Least persuasive argument used by Catholics?

[Peter_J]

I totally understand, gentlemen. I guess I’ve listened to EWTN radio enough to know some of their perspectives - I’m sure they are good reads even for understanding Catholicism better. I shouldn’t sound so dismissive…

I watched EWTN with my grandmother back when I was younger. Mother Angelica was probably my favorite program ( it was certainly Granny’s!) and they had plenty of edifying programs to watch. Why would your words be dismissive? EWTN is a great medium for furthering your understanding of the Catholic faith.

FWIW, spedteacherita, I thought your words sounded quite missive.

But more to the point, I myself don’t necessarily think that getting people to “level up” (btw you have to pay me royalties if you start saying that) by just one level is anything to brag about. I like to think that it isn’t the best that we can hope for, but it may be.

 

[LutheranScholar]

Probably the most unconvincing argument for me is that “Well, Florence was ecumenical, so you should follow it.”

That was awesome.

 

[spedteacherita]

I watched EWTN with my grandmother back when I was younger. Mother Angelica was probably my favorite program ( it was certainly Granny’s!) and they had plenty of edifying programs to watch. Why would your words be dismissive? EWTN is a great medium for furthering your understanding of the Catholic faith.

I had said that one of the least persuasive arguments for me was posting a link to some of the great contemporary Catholic apologists and I was just saying that I guessed it probably had something to do with having heard a lot of their teachings on EWTN. I’ve enjoyed a lot of EWTN programming both TV and radio - never quite got into Mother Angelica so I guess me and your granny have something in common.

 

[QuestLove]

Don’t tell anybody but I never was a big Billy Graham fan…but my Mom became a Christian from one of his TV broadcasts - I believe it was in New York - when I was a baby (1957).

Me too. I used to think it was because I did not grow up in America.

 

[spedteacherita]

FWIW, spedteacherita, I thought your words sounded quite missive.

But more to the point, I myself don’t necessarily think that getting people to “level up” (btw you have to pay me royalties if you start saying that) by just one level is anything to brag about. I like to think that it isn’t the best that we can hope for, but it may be.

[mis-iv]

noun
1.a written message; letter.
adjective
2.sent or about to be sent, especially of a letter from an official source.

The teacher in me had to go see if that were really a word! lol

 

[Reuben_J]

I had said that one of the least persuasive arguments for me was posting a link to some of the great contemporary Catholic apologists and I was just saying that I guessed it probably had something to do with having heard a lot of their teachings on EWTN. I’ve enjoyed a lot of EWTN programming both TV and radio - never quite got into Mother Angelica so I guess me and your granny have something in common.

Hear, hear ye.

What hope is there for us here if Mother Angelica, a Catholic religious and Protestant converts like Hann and Staples are not persuasive? But God works in a mysterious way. Sometimes we are convinced in/through the happenings of the most ordinariness of our lives where the little child in us lets us see what we do not see.

Reuben

 

[JustaServant]

Sorry, but I have to disagree. Even those tiny house Church have to be included because they claim to have the proper interpretation, no matter how minuscule the difference from their predecessor may be. However tiny they may be, they represent an additional division in the already splintered pane of glass that is Protestantism.

Uh…no.
The term “denomination” generally referred to Protestant churches for the sake of “denominating” themselves from other Protestant churches. That’s really all the term means. It never had anything to do with the type of church government or how they interpret the Bible.

 

[ephesians2]

Well in this thread, and many others the 30,000 denominations and counting is being attacked pretty bad, but I think people miss the point. Perhaps it’s not the number but the principal. Protestants are greatly divided right? Is there an “acceptable” number of protestant divisions?

And just because catholics debate doctrine does not mean we are divided…the church allows debate, at the end of the day there is one faith professed by the Catholic Church and you either agree and live faithfully or you step outside her bounds.

Food for thought.

The problem with the argument is it is invalid. It really isn’t about the principal of the Protestant’s number because the book where this 33,000+ is quoted from over and over lists the ** Roman Catholic Church as having over 240 different “denominations”. I don’t think the Roman Catholic realizes he or she is quoting a number that the church is included in.**

A true Protestant will be able to trace his or her doctrines/core beliefs back to the Reformation. And agreed, there will be disagreements on let’s say infant vs. adult baptism, but the key principles of the Reformation will not be disagreed upon if the “denomination” has stayed true to them and has not strayed. The Way of salvation has never changed for those that have stayed true. But man is fallible.

Logic says that if there are Roman Catholics debating eachother then there is division. The Roman Catholic Church says it is “one” in words, but there is division amongst the people.

 

[Jon_S_1]

The problem with the argument is it is invalid. It really isn’t about the principal of the Protestant’s number because the book where this 33,000+ is quoted from over and over lists the ** Roman Catholic Church as having over 240 different “denominations”. I don’t think the Roman Catholic realizes he or she is quoting a number that the church is included in.**

A true Protestant will be able to trace his or her doctrines/core beliefs back to the Reformation. And agreed, there will be disagreements on let’s say infant vs. adult baptism, but the key principles of the Reformation will not be disagreed upon if the “denomination” has stayed true to them and has not strayed. The Way of salvation has never changed for those that have stayed true. But man is fallible.

Logic says that if there are Roman Catholics debating eachother then there is division. The Roman Catholic Church says it is “one” in words, but there is division amongst the people.

The difference being there is no debate over what the church teaches. There is 1Catholic faith. Individuals are either in or out of the catholic faiths bounds.

This isn’t true in protestantism. There is for example not 1 Lutheran Faith or 1 baptist faith or 1 Presbyterian faith. There are many doctrinal differences between not just the laity, but the church bodies themselves.

And as a later post of mine asked…how many divisions are acceptable. I get people don’t like the 30,0000 number but no one has come up with another…let’s say it’s 1,000 is that acceptable?

We mean entirely different things when we each say we believe the Church is Divine. You mean the invisible Church with somehow related to it many forms, whereas I mean one and one only visible Church. It is not logical to the Catholic to believe that Christ teaches through many visible forms all teaching contrary doctrine. You speak of the well-known facts of Christ’s life – but these facts are hotly contested – the virgin birth, the resurrection, the very divinity of Christ. For us the one visible Church pronounces on these matters infallibly and we receive her doctrine whether subjectively it fits in with our surmises or not. We believe that Christ left the Church to speak for him, that it speaks with his voice, that he is the head and we are the members.

Juan de Juanes, The Last Supper (1560)
If Christ actually teaches through many forms then for fifteen centuries, he taught that the Eucharist was his actual body and blood and thereafter he taught part of his people that it was only a symbol. The Catholic can’t live with this contradiction. I have seen it said that the Catholic is more interested in truth and the Protestant in goodness, but I don’t think too much of the formula except that it suggests a partial truth.
The Catholic finds it easier to understand the atheist than the Protestant, but easier to love the Protestant than the atheist. The fact is though now that the fundamental Protestants, as far as doctrine goes, are closer to their traditional enemy, the Church of Rome, than they are to the advanced elements of Protestantism. You can know where I stand, what I believe because I am a practicing Catholic, but I can’t know what you believe unless I ask you. You are right that enjoy is not exactly the right word for our talking about religion. As far as I know, it hurts like nothing else. We are at least together in the pain we share in this terrible division. It’s the Catholic Church who calls you “separated brethren,” she who feels the awful loss.
-Flannery O’connor

 

[icamhif]

aidanbradypop;12907085:

I know. It is just the 33,000 is an extremely false number

I see. I’m just going to go with “lots and lots” from now on.:juggle:

Actually, I would appreciate that use more. It shows intellectual integrity.

 

[GKC]

The difference being there is no debate over what the church teaches. There is 1Catholic faith. Individuals are either in or out of the catholic faiths bounds.

This isn’t true in protestantism. There is for example not 1 Lutheran Faith or 1 baptist faith or 1 Presbyterian faith. There are many doctrinal differences between not just the laity, but the church bodies themselves.

And as a later post of mine asked…how many divisions are acceptable. I get people don’t like the 30,0000 number but no one has come up with another…let’s say it’s 1,000 is that acceptable?

The reason no one can come up with a figure that is no one has an agreed upon definition of what a denomination is. I have no idea if 1000 is reasonable. To make it an acceptable number, one would have to have an agreed upon definition of what was being counted.

As I have said, that is certainly an interesting concept; to do a valid, peer reviewed, broad, and longitudinal professional study of how many denominations (whatever that is defined to mean) Christianity (however that is defined) is made up of and how that changes.

Meanwhile, pick a number. It’s likely as good as anyone else’s.

GKC

 

[LutheranScholar]

The reason no one can come up with a figure that is no one has an agreed upon definition of what a denomination is. I have no idea if 1000 is reasonable. To make it an acceptable number, one would have to have an agreed upon definition of what was being counted.

As I have said, that is certainly an interesting concept; to do a valid, peer reviewed, broad, and longitudinal professional study of how many denominations (whatever that is defined to mean) Christianity (however that is defined) is made up of and how that changes.

Meanwhile, pick a number. It’s likely as good as anyone else’s.

GKC

Let’s see here… in terms of denominations… from the most Catholic- lite ( like?) in terms of liturgy and theology to churches not quite so liturgical… Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed, Wesleyan, Anabaptist/ Pietist, Baptist, Congregational, Pentecostal, Holiness. Those would be nine umbrella terms for church bodies that range from very conservative indeed to extremely liberal in theology and outlook. I could probably mesh the Wesleyans, Baptists and Congregationalists under the heading " English Dissenting Churches," but that would probably be far too broad a designation. Nine.

 

[GKC]

Let’s see here… in terms of denominations… from the most Catholic- lite ( like?) in terms of liturgy and theology to churches not quite so liturgical… Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed, Wesleyan, Anabaptist/ Pietist, Baptist, Congregational, Pentecostal, Holiness. Those would be nine umbrella terms for church bodies that range from very conservative indeed to extremely liberal in theology and outlook. I could probably mesh the Wesleyans, Baptists and Congregationalists under the heading " English Dissenting Churches," but that would probably be far too broad a designation. Nine.

Ok by me. Now, can you get a peer-reviewed consensus that this is an adequate division, covering all possibilities, exhaustive of the (possible) range of Christianity?

But sure, go with nine. Ok by me.

BTW, would a poster like Indifferently fit well into the Anglican box? He’s way down the liturgical scale from Anglo-Catholics like me. But he’s Anglican, all the same, organizationally.

Are you sure doctrinal divisions are the right axis to slice along?

GKC

 

[Jon_S_1]

Let’s see here… in terms of denominations… from the most Catholic- lite ( like?) in terms of liturgy and theology to churches not quite so liturgical… Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed, Wesleyan, Anabaptist/ Pietist, Baptist, Congregational, Pentecostal, Holiness. Those would be nine umbrella terms for church bodies that range from very conservative indeed to extremely liberal in theology and outlook. I could probably mesh the Wesleyans, Baptists and Congregationalists under the heading " English Dissenting Churches," but that would probably be far too broad a designation. Nine.

This evangelical source, says there are like 40,000 denominations (Gordon Conwell college)

churchrelevance.com/qa-list-of-all-christian-denominations-and-their-beliefs/

I guess I would ask why you redefine denomination?

Surely you would not say that in your own tradition, the ELCA AND THE LCMS are the same and what the LCMS does is binding on the ELCA and vice versa???

Of course not, they are independent ecclesial bodies that disagree on what Lutheran practice is. That is a denomination. Lutheranism is a branch of which there are many denominations.

Granted there is duplication in the 30,000 number because some denominational differences are purely geographical. So let’s cut the number in half for that.

There’s a big difference between being a southern baptist and american baptists. These would not be considered one denomination. In fact they’d be insulted if you told them so.

The Southern Baptist Convention is more conservative in its beliefs than the American Baptist Church. The Southern Baptists teach that the Bible is without error, that “all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy,” and the American Baptist Church teaches that the Bible is “the divinely inspired word of God that serves as the final written authority for living out the Christian faith.” The Southern Baptists teach that everyone must accept Jesus as Lord and Savior or face an eternity in Hell; the American Baptists teach that people are “called to radical personal discipleship in Christ Jesus” but do not directly say they must accept Christ in order to be saved. The Southern Baptists do not allow women to become clergy and condemn same-sex relationships, while American Baptists have women clergy members and allow churches within their association to be “welcoming” communities, which means accepting of gay people and same-sex couples.

Read the while article: classroom.synonym.com/comparison-southern-baptist-american-baptist-beliefs-5797.html

 

[GKC]

This evangelical source, says there are like 40,000 denominations (Gordon Conwell college)

churchrelevance.com/qa-list-of-all-christian-denominations-and-their-beliefs/

I guess I would ask why you redefine denomination?

Surely you would not say that in your own tradition, the ELCA AND THE LCMS are the same and what the LCMS does is binding on the ELCA and vice versa???

Of course not, they are independent ecclesial bodies that disagree on what Lutheran practice is. That is a denomination. Lutheranism is a branch of which there are many denominations.

And…here we go.

GKC

 

[Jon_S_1]

And…here we go.

GKC

See my edited post

 

[spedteacherita]

Me too. I used to think it was because I did not grow up in America.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Along with this one, I would add when people say, “It’s been around for 2000 years so it must be right.”
First of all, Judaism has been around longer, so that ends that argument right there.
Second, just because something has been around for a long time, doesn’t mean it’s right or true or correct. There are many, many reasons why some religions and beliefs may last a long time that have nothing to do with it being true or not.

.

This would be an erroneous way to defend the faith. Your right just because it’s old doesn’t mean anything. What people mean when they say “it’s the oldest Christian tradition” is that it is the tradition that links to the apostolic age and is consistent from then till now.

Most Christians want to practice the faith that Jesus intended and the apostles and first century church practiced.
In centuries past, they just had the bible and their intuition to judge this, but we have access to many many documents now that display the catholic faith all the way back to the apostolic age. So we would argue the church is apostolic and practices the faith as it was practiced in the beginning.

Maybe that’s still not convincing but I think it’s an important distinction compared to just saying “it’s old”.

That said, when talking purely of Christian religion, I think it’s important to recognize that there was one faith practiced for 1000 years and then 2 for the next 500 before hundreds (or perhaps thousands) of groups formed new beliefs and new doctrines. In this sense “older” would say that one is part of the tradition of the first 1500 years.

 

[LutheranScholar]

Ok by me. Now, can you get a peer-reviewed consensus that this is an adequate division, covering all possibilities, exhaustive of the (possible) range of Christianity?

But sure, go with nine. Ok by me.

BTW, would a poster like Indifferently fit well into the Anglican box? He’s way down the liturgical scale from Anglo-Catholics like me. But he’s Anglican, all the same, organizationally.

Are you sure doctrinal divisions are the right axis to slice along?

GKC

It’s* one *possible method to use to establish denominational differences. There are many others. The point that I was attempting to make is that ultimately all this slides into pedantry. If Indifferently claims an Anglican identity, or if Thorolfr is a Lutheran of the ELCA brand, they are, respectively, Lutheran and Anglican, if one is less liturgical than you or the other is more liberal than I, fair enough. My post does say that the church bodies that you will find listed underneath these divisions vary greatly, " from being very conservative indeed to being extremely liberal." As far as I know, doctrinal divisions are the very heart of the matter, so yes, certainly I’d say that they can legitimately be used to classify various bodies of Protestantism.

 

[spedteacherita]

Hear, hear ye.

What hope is there for us here if Mother Angelica, a Catholic religious and Protestant converts like Hann and Staples are not persuasive? But God works in a mysterious way. Sometimes we are convinced in/through the happenings of the most ordinariness of our lives where the little child in us lets us see what we do not see.

Reuben

None, I think! Look at me - not a fan of Billy Graham (but I greatly respect him), Mother Angelica or the wonderful Catholic apologists!!

I do like Fulton Sheen…does that redeem me? (Wait, Christ already redeemed me…)

LOL, thanks for the fun, everyone!

In Christ,

Rita