MERGED: Where are these 40,000 plus Protestant denominations

[glencora]

Why has God allowed division within the Body of Christ? What happened in the late Middle Ages/Early Renaissance to create the schism in the first place? Could the answer be that the Catholic Church ceased being fully a light unto the nations? Are there doctrines in Protestantism which reflect the Gospel more completely than what it taught by the Magisterium? The Eastern Orthodox blame Rome for the Western schism. They say that Rome’s insistence on being first led to division. Is this true? Does the Bishop of Rome assert primacy over the entire Church; to the exclusion of his fellow Patriarchs out of arrogance? I confess that the argument is compelling. Is Peter only first when a question of faith and morals must be decided? Is he first among equals only during those times or is it all the time? Would the abuses of the Renaissance have occurred with the other Patriarchs in unity?

Millions of Roman Catholics visit St. Peter’s Basilica each year. How many of them are aware that said Basilica helped create the Reformation? The abuse of indulgences sited by Martin Luther were the same indulgences used to pay for construction of St. Peter’s. Was it worth it Catholics? We lost millions of our brothers, but gained a Basilica! True, it inspires, but would Jesus have been concerned with a great house of Worship or would he have taken that money to educate the poor, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc? The Roman Catholic Church was founded by Jesus to preach the Gospel; not be concerned with worldly riches! The Church has existed in Latin America for centuries, yet it is in Latin America that you find some of the greatest extremes of poverty and wealth. Where has the Church been the last 500 years? I’m not saying the Church has not served the poor at all, but I question its priorities. Pomp serves no purpose, if it is not directed toward the mission of the Gospel.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Glencora,

Welcome to CAF…

Sounds like you have both questions and issues to deal with here. Maybe this list can be of help in both areas.

Let me try to answer your first question and then we can see what develops. Division seems to be within the very framework of our wounded human natures. At the time of Christ, Judiasm was divided into two major camps that hated one another (Pharisees and Sadduces) with a splinter group that was despised by both (Herodians). Then there were the Essenes and the Zealots. All of them had an agenda, and all claimed to be honoring God. Christ comes and tells eveyone that He is here to promote division! (Matt 10:34)

And, while the Pharisees, Sadduces and Herodians could not agree on anything - they did quickly unite against Christ. I am sure there were those who wanted the factions to get together and “…let’s all be friends…” - but, that was not the Divine Plan. And, when it comes to trying to understand what God has planned for us - we have to keep in mind that at best we have a very cloudy view…on a good day!

So, WHY does God allow division - or, anything else for that matter? He does this for His Glory. There isn’t anything out there that isn’t for the Glory of God - even Satan in deepest pit of Hell is part of His Plan. If we believe that God is All Powerful - then nothing can take place that He does not allow - and, all of creation is to give Him Glory. Since Adam and Eve sinned, all of creation has been in out of harmony - but, the idea is that even this was part of the Divine Plan. This side of the curtain, we can never understand it. When we are on the other side, it will take us all eternity!

So, what are we to do about this? Christ was really clear and specific. First look at Matthew 6:9, where Jesus is teaching the Apostles to pray and He starts off with OUR Father - so there is an immediate reference to a claim to unity - all of us having God as our Father. Then move on to John 17:21 where Christ prays that we all may be one. Christ knows about our divisive natures - and our unwillingness to stay together and our desire to scatter like sheep. Our mission is to pray for unity.

I hope this helps.

God bless

Why has God allowed division within the Body of Christ? What happened in the late Middle Ages/Early Renaissance to create the schism in the first place? Could the answer be that the Catholic Church ceased being fully a light unto the nations? Are there doctrines in Protestantism which reflect the Gospel more completely than what it taught by the Magisterium? The Eastern Orthodox blame Rome for the Western schism. They say that Rome’s insistence on being first led to division. Is this true? Does the Bishop of Rome assert primacy over the entire Church; to the exclusion of his fellow Patriarchs out of arrogance? I confess that the argument is compelling. Is Peter only first when a question of faith and morals must be decided? Is he first among equals only during those times or is it all the time? Would the abuses of the Renaissance have occurred with the other Patriarchs in unity?

Millions of Roman Catholics visit St. Peter’s Basilica each year. How many of them are aware that said Basilica helped create the Reformation? The abuse of indulgences sited by Martin Luther were the same indulgences used to pay for construction of St. Peter’s. Was it worth it Catholics? We lost millions of our brothers, but gained a Basilica! True, it inspires, but would Jesus have been concerned with a great house of Worship or would he have taken that money to educate the poor, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc? The Roman Catholic Church was founded by Jesus to preach the Gospel; not be concerned with worldly riches! The Church has existed in Latin America for centuries, yet it is in Latin America that you find some of the greatest extremes of poverty and wealth. Where has the Church been the last 500 years? I’m not saying the Church has not served the poor at all, but I question its priorities. Pomp serves no purpose, if it is not directed toward the mission of the Gospel.

 

[Roy5]

I’m not sure this discussion is proving anything. But let me toss in a few thoughts.

** 1. With some exceptions, Protestant denominations do not claim to be the ‘one true church’.** This is one reason many Protestants switch from denomination to denomination, often when they move. The differences between, say, a Methodist and a Congregationalist are barely noticeable to the average worshiper. In places like Canada, Australia, parts of India, etc., such groups have merged; e. g., the United Church of Canada.

** 2. Catholics are divided even if united.** What I mean is, there are major differences of opinion. Just Saturday, at a fund-raising breakfast, I sat by a Catholic who said that he had been told by his priest that he didn’t have to take many of the major doctrines literally, that he could interpret them figurately. As we talked on, it became obvious to me that he simply didn’t believe many of the main teachings of the church.

** 3. Catholicism, while united through the Pope, has far less communicants than generally considered**. I’ve read, for example, that 95% of the French are Catholics while a poll showed that roughly 25% of the French are atheist or agnostic, and less than 10% attend mass except perhaps for hatching, matching and dispatching (baptisms, weddings and funerals). A similar situation exists in places like Italy, Spain, and Quebec. And didn’t Argentine recently vote to allow same-sex marriage? And so it goes. Protestants are no better off in places such as England and Scandinavia where large Anglican and Lutheran majorities are essentially unchurched. A good argument for Christian cooperation against the inroads of secularism?

** 4. As has been pointed out, there could be, say, 200-300 Methodist denominations in the world, because most Methodist churches in different nations are autonomous** In the USA there must be 20 Methodist denominations, probably 40 Baptist denominations, and all sorts of independent congregations with Wesleyan or Baptist evangelical theology.

** 5. There are advantages and disadvantages to so many denominations.** One advantage is that most of them are busy evangelizing, and they offer plenty of options to meet different needs or tastes. Many young people, say, find moderate pentecostal worship attractive because the music usually includes a live band and the first 30 minutes or more resemble a rock concert. For the more liturgical, the Episcopal and Lutheran churches are among the options. The theological liberals will find a niche, and so will the fundamentalists. If you don’t like the sermons or the music or the Sunday School or the youth program, there’s usually other Protestant churches nearby. To change churches is not ‘to convert’ but simply to move to a different branch of the church.

 

[Nicea325]

How exactly is it relevant? It doesn’t prove our case that the Catholic Church was the Church founded by Christ. The Catholic Church has differences and schisms too. Not to mention the whole issue is exagerated to begin with. If we are going to refute Protestantism, then why do we need to mirror some of their worst techniques for arguing? Disagree all you want but the issue only proves that people are sinful and disagree alot, just like we do in the Catholic Church. What’s good enough for the goose is good enough for the gander.

It is revelant in the fact Jesus’ never taught or encouraged Christians to divide and go splinter-off and go start other churches. St.Paul does not tell the Corinth church to take a hike and become a separate entire church.

People are sinful? Yes and Jesus Church was founded for those sinners,but that in no shape or form negates the santification of His Church. Problem today is the people want the church/faith to adjust to them and not the other way around.

 

[1holycatholic]

Many denominations are almost identical

There is a word for things that are almost identical.

That word is “different.”

Isn’t English fun?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Roy5,

Several times in reading your post, I had to remind myself you were not talking of a social club. Are you saying that there are a multiplicity of denominations because no real demands are made expect to pay one’s dues (tithe) and attend whenever you feel like it?

I’m not sure this discussion is proving anything. But let me toss in a few thoughts. ,

Actually Roy5, I think it is proving at least two items:
1.) There really are a multiplicity of Protestant denominations - this is not just anecdotal data.

2.) There is some question about the real validity of the references - but, no one is seriously doubting there are several thousand denominations as opposed to several dozen.

** 1. With some exceptions, Protestant denominations do not claim to be the ‘one true church’.** This is one reason many Protestants switch from denomination to denomination, often when they move. The differences between, say, a Methodist and a Congregationalist are barely noticeable to the average worshiper. In places like Canada, Australia, parts of India, etc., such groups have merged; e. g., the United Church of Canada.

Personally, I found this the most discouraging of the five items you listed. It would seem to me (yes, this does sound silly! ) that anyone wanting to claim to be a Christian would be willing to follow Christ as closely as possible. Not’ being interested in finding His Church - especially when so many of denominations put Christ name in it - sounds like they really do not understand what is involved.

** 2. Catholics are divided even if united.** What I mean is, there are major differences of opinion. Just Saturday, at a fund-raising breakfast, I sat by a Catholic who said that he had been told by his priest that he didn’t have to take many of the major doctrines literally, that he could interpret them figurately. As we talked on, it became obvious to me that he simply didn’t believe many of the main teachings of the church.

It sounds like the person you spoke with is no longer a Catholic. My guess is that he misunderstood the priest - because such a statement is simpy heretical. Christ is REALLY present under the appearance of Bread and Wine, Our sins REALLY are forgiven by the priest when we properly recieve the Sacrament of Reconcilliation, Infant Baptism REALLY does make us children of God, heirs to Heaven and washes away Original Sin, etc. But, let me quickly add, there really is disunity amongst many Catholics on several fronts - and, this is sad to witness.

** 3. Catholicism, while united through the Pope, has far less communicants than generally considered**. I’ve read, for example, that 95% of the French are Catholics while a poll showed that roughly 25% of the French are atheist or agnostic, and less than 10% attend mass except perhaps for hatching, matching and dispatching (baptisms, weddings and funerals). A similar situation exists in places like Italy, Spain, and Quebec. And didn’t Argentine recently vote to allow same-sex marriage? And so it goes. Protestants are no better off in places such as England and Scandinavia where large Anglican and Lutheran majorities are essentially unchurched. A good argument for Christian cooperation against the inroads of secularism?

I fear that secularism has done terrible damage to all groups that want to follow Christ. This is a real evil.

** 4. As has been pointed out, there could be, say, 200-300 Methodist denominations in the world, because most Methodist churches in different nations are autonomous** In the USA there must be 20 Methodist denominations, probably 40 Baptist denominations, and all sorts of independent congregations with Wesleyan or Baptist evangelical theology.

This basically gets us back into a numbers game. I think the take-home message is that not only are there a multiplicity of Protestant denominations - but, there are genuine disputes over just what Christ wants us to do. For example, some groups say that Baptism is required for salvation, while others say it is an ‘ordinance’ or an option. There exists various and numerous denominations because the groups can not agree on a unified set of beliefs. Continued splintering is the only realistic outcome.

** 5. There are advantages and disadvantages to so many denominations.** One advantage is that most of them are busy evangelizing, and they offer plenty of options to meet different needs or tastes. Many young people, say, find moderate pentecostal worship attractive because the music usually includes a live band and the first 30 minutes or more resemble a rock concert. For the more liturgical, the Episcopal and Lutheran churches are among the options. The theological liberals will find a niche, and so will the fundamentalists. If you don’t like the sermons or the music or the Sunday School or the youth program, there’s usually other Protestant churches nearby. To change churches is not ‘to convert’ but simply to move to a different branch of the church.

One could say that there are ‘advantages and disadvantages’ to joining any social club - but, at least as I see it, this is not what Christ founded on Peter (Matt 16).

God bless

 

[Adam_Warlock]

There are as many denominations as there need to be to encompass the huge variation of belief that has arisen through Modernism and Postmodernism. If that number is 30k, there is little one can do to change it - a tragedy though it is.

 

[Roy5]

tqualey

It's bedtime, but a couple quick responses.

Most liberal Protestants - and there are millions upon millions - have areas of theology where they don't feel the need to arrive at the 'truth'. One famous preacher once said that he could 'only believe in a God he could not understand'. I find that liberal Protestants are likely to say, we don't really know some ultimate truths because we are mere mortals, so let's be tolerant of different viewpoints. There actually is something called 'Christian agnosticism'. The idea is that we believe in God and earnestly seek to follow Christ, but we also feel that humankind simply cannot understand many ultimate truths. For example, afterlife. What is it like? Heaven? Or something we cannot profitably speculate about. God's ways are not always our ways, and we are limited by our finite brain. The notion of a heaven, hell and purgatory comes into question.

 (Protestants, by the way - speaking of tithing - and as you probably know - give at least double per capita what Catholics give.)

 When it comes to Christ's presence in the communion elements, most Protestants would likely say that Jesus is everywhere at all times, as he promised ('lo, I am with you always'), and that there is no change in the bread and wine after consecration, neither a physical nor spiritual change. 

 You refer to original sin. Many Protestants agree that people have a propensity to sin ('all sin and fall short of the glory of God'), but most liberal Protestants do not believe in original sin. Where does that idea come from? The fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden? Few mainline Protestants would take that story literally, believing it to be a myth, folklore, and/or legend.

  As I have stated, I come from a mixed Catholic/Protestant background, but over the years the harsh dogmatism of traditional Catholicism has increasingly troubled me. Perhaps I suffer from too great a curiosity, but I need and enjoy the freedom to investigate, weigh, test, explore, and, yes, even question and doubt various traditional doctrines. I have read widely, including most prominent Church Fathers, watch EWTN, read our Sunday Visitor, etc. But, I can't for a minute believe that a just and merciful God would punish anyone for looking into doctrines and even sidelining some that he cannot in all honesty accept. For example, I really doubt that Mary lived a sinless life. And why is that necessary? Frankly, I prefer that she was normal like you and me. In fact, I often have wondered how Mary and Joseph could have traveled a full day's journey from Jerusalem and not noticed that Jesus, their one and only son, was not with them. As a parent myself, that would have been my first concern. Has Mariology gone too far? I suspect we would disagree on that one.

 Good night and God bless.

 

[Todd520]

It’s hard to find references on this. From a wiki site, I see approximately 231 major denominations. Below are the qty and members

x29 Catholicism - 1.2 billion
x87 Historical Protestantism - 350 million
x29 Modern Protestantism - 274 million
x39 Eastern Orthodoxy - 228 million
x14 Oriental Orthodoxy - 82 million
x22 Anglicanism - 82 million
x9 Nontrinitarianism - 27.5 million
x2 Nestorianism - 0.6 million

 

[elvisman]

Can some one tell me how many non-cathloic Denominations do we have in the world today

Those numbers (approx. 33,000) usually come from the World Christian Encyclopedia by David Barrett, George Kurian and Todd Johnson (Oxford Press).

By the way Todd M. Johnson, Ph.D. is a Research Fellow in the Study of Global Christianity and the Director, Center for the Study of Global Christianity
Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary - a Protestant Seminary

 

[Dale_M]

Can some one tell me how many non-cathloic Denominations do we have in the world today

Wouldn’t that depend upon how “denomination” is defined?

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

To tqualey:

You say that I made “a difficult post” because I denied “stated meanings,” and that I complained my statements “has not been answered.” Well…they haven’t. And right now, they still haven’t really. You’ve simply repeated your arguments. I responded to your presuppositions, you simply repeat your presuppositions. I don’t know how else to respond to an argument when it’s just the same argument being thrown at me over and over again ad nauseum.

You ask what criteria I would have for the Gates of Hell, the marks of a Church that has not been overcome by Hell, etc…I’ve already explained that I’m using the criteria that would be agreed upon by most Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. In fact I was originally responding to a Roman Catholic who had claimed any division in a church is a sign of the Gates of Hell overcoming it essentially, so I inquired if the apostolic churches splitting in two were a sign of the “apostolic” church being overcome by hell, using the standard presented. I’m not trying to sneak in a new definition, I was responding to a standard and am awaiting an answer to a question using that standard.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Byzantine_Wolf,

Well, if it is a split or division you wish to use as your criteria … (you seem to have adopted this one) then obviously, by this criteria, the Gates of Hell have prevailed! Funny, I thought you would have provided that scriptural quote to back up your criteria.

I guess, however, there is nothing left to do but bemoan this great defeat!! But, wait … I think I hear the sound of another criteria coming into view …

Take a look at: Ephesians and Revelations - and see how the Sacred Writers compare the Church (which obviously has not been defeated by Hell!) to the Bride of Christ.

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish” (Ephesians 5:25-27).

“And I heard, as it were, the voice of a great multitude, as the sound of many waters and as the sound of mighty thunderings, saying, ‘Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns! Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready.’ And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints” (Revelation 19:6-8).

Your simple refusal to accept anything other than the Gates of Hell have prevailed is very sad indeed - and, I have tried to help you remove this depressing delusion… but, obviously to no avail. The name of this thread is “…40,000+ Protestant denominations…” so obviously, Hell has triumphed over Protestantism - even more so when you recall that Luther & Co. split from the Catholic Church. Then when you go back to the Great Schism, you find even more splitting! But, don’t stop there - the Jews split into the various camps of Pharisee, Sadducee, Herodians and a few more! Goodness! And Islam is divided into two major and antagonistic camps! According to this criteria you have provided, Hell has done … well … one hellofa job in defeating God’s Plan! Hmmm… You know, He can’t be much of a God if one of His creatures, Satan, can thwart Him! But, before you go claiming: ‘Straw Man’ - stop and read your own posts! This is the conclusion - receiving the only answer you are willing ot accept.

The real answer is that the First Bishop of Rome was given the Keys (Matt 16) and no one else got the keys. That means that the Apostolic leaders of the other Churches needed to stay in communion with Rome. They broke from Rome and that is where they committed error. Rome has taught the same doctrines for 2,000 years and has never taught error. You may not like to hear that, but, it really is true. Such consistency can only be ignored by those who refuse to see.

I have really said all I can say on this point. You either cling to these historic splits in chruches as proof that Hell has prevailed. Or, you look at history, trace Matt 16 from about 32AD to today - trace Peter as Pope to Benedict XVI as Pople and see that the Gates of Hell have not prevailed against the Church founded by Christ with the Bishop of Rome as the visible head of Christ’s Church.

God bless

To tqualey:

You say that I made “a difficult post” because I denied “stated meanings,” and that I complained my statements “has not been answered.” Well…they haven’t. And right now, they still haven’t really. You’ve simply repeated your arguments. I responded to your presuppositions, you simply repeat your presuppositions. I don’t know how else to respond to an argument when it’s just the same argument being thrown at me over and over again ad nauseum.

You ask what criteria I would have for the Gates of Hell, the marks of a Church that has not been overcome by Hell, etc…I’ve already explained that I’m using the criteria that would be agreed upon by most Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. In fact I was originally responding to a Roman Catholic who had claimed any division in a church is a sign of the Gates of Hell overcoming it essentially, so I inquired if the apostolic churches splitting in two were a sign of the “apostolic” church being overcome by hell, using the standard presented. I’m not trying to sneak in a new definition, I was responding to a standard and am awaiting an answer to a question using that standard.

 

[1234]

Hi, 1234,

You know, I did not find it mindless, and there is no reason to be insulting to the poster.

What was done was to have gone to a recognized reference and present a portion of what is there. If your argument is really that there aren’t 40,000+ Protestant denominaitons, fine. How many are there? Oh, and please give the reference.

Thanks

God bless

I am not trying to prove how many denominations there are. It doesn’t matter, for one thing. Whether there is one or 40,000, it doesn’t prove that the RCC is the “true church”/
I am quoting the cut and paste of a mindless agglomeration–not that the cut and paste was mindless, although it certainly appears to be. It requires only a cursory review of the list that was pasted to show how many errors are in it.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Roy5,

I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head…! After reading your relativistic presentation on religion, how individuals can pick and choose what they want to believe and disbelieve and, how it really does not matter in the long run and words of scripture are simply open to your personal interpretation - it is quite easy to see the validity in the 40,000 denominations. Actually, maybe there are 40,001!!

There really isn’t any thing else to say, is there Roy:5?

God bless

tqualey

It's bedtime, but a couple quick responses.

Most liberal Protestants - and there are millions upon millions - have areas of theology where they don't feel the need to arrive at the 'truth'. One famous preacher once said that he could 'only believe in a God he could not understand'. I find that liberal Protestants are likely to say, we don't really know some ultimate truths because we are mere mortals, so let's be tolerant of different viewpoints. There actually is something called 'Christian agnosticism'. The idea is that we believe in God and earnestly seek to follow Christ, but we also feel that humankind simply cannot understand many ultimate truths. For example, afterlife. What is it like? Heaven? Or something we cannot profitably speculate about. God's ways are not always our ways, and we are limited by our finite brain. The notion of a heaven, hell and purgatory comes into question.

 (Protestants, by the way - speaking of tithing - and as you probably know - give at least double per capita what Catholics give.)

 When it comes to Christ's presence in the communion elements, most Protestants would likely say that Jesus is everywhere at all times, as he promised ('lo, I am with you always'), and that there is no change in the bread and wine after consecration, neither a physical nor spiritual change. 

 You refer to original sin. Many Protestants agree that people have a propensity to sin ('all sin and fall short of the glory of God'), but most liberal Protestants do not believe in original sin. Where does that idea come from? The fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden? Few mainline Protestants would take that story literally, believing it to be a myth, folklore, and/or legend.

  As I have stated, I come from a mixed Catholic/Protestant background, but over the years the harsh dogmatism of traditional Catholicism has increasingly troubled me. Perhaps I suffer from too great a curiosity, but I need and enjoy the freedom to investigate, weigh, test, explore, and, yes, even question and doubt various traditional doctrines. I have read widely, including most prominent Church Fathers, watch EWTN, read our Sunday Visitor, etc. But, I can't for a minute believe that a just and merciful God would punish anyone for looking into doctrines and even sidelining some that he cannot in all honesty accept. For example, I really doubt that Mary lived a sinless life. And why is that necessary? Frankly, I prefer that she was normal like you and me. In fact, I often have wondered how Mary and Joseph could have traveled a full day's journey from Jerusalem and not noticed that Jesus, their one and only son, was not with them. As a parent myself, that would have been my first concern. Has Mariology gone too far? I suspect we would disagree on that one.

 Good night and God bless.

 

[PRmerger]

One famous preacher once said that he could ‘only believe in a God he could not understand’.

Roy, it wasn’t too long ago that we discussed this. You already know that this quote comes from a* Catholic *preacher.

Remember this dialogue:

It was that great preacher of 60 years ago, Harry Emerson Fosdick, who said that “I can only believe in a God that I do not understand.”

LOL! He is being very Catholic when he says that!

It was Saint Augustine who said “Si comprehendis, non est Deus”—”if you understand him, he is not God.” Way back in the 4th century.

(And please don’t be disingenuous and claim that you meant St. Augustine in the above posting.)

 

[tqualey]

Hi, PRmerger,

Excellent post!

I can’t believe you’ve found evidence of plagiarism… Well, I am sure that St. Augustine is very forgiving of such mischief - as long as his intent is carried forward. And, as a Catholic Bishop and an Early Catholic Church Father, I am sure that is what Roy5 had in mind…

God bless

Roy, it wasn’t too long ago that we discussed this. You already know that this quote comes from a* Catholic *preacher.

Remember this dialogue:

(And please don’t be disingenuous and claim that you meant St. Augustine in the above posting.)

 

[tqualey]

Hi, 1234,

Now, let’s be honest - whatever the number is, it is far closer to 40,000 than to 1.

I am not trying to prove how many denominations there are. It doesn’t matter, for one thing. Whether there is one or 40,000, it doesn’t prove that the RCC is the “true church”/

There are not only different types of proof, but also different degree. The fact that there are a multiplicity of Protestant denominations - all spouting different beliefs and claiming them to be true, while discounting the teachings of their peers in Protestantism should be firm evidence that none of them has it right. Further evidence of this fact is Protestantism inability to get together on any set of doctrines (and, the reason for this inability is Sola Scriptura - which is the very fuel that feeds the further splintering of already splintered bodies.

So, tell me, 1234, what is the ‘proof’’ for the ‘true church’?

God bless

I am quoting the cut and paste of a mindless agglomeration–not that the cut and paste was mindless, although it certainly appears to be. It requires only a cursory review of the list that was pasted to show how many errors are in it.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Roy5,

I hope you had a refreshing night’s sleep… Rise 'n shine with CAF!

tqualey

It's bedtime, but a couple quick responses.

Most liberal Protestants - and there are millions upon millions - have areas of theology where they don't feel the need to arrive at the 'truth'. One famous preacher once said that he could 'only believe in a God he could not understand'. I find that liberal Protestants are likely to say, we don't really know some ultimate truths because we are mere mortals, so let's be tolerant of different viewpoints.

I think your hand has been called by PRmerger that the ‘famous preacher’ was St. Augustine. How very Catholic of you to quote an Early Catholic Church Father. Good job … at least initially, but then there is a problem. You conclude with the idea that since Ultimate Truth can not be known, no truth can be known and we should therefore be tolerant of error masquerading in the politically correct term of ‘different viewpoints’.

Actually, I would be curious to know which ultimate truths are known - since you claim that liberal Protestants “…don’t really know SOME (emphasis added) ultimate truths…” or was this just a figure of speech? Since we are creatures, the best we will have is to know God in our own finite way - and that will take all of eternity being with Him in Heaven.

But the desire to have an understandable God may be closer to heart of Protestantism than you are willing to admit. Our own (limited…and in some cases, profoundly limited) understanding is the basis for Sola Scriptura since each individual can interpret the Inspired Word of God as they will.

There actually is something called ‘Christian agnosticism’. The idea is that we believe in God and earnestly seek to follow Christ, but we also feel that humankind simply cannot understand many ultimate truths. For example, afterlife. What is it like? Heaven? Or something we cannot profitably speculate about. God’s ways are not always our ways, and we are limited by our finite brain. The notion of a heaven, hell and purgatory comes into question.

The evidence of your personal background that you like to tell us about is evident here… If there IS such a thing as ‘Christian agnosticism’ maybe you can supply a reference. Thanks.

You present some interesting ideas … and conclude that they are all questioned. This really does not follow. Besides, is it this type of questioning that has lead to 40,000+ Protestant denominations?

 (Protestants, by the way - speaking of tithing - and as you probably know - give at least double per capita what Catholics give.)

And, you not only have a reference for this, but you will identify the point you wish to make…?

 When it comes to Christ's presence in the communion elements, most Protestants would likely say that Jesus is everywhere at all times, as he promised ('lo, I am with you always'), and that there is no change in the bread and wine after consecration, neither a physical nor spiritual change.

Not to go too far astray here … but, God really is everywhere. There is NO where, where God isn’t. But, this is not what John 6 is telling us. Christ specifically told us He was not only giving us His Flesh to eat, but commanded we eat His Flesh if we are to have eternal life. Protestantism, as you have correctly point out in the above paragraph AND IN YOUR FIRST PARAGRAPH refuses to believe this because they CAN NOT UNDERSTAND IT. Ah, now, where is St. Augustine when we need him… (and the answer is: in his writings!)

 You refer to original sin. Many Protestants agree that people have a propensity to sin ('all sin and fall short of the glory of God'), but most liberal Protestants do not believe in original sin. Where does that idea come from? The fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden? Few mainline Protestants would take that story literally, believing it to be a myth, folklore, and/or legend.

  As I have stated, I come from a mixed Catholic/Protestant background, but over the years the harsh dogmatism of traditional Catholicism has increasingly troubled me. Perhaps I suffer from too great a curiosity, but I need and enjoy the freedom to investigate, weigh, test, explore, and, yes, even question and doubt various traditional doctrines. I have read widely, including most prominent Church Fathers, watch EWTN, read our Sunday Visitor, etc. But, I can't for a minute believe that a just and merciful God would punish anyone for looking into doctrines and even sidelining some that he cannot in all honesty accept. For example, I really doubt that Mary lived a sinless life. And why is that necessary? Frankly, I prefer that she was normal like you and me. In fact, I often have wondered how Mary and Joseph could have traveled a full day's journey from Jerusalem and not noticed that Jesus, their one and only son, was not with them. As a parent myself, that would have been my first concern. Has Mariology gone too far? I suspect we would disagree on that one.

 Good night and God bless.

The conglomeration of your personal ideas presented above are really all over the place and really difficult (at least for me) to address in a unified manner… Maybe you would be interested in taking one and making it into a thread where you could get some specific feedback. Right now, the focus is on 40,000+ Protestant denominations. From what I have read in this post, you may have increased this number by one!

God bless

 

[Roy5]

Such hostility toward Protestantism. It astonishes me. I find so little of this attitude among liberal Protestants who may disagree profoundly with Catholicism but generally respect other faiths. Here on CAF we find so most posters who seem filled with bitterness, as though Protestants were not fellow Christians but mortal and eternal enemies.

Anyway, a couple quick responses before I invest my time in wiser projects.

(1) The fact that Augustine said substantially what Harry Emerson Fosdick said 700 years later doesn’t justify charging Fosdick with plagarism. That is a bizarre accusation. I assume that hundreds, maybe thousands, have said something similar to both of these men over the centuries. I just happen to have quoted Dr. Fosdick. He died years ago, but I recommend his books.

(2) “Christian Agnostic” is the name of a book I read some years ago - by an English clergyman, I can’t recall his name. I confess that it made a major impact upon me as I found myself agreeing with so much of it. The idea, as I stated, is that since we have such finite brains we follow the teachings as Christ the best we can, knowing however that our minds can’t really penetrate many of the deeper truths re the universe, eternal destination, etc. God is affirmed, Christ’s teachings are paramount (though we may differ among ourselves re those), but such ‘Christian agnostics’ are comfortable leaving many of the mysteries of this mammoth and miraculous universe unresolved. We live in large part by faith and not by knowledge. I believe that is scriptural. I know that using the word agnostic may be misleading, as it usually means something rather different. So be it.

(3) I only noted Catholic vs Protestant per capita giving (and put it in parenthese) because a preceding post had raised the matter of tithing, etc. I don't have time to document everything I write. If you have the time to do the research why not do it? It has been reported often over the years. It may not prove much of anything, but I have found it of general interest, possibly revealing something. Just what is an interesting question.

I, for one, am not angry at anyone. I simply would like more civil dialogue, and also hope and pray that religion can be a bridge and not a barrier. As a 'product' of a mixed Catholic-Protestant heritage, I treasure the variety of ecumenism that respects the differences among us instead of constant scolding and 'one upsmanship'.The idea that ecumenism requires conformity does not appeal to me. It suggests an arrogance that is alienating. Fortunately, Catholicism generally has changed over the years to now accept genuine freedom of religion. There's a brief and fascinating article in the latest NY Review of Books (by two Catholic historians) suggesting that the experience of Catholicism in the USA has had a major impact upon moving the Vatican from opposing genuine freedom of religion (as in the 'Syllabus of Errors' - 1864) to becoming one of its principal proponents. I recommend reading it.

 May God bless Catholics, Protestants and everybody who seeks to serve God by serving humankind, whatever their creed, color or country.