundreds of denominations that are united into one Anglican communion. Likewise, the Anglican communion is not a “new” church that’s split off from Christianity. This communion of denominations is filled with Christian people that are (provided that they are Christians) united into one Body of Christ, His Church.
If you choose to reply to this, you need to change the way you’re talking to me. I really don’t know how to put it any more clearly than that. Overall, I can’t really say I appreciate the way you’ve handled our discussion to this point. It has been well short of satisfactory. If you completely disregard this feedback, my opinion of you will continue to sharply drop, and my opinion of Catholicism will be slowly dragged down with it.
This is why we proofread. If you had, you might have thought about it and decided to avoid being condescending- or at least used proper grammar while doing so.
