If you are a Christian, what is the real reason for you not being a Catholic? - 2

[O.S.Luke]

I, I, I, look how many times you have set yourself up as the authority! You have No ONE to turn to as the final authority.

As a matter of fact, I do.

My baptismal and membership vows include allegiance to and living by the rituals, doctrines, and Discipline of the United Methodist Church. My ordination vows do the same. I cannot officially speak for the United Methodist Church; only the General Conference and the Book of Discipline (our canon law) can.

You can throw anything at Her you want but she will continue to carry out her work given by Jesus Christ Himself. If the “Gates of Hell” can’t stop Christ’s Church, what makes you think you can!!! You alone have to decide what side you want to be on and when. Many prayers and God Bless, Memaw.

I don’t recall anywhere saying that the Catholic Church was not a faithful and true church, nor do I remember saying that I could stop Christ’s Church… or would even want to.

As far as “sides”, I have, and always will, serve the Lord.

Pax,

O+

 

[csmatyi]

To those who say the Catholic Church perished, which brought about the need for a reformation:

To say that the Church perished or went apostate is blasphemous against the Passion of Our Lord. Didn’t Jesus undergo His passion and death for us that He could establish His Church for all of us? Of what sense does it make that Our Lord should let go of His Church which cost Him so dear right after He established it? Of what sense would it make that He would take it back from us after giving it to us? How could He have abandoned the Church, which cost Him all of His blood? Do you think that Jesus is weaker than His adversary, the devil, and was overcome by him?
bullet In Scripture Jesus clearly made promises on promises pertaining to the perpetuity of His Church. To say the Church perished is to call Jesus a liar. “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt 16:18)
Who gave Luther and Calvin a commission to revoke so many holy and solemn promises which Our Lord made of His Church? Did Our Lord not say of His Church, “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”? (Matt 16:18) And didn’t He say, “behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world” Matthew 28:20? And didn’t Our Lord say “And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever” John 14:16? And don’t we see repeated mention in the New Testament that Our Lord will be with us? How can all of these promises stand if the Church perished or went apostate? And if the true Church is to last forever as Christ told us, how can it have failed or went apostate for a thousand years as the Protestant reformers claim?

He who thinks himself to be the reformer or resuscitator of the Catholic Church attributes to himself the honor due to Jesus alone, and makes himself greater than the Apostles. The Apostles preserved the Church by their ministry after Our Lord instituted it. He who says that he has found the Church dead and raised it to life himself is the most audacious human alive.

If the Church did perish and the Protestant reformers were the ones to truly resuscitate the Church back to a true state, that would make them greater than the Apostles. But never have they shown any signs or wonders of such greatness in their lives as the Apostles did!

To say that the Church perished sometime after the first five or six centuries as the Protestant reformers say is to imply nothing else than our predecessors for nearly 1000 years before the reformation are damned, for outside of the true Church there is no salvation.
bullet And lastly, there is no doubt there were problems in the Church before the Reformation. The Church has always had problems in every century and has always been persecuted, as Our Lord told us would be the case. We also see in Scripture that Our Lord said He would be with His Church forever and that it would never fail. Looking at the history of the Church, whenever problems had arisen, the Church, guided by the Holy Ghost, always called together General Councils and corrected the problems. If there were problems in the Church before the Reformation, it was not up to unknown men like Luther and Calvin to try and correct them on their own without any authority when it was well known that the Church had always used General Councils to correct problems for the 1500 years prior.

joe,

Please refresh your knowledge of history,

The number of people in ther church doesnt count, since it is stated in the Bible that the Lrd will keep a remnant as His witnesses. Throughout history, small groups of Christians kept the fire alive outside of the Catholic church, groups like the Vaudois, the Cathars, the Albigenses, Lollards, Hussites, all before the Reformation. When the Reformers met with the Vaudois for example and compared their catechisms, they found that their statements of faith matched to a very high degree. Hence, you could call them pre-Protestant Christians. This is proof that since these much smaller groups (the remnant) existed all throughout history, then they are the true church, instead of the much bigger Roman church, which is truly apostate (look how pope John Paul II kisses the Kuran, which martyrs denied doing). Another question: how is it that pope Boniface VIII stated in Unam Sanctam in 1308 that one must be subject to the Roman Pontiff in order to attain salvation, but now Vatican II states that salvation is open to for example the Orthodox church? Contradiction. Luther didnt ever say he was greater than the apostles because it was the apostles teachings that the church was based on, Luther only wanted to bring the Roman church back to this teaching, that is, to reform it.

 

[csmatyi]

To those who claim they can interpret and understand the Scriptures themselves:

The Protestant reformers claim that we simply need to refer to Scripture for our salvation. We agree, but when two people disagree on the interpretation of Scripture, who shall be the judge as to the correct interpretation? Disagreements arise in nearly every verse of Scripture of which could easily lead one of the parties to damnation. It is illogical to think that Our Lord would expect us all to interpret Scripture on our own with no judge to turn to since this will always lead to endless disagreements. There can be countless wrong answers to a question, but only one right answer. All of those interpreting Scripture incorrectly will be lead down the wrong road. It is illogical for us to think God left us in anarchy with respect to interpretation of Scripture, at the mercy of the winds and the tide, with no pilot to help steer the way, as this would mean he wishes our destruction. As with a ship at sea, if everyone attempts to steer in the direction they think is right, we will inevitably wind up lost.

Consider the Constitution of the United States if there were no U.S. Government to rule over it and make decisions over conflicts and offenses that arise with it. The result would be anarchy. Where have you ever seen any great province or organization which has governed itself? Consider any governed country, state, or any organized group throughout the history of the world. All were governed by an earthly leader of some sort or else they would wind up in chaos and confusion. If there were not a king in a kingdom, a foreman in a shop, or a captain of a ship, there would be no order. Why then do the Protestant reformers claim that all of their members do not need an earthly ruler to help guide them? What has this gotten them but thousands of opposing denominations (and growing) which is nothing better than anarchy? Never can a province be well governed by itself, especially when it is large.

If it is true that the Scriptures are so easy to understand, what is the use of the commentaries made by countless Protestant ministers, and what good are so many schools of Theology?

Also consider the verse, “As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16). How else can we interpret this than to say Scripture is difficult to understand, and to interpret it incorrectly can lead to our destruction?
And to those who say they must read and understand Scripture themselves, consider the large number of poor ignorant people who cannot read the Scriptures. What is to happen of them? Obviously they can find and seek their salvation through the mouth of a pastor. “How shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher?” Romans 10:14.

Consider the verse, “And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.” Acts 8:30-31. Obviously interpretation of Scripture is needed!

This argument I have always found so cute from Catholic apologeticists.

We agree, but when two people disagree on the interpretation of Scripture, who shall be the judge as to the correct interpretation?

Why, the one who makes the better argument. Or, if you want to say that that’s why the pope is there to be the judge, then why do we have to listen to the pope on every single count? Its simply so illogical!!! The Scriptures are the primary rule of faith! Then why, oh why in the wide world do we have to substitute it with the words of a fallible man? I gave an example previously as to how popes and councils have contradicted themselves. Or: it all depends on how we interpret Catholic dogmas? Then who is to be the judge who can interpret Catholic dogma the best? Why not apply your own doubts to your own church? You see, it’s a double standard argument…

…that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. (1Cor 4:6)

What has this gotten them but thousands of opposing denominations (and growing) which is nothing better than anarchy?

This is not anarchy. By the way, there are only a handful of major Protestant denominations, and not 30000 like those nifty little Jesuits try to point out. All Protestants beleive the 5 Solas (Sola Scriptura, sola fide, solus Christus, sola gratia, soli Deo Gloria). This is a basic rule of thumb for deciding who’s Christian and who ain’t.

Why then do the Protestant reformers claim that all of their members do not need an earthly ruler to help guide them?

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. (Eph 5:23)

Simple, the head of the church is Christ, not an earthly head. Lord Acton, himself a Catholic said one time that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, thankfully we do not have to submit to the pope. History has proved the dire consequences of such a thing…

The Reformation broke away from this bondage.

 

[csmatyi]

I, I, I, look how many times you have set yourself up as the authority! You have No ONE to turn to as the final authority. As a Catholic, we have the Church protected by the Holy Spirit, and no matter what goes on around the teaching authority of the Church, (inside and out) the Church continues on in its mission to teach, govern and santify in the TRUTH. Great proof of that in our own time is the man made confusion caused by unfaithful priests, bishops and lay people, after Vatican II, which is being corrected as we speak in so many ways. The Church will work thru her problems without any help or criticizing from outsiders. And She will continue on in her mission. Of course we can always look back into history to see when the Catholic Church has done the same, during and after the protestant reformation. And She will do so till the end of time. You can throw anything at Her you want but she will continue to carry out her work given by Jesus Christ Himself. If the “Gates of Hell” can’t stop Christ’s Church, what makes you think you can!!! You alone have to decide what side you want to be on and when. Many prayers and God Bless, Memaw.

If it is true that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church, does this not mean that you can have eternal assurance of salvation (one of the common teachings of all Protestants)? Am I not correct?

If the gates of hell shall not prevail aganist the church, and this church is the visible, earthly institute of the Roman church, does this then mean that you can then escape all possible sorts of punishment in hell simply by just joining Rome? And then you can live any kind of immoral life you want, because you can always chime in yourself: “the gates of hell shall not prevail against me…” You know, all those unfaithful priests, bishops, and lay people?..

 

[Memaw]

I would be happy to talk about ordination, the Alexandrian Precedent, the arguments over who was and wasn’t at the ordinations of Francis Asbury and Thomas Coke, whether Wesley (and others) had been ordained a bishop or not by a Greek Orthodox bishop (which is not as big a deal to Methodists as it currently is for Greek Orthodoxy), etc. See lineage here.

I don’t want to derail the subject, and I do have some parish work to do, but I will talk as I can offline.

Why off line, why can’t the rest of us hear it? Memaw

 

[Memaw]

This argument I have always found so cute from Catholic apologeticists.

We agree, but when two people disagree on the interpretation of Scripture, who shall be the judge as to the correct interpretation?

csmatyi,

The Teaching Magisterium, (Authority) of the Catholic Church is the final interpreter of the Blble. You have to understand what Infallibility truly means. Christ gave His Church the gift of Infallibility thru the Pope and the Magisterium. Protected by the Holy Spirit against error. Can’t get any better than that!!! What is really illogical is how you can believe in so many different interpretations given by so many different interpreters over the past 500 years. Catholic doctrine, (teachings) have NEVER changed and you can twist things all you want but the TRUTH is they are the same now as when Christ gave them to the Apostles and HIS Church, over 2,000 years ago. Memaw

Why, the one who makes the better argument. Or, if you want to say that that’s why the pope is there to be the judge, then why do we have to listen to the pope on every single count? Its simply so illogical!!! The Scriptures are the primary rule of faith! Then why, oh why in the wide world do we have to substitute it with the words of a fallible man? I gave an example previously as to how popes and councils have contradicted themselves. Or: it all depends on how we interpret Catholic dogmas? Then who is to be the judge who can interpret Catholic dogma the best? Why not apply your own doubts to your own church? You see, it’s a double standard argument…

Sorry, csmatyi, but one Pope does NOT contradict a previous Pope ever on the Doctrine, (or Dogma, same difference) of the Church. Try again. Memaw

…that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. (1Cor 4:6)

and again, csmatyi,

Sacred Scripture, the written Word of GOD, and Sacred Tradition, the Spoken Word of God, given to and interpreted by the Catholic Church, by Jesus Christ is “never puffed up for one against another” That is what man has done to Scripture in the past 500 years, Aren’'t you a bit “puffed up” against the Catholic Church??, Memaw

What has this gotten them but thousands of opposing denominations (and growing) which is nothing better than anarchy?

This is not anarchy. By the way, there are only a handful of major Protestant denominations, and not 30000 like those nifty little Jesuits try to point out. All Protestants beleive the 5 Solas (Sola Scriptura, sola fide, solus Christus, sola gratia, soli Deo Gloria). This is a basic rule of thumb for deciding who’s Christian and who ain’t.

Why then do the Protestant reformers claim that all of their members do not need an earthly ruler to help guide them?

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. (Eph 5:23)

Simple, the head of the church is Christ, not an earthly head. Lord Acton, himself a Catholic said one time that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, thankfully we do not have to submit to the pope. History has proved the dire consequences of such a thing…

OK casmatyi,e
Well, finally we agree on one thing anyway, Jesus Christ is the Head of HIS Catholic Church, we have ALWAYS known and believed that, and we are still attached to the true vine and not separated from it like all the heresies of the past. Memaw

This statement speaks for itself !!!, Following Christ in the TRUTH is NOT bondage. Memaw,

The Reformation broke away from this bondage.

finally,
Keep talking, maybe one day you will be really convinced your right, but that won’t change the TRUTH, And by the way, the 40,000 different protestant denominations came from a protestant source, not a Catholic one, email Marcus Grodi from Journey Home on EWTN and he can tell you where it came from.

 

[csmatyi]

finally,
Keep talking, maybe one day you will be really convinced your right, but that won’t change the TRUTH, And by the way, the 40,000 different protestant denominations came from a protestant source, not a Catholic one, email Marcus Grodi from Journey Home on EWTN and he can tell you where it came from.

I will try to contact him.

But, praytell, give me a list of the names of all 40000 denominations. I have not heard of them myself.

But probably what it’s all about is listing every single Protestant parish in the United States as a seperate denomination.

What the truth is most likely:

we have several major Protestant denominations:

Calvinist
Lutheran
Baptist
Methodist
Anglican
Presbyterian
Congregationalist

These most probably make up around 99% of all Protestantism.

The rest of the 40000 could simply be considered as miscellaneous fragmented ecclesioles.

But the big joke is that these religious groups were most probably listed as different denominations because they all each have a seperate confession of faith, no two group’s is the same.

But this raises a very good question: if a seperate denomination is formed once there is a change in the confession of faith, then this would mean that every single man is his own denomination. Why? Because the thought processes and thought patterns of every single person is different from the next person. Get it? My own special personal confession of faith is different from that of my pastor’s, different from that of my friends’, etc… in a sense we are all different microdenominations at a personal level.

But wait, how many Protestants are there in the world? Some estimate up to 500 million. And the number of Catholics? Some estimate up to around 1.1 billion.

So therefore there are even more Catholic denominations and groups then there are Protestant ones.

Catholic unity? That’s just a smokescreen!

Who’s the really fragmented one?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

I will try to contact him.

But, praytell, give me a list of the names of all 40000 denominations. I have not heard of them myself.

But probably what it’s all about is listing every single Protestant parish in the United States as a seperate denomination.

Study done in 2005 by Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (non-Catholic.)

What the truth is most likely:

we have several major Protestant denominations:

Calvinist

You will find Calvinists in various denominations. I’ve never seen a “Calvinist” church - it’s not a denomination, it’s a theology.

Lutheran

Under “Lutheran” you have the ELCA, LCMS, and WELS (in the US) which differ in their beliefs and practice.

Baptist

Under “Baptist” you’ll have certain distinctions, as well. Freewill Baptist, American Baptist, Regular Baptist, Separate Baptist, Independent Baptist, General Baptist, etc…which have differences in belief and practice.

Methodist

Which also has sub-sets, not all Methodists are United Methodists. Even within the UMC there are differences from one church to the next.

Anglican

Lumping Anglicans with the ECUSA is akin to blending oil and water.

Presbyterian

Once more we have PCUSA, UPC, OPC…I think there are a few more divisions there.

Congregationalist

These most probably make up around 99% of all Protestantism.

You forgot about Pentecostals, Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Full Gospel, Foursquare, Christian Church, Mennonite, Ana-baptist, Amish, Messianic, Church of God, Church of God in Christ, African Methodist Episcopal, not to mention all the “non-denominational” groups that are actually a denomination unto themselves.

The rest of the 40000 could simply be considered as miscellaneous fragmented ecclesioles.

But the big joke is that these religious groups were most probably listed as different denominations because they all each have a seperate confession of faith, no two group’s is the same.

But this raises a very good question: if a seperate denomination is formed once there is a change in the confession of faith, then this would mean that every single man is his own denomination. Why? Because the thought processes and thought patterns of every single person is different from the next person. Get it? My own special personal confession of faith is different from that of my pastor’s, different from that of my friends’, etc… in a sense we are all different microdenominations at a personal level.

Yet Jesus prayed that we be one as He and the Father are one. How is it that the Holy Spirit has led everyone to their own personal interpretation of Truth? Is there more than one Truth? Why would the Holy Spirit guide people into so many differing, conflicting and contradictory “Truths”?

But wait, how many Protestants are there in the world? Some estimate up to 500 million. And the number of Catholics? Some estimate up to around 1.1 billion.

So therefore there are even more Catholic denominations and groups then there are Protestant ones.

Catholic unity? That’s just a smokescreen!

Every Catholic Church has the same Catechism, and every day, every Catholic Church will pray the same prayers and read the same Scriptures. There is unity with Catholic doctrine. For example, If I don’t like the Catholic view on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, I can’t go find a Catholic Church that teaches it’s just symbolic. To deny the Real Presence would mean their faith is no longer Catholic.

Who’s the really fragmented one?

It’s not the Catholic Church.

 

[NotWorthy]

Please refresh your knowledge of history,

The number of people in ther church doesnt count, since it is stated in the Bible that the Lrd will keep a remnant as His witnesses. Throughout history, small groups of Christians kept the fire alive outside of the Catholic church, groups like the Vaudois, the Cathars, the Albigenses, Lollards, Hussites, all before the Reformation.

So the Cathars were the “keepers of the truth”? Do you follow their teachings? How about the Albigenses? How much of their teachings do you still follow today.

Regarding the Albegenses, Do you, like they, believe all matter is evil, that matrimony is evil, that fornication is no sin (since what we do with our bodies–mere matter–is immaterial [no pun intended]), that “assisted suicide” (even when the victim is unwilling) is a positive good? The Albigenses believed all those things, because they were Manichees, not Christians, which is why the Catholic Church opposed them.

Here’s some more information from Catholic.Com on the Cathars and the Albigenses - *The Cathars had many different sects; they had in common a teaching that the world was created by an evil deity (so matter was evil) and we must worship the good deity instead.

The Albigensians formed one of the largest Cathar sects. They taught that the spirit was created by God and was good, while the body was created by an evil god and the spirit must be freed from the body. Having children was one of the greatest evils, since it entailed imprisoning another “spirit” in flesh. Logically, marriage was forbidden, though fornication was permitted. Tremendous fasts and severe mortifications of all kinds were practiced, and their leaders went about in voluntary poverty* .

The Hussites tended to think that when one received Communion, the host (what you so fondly refer to, csmatyi, as “a wafer”) was only the Body of Christ, and the Chalice was the Blood of Christ.

CSmatyi, do you still believe this teaching of one of the remnants that preserved the truth?

 

[mikew262]

55 pages on the divisiveness of Christians. Sad! Catholic, Protestant, whatever! We are all Christians and should concentrate on what we have in common, not what divides us. For us who make it to Heaven, we may be surprised who is there with us and who isn’t. There even may be some non-Christians next to us.

C’mon folks! :banghead:

 

[Pixie_Dust]

55 pages on the divisiveness of Christians. Sad! Catholic, Protestant, whatever! We are all Christians and should concentrate on what we have in common, not what divides us. For us who make it to Heaven, we may be surprised who is there with us and who isn’t. There even may be some non-Christians next to us.

C’mon folks! :banghead:

The Common Ground DVD attempts to do just that. I highly recommend it!

 

[SedesDomi]

**If you are a Christian, what is the real reason for you not being a Catholic? - 2 **

Note: The first thread titled, “If you are a Christian, what is the real reason for you not being a Catholic?” was closed because it had exceeded the maximum amount of posts (1,000). Continue your remarks on this topic, here.

To be Catholic, I’m told, requires one to – at the very least – not publicly deny Catholic doctrine.

Then again, if one does deny Catholic doctrine publicly, one may be excommunicated, but excommunication does not revoke one’s status as a Catholic.

So, if I want to risk excommunication, I could become Catholic. But, in that case, what’s the point?

I don’t deny any Catholic doctrine. However, I re-interpret Catholic doctrine in a way that Catholics in authority might view as denial.

For instance, I don’t deny that hell exists. I simply re-interpret hell as a condition that seems to last forever, even if hell is actually non-eternal.

I don’t deny that the Pope is infallible. I simply re-intepret infallibility of the Pope to as a condition that exists in all Christians inspired by the Holy Spirit, not simply the Pope.

I don’t deny that Jesus Christ is the only way. I simply re-interpret Jesus Christ as one Manifestation of the only way.

Again, such re-interpretations would get one excommunicated in short order.

 

[jay29]

I don’t deny any Catholic doctrine. However, I re-interpret Catholic doctrine in a way that Catholics in authority might view as denial.

You attack the authority of the CC.

I don’t deny that the Pope is infallible. I simply re-intepret infallibility of the Pope to as a condition that exists in all Christians inspired by the Holy Spirit, not simply the Pope.

Any Joe Schmo can be infallible? BALONEY.

I don’t deny that Jesus Christ is the only way. I simply re-interpret Jesus Christ as one Manifestation of the only way.

You are rejecting the Gospels and calling Jesus a liar.

Again, such re-interpretations would get one excommunicated in short order.

They should.

 

[SIA]

**If you are a Christian, what is the real reason for you not being a Catholic? - 2 **

Note: The first thread titled, “If you are a Christian, what is the real reason for you not being a Catholic?” was closed because it had exceeded the maximum amount of posts (1,000). Continue your remarks on this topic, here.

I do not believe that the RCC today is the one true Church that Jesus founded. I do however believe that the RCC shares in the Body of Christ with many others. I do not believe in the ultimate authority of the Bishop of Rome. I do not believe many of the doctrines concerning Mary and i do not believe that many other practices of the RCC are condoned or sanctioned if you will by Scripture. i believe that Jesus came to save all of us if we would be so heralded to follow him as our Savior. This does not include the works and conduct obeying of the RCC. Having said this, I believe that many Catholics do have a deep rich faith in our Lord but i believe that many other non-RC’s do as well.

 

[SedesDomi]

You attack the authority of the CC.

It’s an observation, not an attack.

 

[csmatyi]

So the Cathars were the “keepers of the truth”? Do you follow their teachings? How about the Albigenses? How much of their teachings do you still follow today.

Regarding the Albegenses, Do you, like they, believe all matter is evil, that matrimony is evil, that fornication is no sin (since what we do with our bodies–mere matter–is immaterial [no pun intended]), that “assisted suicide” (even when the victim is unwilling) is a positive good? The Albigenses believed all those things, because they were Manichees, not Christians, which is why the Catholic Church opposed them.

Here’s some more information from Catholic.Com on the Cathars and the Albigenses - *The Cathars had many different sects; they had in common a teaching that the world was created by an evil deity (so matter was evil) and we must worship the good deity instead.

The Albigensians formed one of the largest Cathar sects. They taught that the spirit was created by God and was good, while the body was created by an evil god and the spirit must be freed from the body. Having children was one of the greatest evils, since it entailed imprisoning another “spirit” in flesh. Logically, marriage was forbidden, though fornication was permitted. Tremendous fasts and severe mortifications of all kinds were practiced, and their leaders went about in voluntary poverty* .

The Hussites tended to think that when one received Communion, the host (what you so fondly refer to, csmatyi, as “a wafer”) was only the Body of Christ, and the Chalice was the Blood of Christ.

CSmatyi, do you still believe this teaching of one of the remnants that preserved the truth?

You dealt with only the Cathars and the Hussites. I have read a song from Jan Huss himself that we must eat and drink Jesus, but only in a figurative sense. About the Cathars, it is reported about them that they were teachers of the population of France in the 12th century if I remember correctly. The Albigenses and Cathars have much been maligned throughout history, being called Manicheans. Catholic sources spread much misinformation about them, therefore I do not find such sources to be objective. Even Luther himself was labelled a Manichean, this word was bandied about by the Roman church just to tarnish their image. This they also did to the Vadouis, and even went as far as to say that the Vadouis children were wild, one eyed ogres, but when they were brought to the court of an Italian catholic prince, he expressed much anger that he was misled by those who lied outright about the Vadoius…

 

[csmatyi]

Study done in 2005 by Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (non-Catholic.)

You will find Calvinists in various denominations. I’ve never seen a “Calvinist” church - it’s not a denomination, it’s a theology.
Under “Lutheran” you have the ELCA, LCMS, and WELS (in the US) which differ in their beliefs and practice.
Under “Baptist” you’ll have certain distinctions, as well. Freewill Baptist, American Baptist, Regular Baptist, Separate Baptist, Independent Baptist, General Baptist, etc…which have differences in belief and practice.
Which also has sub-sets, not all Methodists are United Methodists. Even within the UMC there are differences from one church to the next.
Lumping Anglicans with the ECUSA is akin to blending oil and water.
Once more we have PCUSA, UPC, OPC…I think there are a few more divisions there.
You forgot about Pentecostals, Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Full Gospel, Foursquare, Christian Church, Mennonite, Ana-baptist, Amish, Messianic, Church of God, Church of God in Christ, African Methodist Episcopal, not to mention all the “non-denominational” groups that are actually a denomination unto themselves.

Yet Jesus prayed that we be one as He and the Father are one. How is it that the Holy Spirit has led everyone to their own personal interpretation of Truth? Is there more than one Truth? Why would the Holy Spirit guide people into so many differing, conflicting and contradictory “Truths”?
Every Catholic Church has the same Catechism, and every day, every Catholic Church will pray the same prayers and read the same Scriptures. There is unity with Catholic doctrine. For example, If I don’t like the Catholic view on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, I can’t go find a Catholic Church that teaches it’s just symbolic. To deny the Real Presence would mean their faith is no longer Catholic.
It’s not the Catholic Church.

Fine, yes, correct, there are very many different kinds of groups within Protestantism. But still you defend the unity of Catholic teaching in vain. The Catholic catechism itself states that assent of intellect and will is required of the faithful Catholic to beleive in Roman doctrine. Therefore, dissent is possible. Why, Catholics (in practise) substitute the Bible with what their catechism states or what the pope says on faith and morals, but even the interpretation is open to debate (the good old Protestant way, right?)!

Don’t you sense a sort of double standard here? And we still haven’t gotten to the question: regarrding a certain theological question, why does the pope have to be the boss in what is correct? Why not my aunt Sue? She’s a nice, smart person and has a lot of insight, you know. It is simply a logical fallacy to state that Roman Catholic reasoning is correct regarding a certain theological question because “the pope made an infallible statement”, because there is no logical connection between the two statements. It’s the same as saying the reason I bought my child some candy today is because it rained yesterday. The popes have been shown to contradict one another anyway: see pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam: all must be subject to the pope in order to attain salvation versus Vatican II which states that salvation is open to the Orthodox church which denies the supremacy of the Roman pope.

You of course might answer: well, because the pope is guided by the Holy Spirit when he speaks on matters of faith and morals. This is a heresy which emerged early in Christianity called Montanism, which says the Holy Spirit is tied to a single person. You cannot tie the Holy Spirit to a single person or to a single office.

You see, it’s a no go for you, therefore we must let everybody be free to interpret Scripture the way they see fit and not bind them to other people’s fallible opinion. It’s the only safest way, and in the end the fruits of our decisions and logic will decide who was correct in the first place.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Why off line, why can’t the rest of us hear it? Memaw

Mainly, because it has nothing to do with the OP.

 

[Memaw]

I will try to contact him.

But, praytell, give me a list of the names of all 40000 denominations. I have not heard of them myself.

But probably what it’s all about is listing every single Protestant parish in the United States as a seperate denomination.

What the truth is most likely:

we have several major Protestant denominations:

Calvinist
Lutheran
Baptist
Methodist
Anglican
Presbyterian
Congregationalist

These most probably make up around 99% of all Protestantism.

The rest of the 40000 could simply be considered as miscellaneous fragmented ecclesioles.

But the big joke is that these religious groups were most probably listed as different denominations because they all each have a seperate confession of faith, no two group’s is the same.

But this raises a very good question: if a seperate denomination is formed once there is a change in the confession of faith, then this would mean that every single man is his own denomination. Why? Because the thought processes and thought patterns of every single person is different from the next person. Get it? My own special personal confession of faith is different from that of my pastor’s, different from that of my friends’, etc… in a sense we are all different microdenominations at a personal level.

But wait, how many Protestants are there in the world? Some estimate up to 500 million. And the number of Catholics? Some estimate up to around 1.1 billion.

So therefore there are even more Catholic denominations and groups then there are Protestant ones.

Catholic unity? That’s just a smokescreen!

Who’s the really fragmented one?

csmatyi,
this is a classic example of how one can twist things into meaning whatever they want. My, my, when will you ever learn? The whole point is that there have been thousands and thousands of divisions within the protestant denominations in the past 500 years resulting from not having a real voice of authority.
Everyone has an opinion, no doubt about that, but , BUT, in the Catholic Church we have the Pope and the Teaching Magisterium, protected from error by the Holy Spirit as promised by Jesus Christ, to guide us. If my opinion disagrees with the Catholic Church’s regarding the interpretation of Sacred Scripture guess who is wrong. Defiantly not the Catholic Church.
The numbers of protestant denominations came from a protestant book and I don’t remember the named of it., But if you watch “Journey Home” on EWTN on Monday nights at 7 pm. CST, I am sure you will hear it mentioned again as I have heard it a number of times.

 

[NotWorthy]

You dealt with only the Cathars and the Hussites. I have read a song from Jan Huss himself that we must eat and drink Jesus, but only in a figurative sense. About the Cathars, it is reported about them that they were teachers of the population of France in the 12th century if I remember correctly. The Albigenses and Cathars have much been maligned throughout history, being called Manicheans. Catholic sources spread much misinformation about them, therefore I do not find such sources to be objective. Even Luther himself was labelled a Manichean, this word was bandied about by the Roman church just to tarnish their image. This they also did to the Vadouis, and even went as far as to say that the Vadouis children were wild, one eyed ogres, but when they were brought to the court of an Italian catholic prince, he expressed much anger that he was misled by those who lied outright about the Vadoius…

Ah, but do you have any sources that say they didn’t teach this? If I’m correct, there is proof in their writings of their beliefs as I quoted above. You can’t just point the finger and say, “The Catholic Church lied”.

You know, the Catholic Church has a nasty habit of retaining heretical writings in the hope that history doesn’t repeat itself. Sadly, this has not proven to be true.