How or why?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PJM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This also is incorrect.

“A Christian denomination is an identifiable religious body under a common name, structure, and doctrine within Christianity.”

Thus, Catholicism is ONE. Any other religious body that has a separate name, structure and doctrine within Christianity counts as another denomination.

Yes. So it would be OVER 30K minus 240 plus 1.

(Math happens to be my second love, right after Apologetics. Well, Math and Grammar. 🙂 Oh, and add to that Reading.)

The number is quite obscene, isn’t it? Just what the devil ordered, IMHO.
I’m surprised if you are good at math that you can’t comprehend this. And what is more, I think I have seen you make this argument before and were shown that it was false.

The reference being sited counts denominations in a particular way that suits their purposes. They tell you right in the text how they do it. That is how they come up with such a large number of Catholic “denominations”. Catholics don’t accept this method for their own use, based on their own usual understanding of the term.

The text used THE SAME METHOD YOU DON’T ACCEPT TO COUNT PROTESTANT BODIES. THat does not mean there are just 240 extra Protestant bodies counted. It would actually not be possible to determine how many there were unless you looked specifically at the data. How many times did they count different members of the Anglican communion as more than one church? Or the Orthodox churches? Or other bodies that are affiliated or in communion but having different structures in different nations, as the Catholic Church does? If you cannot answer these questions, you cannot claim to be able to determine the “correct” number of Protestant bodies based on this text.

In any case, the question is a red herring, since the real issue is how unity is understood. Catholics define it only as a very basic kind of political unity. It doesn’t matter to them that the various EO groups recognize each other, or many worldwide Anglican bodies are part of the Anglican Communion, or that Anglicans are in communion with Lutherans, or Lutherans with Methodists. Nor are they willing to take account of a congregational understanding in some bodies that would mean that kind of Roman style political unity was irrelevant, and makes counting denominations from their perspective no different than counting each individual Catholic parish as a denomination.

Someone who has been on CAF as long as you should know better than to use that source to provide numbers, or to continue to use that 30,000 number as if it proves anything when the real question is what is the nature of unity in the Church?
 
Someone who has been on CAF as long as you should know better than to use that source to provide numbers, or to continue to use that 30,000 number as if it proves anything when the real question is what is the nature of unity in the Church?
Bluegoat, please read this thread. You will note that I did not reference any source. In fact, I asked cooterhein to provide his source for the 30K.

I only used his number to provide the mathematical formula 30K -240+1.

You are correct in saying that I “know better” than to use that source. And I have not. 👍
 
I’m surprised if you are good at math that you can’t comprehend this. And what is more, I think I have seen you make this argument before and were shown that it was false.
Actually, what was shown was that the website used flawed methodology.

The number for Christian denominations is actually, IMHO, in the millions. Thanks to the Protestant Reformation and the paradigm of the Unholy Trinity (Just me, my bible and the Holy Spirit) each Protestant can claim to be his own pope, pastor and exegetical expert–“the Holy Spirit led me to believe that women cannot cut their hair! It says so in the Bible right here!”.

As Apologist John Martignoni states (bold mine),
"A denomination is basically just a division within Protestantism. These divisions exist because of differences in either belief or authority. There are thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of Protestant denominations that have resulted from theological differences between various Protestants. No one really knows the exact number.

There are, however, many more denominations, many more divisions within Protestantism, that exist because of the issue of authority. Who has the right to decide what is and is not sound scriptural practice, what is and is not doctrinal, what is and is not moral, for a particular grouping within Protestantism? I contend, based on my communication with hundreds, if not into the thousands by now, of Protestants of all stripes, that there are probably millions of de facto denominations within Protestantism.

Each person (or each family) that reserves the right for himself to determine what is and is not scriptural, doctrinal, and moral based on his own private fallible interpretation of the Bible is, in essence, a de facto denomination.
The one or more members of this denomination answer to no earthly authority outside of itself. It may agree doctrinally with other denominations, but then again, it may not. Each person who believes in Sola Scriptura and who submits to no authority regarding biblical interpretation outside of their own private fallible interpretation, is essentially Pope, Pastor, and theologian for their own denomination."

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
 
Let me try to give a better explanation God directly gave Paul all his doctrines and ministry they were not from the apostles or council at Jerusalem. According to the cc structure Paul had no authority no valid orders because they were not from the 12. The council at Jerusalem had no knowledge of what Paul was teaching because they were trying to mix law with grace. Paul’s first contact with the council in Jerusalem was 3 years after he had been preaching. He was not seeking council approval for his ministry. That is the point I am trying to explain.
He wasn’t seeking approval of his ministry - he was seeking an answer to the question of the Judaizers. He dared not make that decision on his own and so he went to the CHURCH to have it answered. That’s what the text says at the Beginning of Acts 15.

Yes - Paul got his ministry straight from Jesus himself but that is not the norm. God can - and DOES make exceptions when he wants and Paul was certainly a special case. The Early Church needed a top-ranking Jewish scholar like Saul (Paul) to further the cause of the Church and that’s precisely how God used him.


One thing to remember - Paul NEVER usurped the Church’s Authority. On the contrary - he called the Church the fullness of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23) and the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15).**
 
The CC has authority over many things, but it does not have authority in determing the criteria by which a denomination is called a denomination. Of course the CC doesn’t declare themselves to have over 240 denominations, any more than Protestants claim to have over 30k.

You have to take the 240+ along with the 30k, if you really want the 30k figure, that is. If you reject the 240+, you must also understand that you’re rejecting a certain way of counting denominations, and when you reject it, you’re unable to count anywhere close to 30k Protestant denominations.

Do you understand?
MOST of the 240 Catholic denominations that you speak of are not even rites. They are dissident, psuedo-Catholic groups that broke away from communion with Rome.

In short - they are Protestants, so they actually belong in your number - NOT the Catholic Church’s. They are as equally divorced from the Catholic Church as any other Protestant demnomination.

Best not to derail the thread with the “30,000” Protestant denomination issue. BUT, there are several threads on this topic and most have given ample documented evidence of that number . . .
 
Of course it makes sense,you just had to come up with a weak excuse,because I caught you in a lie and a distortion. Here read it again,your own words:

“…there are technically over 240 Catholic denominations in the world (and that’s just the Catholics in full communion with Rome).”

If they are 240 denominations,then apparently the CC would make the same claim,thus the reason I asked you to show me the CC document making such a declaration and statement?
**People Cooterhein like to promote the myth that the 240 or so dissident “Catholic denominations” are actually Protestant sects. They are out of communion with the Church and are therefore divorced from the Body of Christ.
 
The differences among Christians, as outlined in #85 by PRMerger is quite useful, actually. Yes, there are many differences among Christians.
Code:
As for me, fine. Different Christians have different views. Some are pacifists, some are not. Some drink alcohol, some do not. Some sprinkle, some immerse. They may have different opinions when it comes to celibacy of clergy, ordination of women, artificial birth control, and much else.

None of these are the core of Christianity. That core is love, pure and simple. "And now abide these three, faith, hope and love. And the greatest of these is love." Doctrine, liturgy, traditions, etc. - these pale when compared to love. Ironically, many of those who place such emphasis on dogma or church connection etc seem short on love, if we are to judge by the manner in which they can arrogantly lambast other religious expressions.

 Personally, I believe that Christ is offended when we stress doctrinal distinctions, when we insist that only our particular church is the one true church. Christian unity should exist because of our one Christ and not because we have agreement on every issue. Are Christians supposed to be all cookie-cutter believers, void of independent thinking, intellectual robots who believe what we are told to believe, people who let ancient traditions determine our views today? I don't think so. I rejoice in the differences among us. What I do find disturbing is the bitterness and self-righteousness that some exhibit apparently without even recognizing it.

  Christian unity can and should exist without union. I have no interest in seeing a;; Baptists and Pentecostalists and Lutherans etc become Catholics. Let them continue in their traditions while adopting an attitude of 'think and let think'. My faith centers in the Sermon on the Mount and not in creeds.
 
The differences among Christians, as outlined in #85 by PRMerger is quite useful, actually. Yes, there are many differences among Christians.
Code:
As for me, fine. Different Christians have different views. Some are pacifists, some are not. Some drink alcohol, some do not. Some sprinkle, some immerse. They may have different opinions when it comes to celibacy of clergy, ordination of women, artificial birth control, and much else.

None of these are the core of Christianity. That core is love, pure and simple. "And now abide these three, faith, hope and love. And the greatest of these is love." Doctrine, liturgy, traditions, etc. - these pale when compared to love. Ironically, many of those who place such emphasis on dogma or church connection etc seem short on love, if we are to judge by the manner in which they can arrogantly lambast other religious expressions.

 Personally, I believe that Christ is offended when we stress doctrinal distinctions, when we insist that only our particular church is the one true church. Christian unity should exist because of our one Christ and not because we have agreement on every issue. Are Christians supposed to be all cookie-cutter believers, void of independent thinking, intellectual robots who believe what we are told to believe, people who let ancient traditions determine our views today? I don't think so. I rejoice in the differences among us. What I do find disturbing is the bitterness and self-righteousness that some exhibit apparently without even recognizing it.

  Christian unity can and should exist without union. I have no interest in seeing a;; Baptists and Pentecostalists and Lutherans etc become Catholics. Let them continue in their traditions while adopting an attitude of 'think and let think'. My faith centers in the Sermon on the Mount and not in creeds.
hello my friend. yes love is the most important atribute a Christian can have. but the core of Christianity, is Christ Crucified, shedding his blood, and dying to redeem us, and creation. and rising again, so that we can have newness of life. biblically speaking, we need union. should a couple live together, without a marriage covenant? how does Christ then, call himself the bridegroom and we his Church his bride. union is very important. what you are espousing sounds good on the surface. but, it truly at its heart, is a call for spiritual anarchy. God is a God of order, not chaos. we are called to be under the authority he set up. not go our own way, and do as we will. just some food for thought. peace 🙂
 
Let me try to give a better explanation God directly gave Paul all his doctrines and ministry they were not from the apostles or council at Jerusalem. According to the cc structure Paul had no authority no valid orders because they were not from the 12. The council at Jerusalem had no knowledge of what Paul was teaching because they were trying to mix law with grace. Paul’s first contact with the council in Jerusalem was 3 years after he had been preaching. He was not seeking council approval for his ministry. That is the point I am trying to explain.
To put in better perspective for you…here is an article about Paul’s respect for authority and to give you better understanding of Paul’s ministry…both lessons of humility and respect:

*At the time near his conversion Paul was described as “a young man” (neanias). Sometime after the death of Stephen he had his conversion, encountering the risen Christ on the road to Damascus. Immediately following his encounter with Christ he was blinded for three days and eventually healed by a Christian named Ananias who also baptized him (Acts 9:9-19). Hereafter, according to Galatians, Paul went into the Desert of Arabia (Gal 1:17)…It is not possible to say with certainty but it would seem that some amount of time would be necessary to pray, reflect and experience formation in the Christian way, possibly with other Christians. *

Paul then returned to Damascus and joined the Christian community there for a period of almost three years (Gal 1:18). While there he took to debating in the synagogues and was so effective in demonstrating that Jesus was the hoped for messiah that some of the Jews there conspired to kill him. He fled the city and went to Jerusalem (Acts 9:20-25). Paul states that he went there to confer with Cephas (Peter) (Gal 1:18). Paul seems to imply that he thought it was time to confer with Peter since he had begun to teach and even now was gaining disciples. Later he would describe the purpose of another visit to Peter and the other leaders: to present the Gospel that I preach to the Gentiles…so that I might not be running, or have run in vain (Gal 2:2). While there on this first visit he stayed for 15 days and also met James.

…the Holy Spirit to Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them (Acts 13:3). Thus, the leaders of the Church there laid hands on Barnabas and Saul and send them forth on Mission. Here we have an ordination and the source of Paul’s status as Apostle (bishop).

On Paul’s submission to authority – We can see therefore, that Paul was not a lone ranger. He did submit what he taught to Peter and later to others apostles and leaders (Acts 11 & 15). He states that to have preached something other than what the Church proposed would be to run “in vain” (Gal 2:2). Here was a man who was formed by the community of the Church and who submitted his teachings to scrutiny by lawful authority. Here was man who went forth on his missions only after he was ordained and sent. Further, Paul and Barnabas, as they went through the towns and villages on their missionary journeys, also established authority in each church community they founded by appointing presbyters in each town (Acts 14:23). Upon completion of their first missionary journey they reported back to the leaders at Antioch who had sent them (Acts 14:27) and later to the apostles in Jerusalem (Acts 15). Hence we have an accountability structure in the early Church and a line of authority. Paul was no. He both respected authority and established authority in the churches he established. He also makes it clear to the Galatians and others that he has authority and that he expects them to respect it.

Here is the whole article: blog.adw.org/2010/10/what-st-paul-can-teach-us-about-respect-for-church-authority/
 
The differences among Christians, as outlined in #85 by PRMerger is quite useful, actually. Yes, there are many differences among Christians.

As for me, fine. Different Christians have different views. Some are pacifists, some are not. Some drink alcohol, some do not. Some sprinkle, some immerse. They may have different opinions when it comes to celibacy of clergy, ordination of women, artificial birth control, and much else.

None of these are the core of Christianity. That core is love, pure and simple. “And now abide these three, faith, hope and love. And the greatest of these is love.” Doctrine, liturgy, traditions, etc. - these pale when compared to love. Ironically, many of those who place such emphasis on dogma or church connection etc seem short on love, if we are to judge by the manner in which they can arrogantly lambast other religious expressions.

Personally, I believe that Christ is offended when we stress doctrinal distinctions, when we insist that only our particular church is the one true church. Christian unity should exist because of our one Christ and not because we have agreement on every issue. Are Christians supposed to be all cookie-cutter believers, void of independent thinking, intellectual robots who believe what we are told to believe, people who let ancient traditions determine our views today? I don’t think so. I rejoice in the differences among us. What I do find disturbing is the bitterness and self-righteousness that some exhibit apparently without even recognizing it.

Christian unity can and should exist without union. I have no interest in seeing a;; Baptists and Pentecostalists and Lutherans etc become Catholics. Let them continue in their traditions while adopting an attitude of ‘think and let think’. My faith centers in the Sermon on the Mount and not in creeds.
I beg to differ. Some of these issues ARE at the core of Christianity.
How can you say that artificial birth control isn’t an issue of love? Life is the greatest gift of all - and it’s done out of the love of God.

Some of the other issues listed such as divorce, abortion and homosexuality are ALSO violations of love in the proper sense.

These are are non-negotialbe issues in Christianity, yet they represent a vast difference among the Protestant denominations.
 
I’m going to do a quick re-post with some clarification, just to get this all in one place.

This is from the World Christian Encyclopedia. Since it started doing what it does, it’s been essentially unrivaled as the authoritative source on religious data.

Denominations. A denomination is defined in this Encyclopedia as an organized aggregate of worship centers or congregations of similar ecclesiastical tradition within a specific country; i.e. as an organized Christian church or tradition or religious group or community of believers, within a specific country, whose component congregations and members are called by the same denominational name in different areas, regarding themselves as one autonomous Christian church distinct from other denominations, churches and traditions. As defined here, world Christianity consists of 6 major ecclesiastico-cultural blocs, divided into 300 major ecclesiastical traditions, composed of over 33,000 distinct denominations in 238 countries, these denominations themselves being composed of over 3,400,000 worship centers, churches or congregations.

Emphasis mine.

I’m also going to add that in the aformentioned source (the World Christian Encyclopedia), the 33,000 figure for denominations is for Christianity as a whole- and then some. For example, Roman Catholics contribute 242 to the total, Protestants get a nice round 9,000 figure, and Independents contribute 22,000, of which 435 are in schism from Rome.

Point of clarification: The figure of 242 applies only to Roman Catholics, and they are numbered as 242 different denominations because of all the different countries that Roman Catholicism exists in. They do make a note of Catholicism’s ecclesial unity, but they go ahead and count over 240 denominations anyway because that’s consistent with their way of counting denominations across all of Christianity.

Point of clarification number 2: The figure of 435 refers to denominations in schism from Rome. Obviously, there haven’t been 435 individual schisms whereby 435 individual groups broke away from Roman Catholicism. It’s a much smaller number than that, but each of these groups in schism is counted as more than one. They are counted by as many countries as that group is represented in. For example, Old Catholics are represented in the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, the Czech Republic, Poland, France, Italy, Denmark, Croatia, Canada, and the United States. That’s 12 different denominations already, and it you’re willing to continue counting, you can get ready to multiply that number by a factor of however many groups are in intercommunion or are autocephalous without having any difference in doctrine. When you’ve counted all those, then you can start looking at the ones that have some difference in doctrine (ie., some ordain LGBT people and ordain women; others, just women). But by the time you get to that point, you should realize a couple of things. First, each individual schism contributes several dozen “denominations” to the total of 435 before you even start taking doctrinal differences into consideration. Second, the number of denominations that actually do exist because of doctrinal differences among those in schism is quite small, even at its inflated value. Third, you should be starting to understand how much different your perspective is when you have meaningful interaction with these numbers and don’t just assume that Protestants have 9,000 doctrinal disagreements and Independents have 22,000. By now, you should also realize how far from the truth that assumption is. As a ballpark figure, it’s off by about 30,000.

Third point of clarification, just for Elvisman. You said the “denominations” in schism from Rome are no different from Protestants. (This has to do with the 435 figure- for the 242 figure, see clarification point number 2). There are good reasons to say this, and it was for good reason that many Anglicans, Lutherans, and other Protestants from Germany and America were on hand to support the movement from the beginning and continue to maintain ecumenism and friendship between these groups. They are on the same team, and they are doing the same things. It’s just that one is based in England while the other is based in Germany. Nevertheless, these 435 denominations in schism (which actually represents a muuuuuch smaller number of schisms) do tend to have apostolic succession via laying on of hands, they do tend to have Catholic liturgy and a roughly Catholic leadership structure (even if the laity is a lot more involved in church polity), and they do tend to say they have more of a claim to continuity with ancient Christianity than Roman Catholics do. All of these tend to be absent from Bible, Presbyterian, and Baptist churches (for example), so there are some things that these groups have more in common with Rome. You were right to point out the similarities with certain mainline Protestant groups, though, and the obscenely elevated figure of 435 denominations in schism certainly has more kinship to them. They have no desire to convert one another, for example. But some of them (though not nearly all) might have a desire to convert Catholics.

Speaking of which. I believe there is an actual unity among all people who belong to Christ, but it’s often not recognized or celebrated by the members of Christ’s Body. If that were happening, you know what I think that would look like? It’s a situation where every member of Christ’s Body can regard every other member of the same Body as someone who doesn’t need to be converted. Provided that the members are right in doing so and they don’t include any apostates in that group, that would qualify as a more perfect recognition of the unity that God causes us to have by uniting all Christians to Himself.
 
I always find this sort of threads funny because people who start them like to act incredulous that just because Roman Catholics don’t feel that other mainstream denominations (Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Orthodoxy etc) aren’t members of “The Church” that that actually is the truth. We are on the same team here friend whether you wish to believe it or not.
Well, I do think all Christian denominations should at least stick up for each other against other religions, such as the Islam, New Age Paganism, etc.

But on the other hand. We are not exactly on the same team. Lutherans and Calvinists believe something else than Catholics as it comes to being saved and other more trivial issues. The Anglican church is an institute installed by Henry VIII for the sole reason to get a divorse from his wife. I mean, you can’t be serious.

There is only one Holy Church founded by Jesus Christ and that is the Roman Catholic Church…all the rest are lost in ‘translation.’
 
I’m also going to add that in the aformentioned source (the World Christian Encyclopedia), the 33,000 figure for denominations is for Christianity as a whole- and then some. For example, Roman Catholics contribute 242 to the total, Protestants get a nice round 9,000 figure, and Independents contribute 22,000, of which 435 are in schism from Rome.
**Tell me something:
How do you differentiate Independent Christians from Protestant Christians?
 
Third point of clarification, just for Elvisman. You said the “denominations” in schism from Rome are no different from Protestants. (This has to do with the 435 figure- for the 242 figure, see clarification point number 2). There are good reasons to say this, and it was for good reason that many Anglicans, Lutherans, and other Protestants from Germany and America were on hand to support the movement from the beginning and continue to maintain ecumenism and friendship between these groups. They are on the same team, and they are doing the same things. It’s just that one is based in England while the other is based in Germany. Nevertheless, these 435 denominations in schism (which actually represents a muuuuuch smaller number of schisms) do tend to have apostolic succession via laying on of hands, they do tend to have Catholic liturgy and a roughly Catholic leadership structure (even if the laity is a lot more involved in church polity), and they do tend to say they have more of a claim to continuity with ancient Christianity than Roman Catholics do. All of these tend to be absent from Bible, Presbyterian, and Baptist churches (for example), so there are some things that these groups have more in common with Rome. You were right to point out the similarities with certain mainline Protestant groups, though, and the obscenely elevated figure of 435 denominations in schism certainly has more kinship to them. They have no desire to convert one another, for example. But some of them (though not nearly all) might have a desire to convert Catholics.

Speaking of which. I believe there is an actual unity among all people who belong to Christ, but it’s often not recognized or celebrated by the members of Christ’s Body. If that were happening, you know what I think that would look like? It’s a situation where every member of Christ’s Body can regard every other member of the same Body as someone who doesn’t need to be converted. Provided that the members are right in doing so and they don’t include any apostates in that group, that would qualify as a more perfect recognition of the unity that God causes us to have by uniting all Christians to Himself.
Wrong - if I’m reading you correctly. You seem to be stating that they are all Catholics.

You are correct that there are hundreds of sects who CALL themselves “Catholic”, but the mere fact that they have hijacked the moniker does not mean that they are in fact, Catholic.**

They are not in communion with Christs’s Church.
**They are dissident groups who are, in fact, Protestant by the very meaning of the word. They have rejected the Church for their own version of it. These - s well as every Protestant denomination - are the factions that paul warned against in his letters.
 
Wrong - if I’m reading you correctly. You seem to be stating that they are all Catholics.

You are correct that there are hundreds of sects who CALL themselves “Catholic”, but the mere fact that they have hijacked the moniker does* not* mean that they are in fact, Catholic.

They are not in communion with Christs’s Church.
They are dissident groups who are, in fact, Protestant by the very meaning of the word. They have rejected the Church for their *own *version of it. These - s well as every Protestant denomination - are the factions that paul warned against in his letters.
Elvisman, you are right. I am not disagreeing with you. You are right.

However, the resource that’s primarily responsible for counting Christian denominations (not just Protestants or Independents, but all Christians) comes up with a figure of 242 RC denominations solely because Roman Catholics are represented in that many different countries.

They aren’t actually “different denominations.” None of these Catholics are separated from communion with Rome. They actually represent every one of the billion or so people who belong to Catholicism.

But according to the way that denominations are counted in this resource, the statisticians count 242 Catholic denominations.

Again, you are right, but the grand total of 30,000 denominations (generally attributed to Protestants alone) is a figure that includes 242 denominations that are credited to Roman Catholicism.

Once more, you are right. Catholicism isn’t actually split or divided in this way. But then again, neither are any other Christians. However, this is how these resources arrive at these inflated numbers for denominations. Roman Catholicism is not, in actuality, split up 242 different ways. Nor is Protestantism actually split up 9,000 different ways. But those are the numbers that appear in this resource. At least they told us why it worked out that way, though.
 
***Tell ***me something:
**How **do you differentiate Independent Christians from Protestant Christians?
That categorization is made by the people responsible for the World Christian Encyclopedia, and I don’t think I would have divided things up quite the same way. What I think they used, though, was something like ecclesiastical descent. I think they included groups in the “Protestant” category if their leadership has some kind of continuity with a Reformer. At least half of the Independent groups are thoroughly Protestant in their doctrine/theology, though, so I would want to call those people Protestants as well. I think they’re put in different categories based on leadership and alignment, though.
 
Elvisman, you are right. I am not disagreeing with you. You are right.

However, the resource that’s primarily responsible for counting Christian denominations (not just Protestants or Independents, but all Christians) comes up with a figure of 242 RC denominations solely because Roman Catholics are represented in that many different countries.

They aren’t actually “different denominations.” None of these Catholics are separated from communion with Rome. They actually represent every one of the billion or so people who belong to Catholicism.

But according to the way that denominations are counted in this resource, the statisticians count 242 Catholic denominations.

Again, you are right, but the grand total of 30,000 denominations (generally attributed to Protestants alone) is a figure that includes 242 denominations that are credited to Roman Catholicism.

Once more, you are right. Catholicism isn’t actually split or divided in this way. But then again, neither are any other Christians. However, this is how these resources arrive at these inflated numbers for denominations. Roman Catholicism is not, in actuality, split up 242 different ways. Nor is Protestantism actually split up 9,000 different ways. But those are the numbers that appear in this resource. At least they told us why it worked out that way, though.
Yes, I realize the flawed way they count denominations in the resource.
I thought you were including the entire number of 435, which includes the schismatic/dissident sects.
 
That categorization is made by the people responsible for the World Christian Encyclopedia, and I don’t think I would have divided things up quite the same way. What I think they used, though, was something like ecclesiastical descent. I think they included groups in the “Protestant” category if their leadership has some kind of continuity with a Reformer. At least half of the Independent groups are thoroughly Protestant in their doctrine/theology, though, so I would want to call those people Protestants as well. I think they’re put in different categories based on leadership and alignment, though.
*A non-Catholic Christian group is technically still Protestant, in that they protest the claims of the Catholic Church that it is the one and only Church of Christ. The only real *difference between the Protestants of today and the original “Reformers” is that they were guilty of heresy.

**
Those who were born Protestants are not usually guilty of this as they were never Catholics. A heretic is one who was actually part of the Church who rejected a teaching and instead embraced a falsehood.
 
A non-Catholic Christian group is technically still Protestant, in that they protest the claims of the Catholic Church that it is the one and only Church of Christ. The only* real *difference between the Protestants of today and the original “Reformers” is that they were guilty of heresy.

Those who were born Protestants are not usually guilty of this as they were never Catholics. A heretic is one who was actually part of the Church who rejected a teaching and instead embraced a falsehood.
A lot of Protestants are anywhere from ambivalent to accepting of Catholics; not all protest against Catholicism. I do agree that they’re all united in saying the CC is not the One True Church, but that extends well beyond Protestantism, too. Any marginal or apostate group will agree with this, too, but they aren’t Protestants.

What unites them as Protestants (in terms of doctrine) is that they protest in a different way- in the sense that a “protest” is a proclomation. For example, a Protestant is someone who protests the doctrine of Sola Fide. They aren’t fighting against Sola Fide- that’s one of the things they support, or protest. (We don’t use the word that way anymore, but that was the original intent of the Reformers). So in that sense, I would tend to think anyone who protests (in a positive sense) the core Protestant doctrines is Protestant. I can also see why someone might want to categorize by ecclesiological descent, but that’s not the first thing I would go to.

As for the delineation you make between the Reformers and the Protestants of today, this is quite accurate of what the Church teaches. I do think it took a little too long for the CC to stop treating the “Protestants of today” exactly like the Reformers, but aside from waiting until 1964 for that to officially happen, I can’t really complain about how the Catholic POV turned out. Thanks, JPII. 😃
 
Ah, interesting. I didn’t see this comment earlier.

As you can see in the Scripture that I have now made reference to, it is not through human exercise of authority that people are united to the Body of Christ. It is done “by one Spirit, so as to form one body.” We don’t believe any “member” or “part” of this body has any more God-given authority than another (although some may exercise plenty of authority over others), but even if some did have God-given authority (which you believe), it doesn’t prevent people from being joined to the Body of Christ while belonging to a denomination that has no apostolic succession (which you also believe). If we can agree to disagree on who has authority, we should be able to reach a similar conclusion on the rest of the matter, although we may get there by different routes.

There is one thing I’m still curious about, though. I’d really like to get an answer to this question, so I’m going to do try really hard to get a response. This is not a question that has to do with ideals or how things should be. It’s a question that has to do with the dirty reality of how it really is.

Do you doubt that Protestants and members of Independent denominations are joined to Christ’s Body while being so different from Catholics and each other? Do you doubt that Protestants/Independents can be joined to Christ’s Body while being so different from Catholics and each other?

Why or why not?

Again, I’m not asking what you think we/they should do. I know that- you want to see everyone convert to Catholicism and be in submission to the teaching authority of the pope. But we know that Christianity in the world today is further from this idealized state than it has ever been. Knowing that this is the present reality, I’m asking for your opinion on how it really is.
Thank you for your sincere response. First of all, by all means I have never meant to say or claim that you or other non-Catholics are not Christians. Now for your questions?
Do you doubt that Protestants and members of Independent denominations are joined to Christ’s Body while being so different from Catholics and each other? Do you doubt that Protestants/Independents can be joined to Christ’s Body while being so different from Catholics and each other?
Good questions. The only thing I can say is that by pointing fingers,matters will not change for Christianity and for unity. As you stated, this is our current reality and the facts of life. The RCC does encourage and does work towards ecumenism

The following is from the Catholic Catechism:

Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

Toward unity

820 "Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time."277 Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: "That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me."278 The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.279

821 Certain things are required in order to respond adequately to this call:
  • a permanent renewal of the Church in greater fidelity to her vocation; such renewal is the driving-force of the movement toward unity;280
  • conversion of heart as the faithful “try to live holier lives according to the Gospel”;281 for it is the unfaithfulness of the members to Christ’s gift which causes divisions;
  • prayer in common, because “change of heart and holiness of life, along with public and private prayer for the unity of Christians, should be regarded as the soul of the whole ecumenical movement, and merits the name 'spiritual ecumenism;”'282
  • fraternal knowledge of each other;283
  • ecumenical formation of the faithful and especially of priests;284
  • dialogue among theologians and meetings among Christians of the different churches and communities;285
  • collaboration among Christians in various areas of service to mankind.286 “Human service” is the idiomatic phrase.
Hope this helps you out?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top