Hi,
There are others that could be questioned. My question - Christian denominations by who’s definition of Christian? Most likely, not by God’s definition.
Your cut-and-paste of this mindless agglomeration is hardly an argument. There is much overlap and repetition; you obviously didn’t read the list. You have included the World Council of Churches, which is a body of churches, Universalism, which unified with Unitarianism long ago, the Unitarian-Universalist Association, which is the working arm of both of these unified churches; the Waldenses (isn’t that the sect the RCC wiped out long ago?), the Religious Society of Friends* are* the Quakers, who are listed separately; the Church of Ireland and Scotland and England are branches of the Anglican Communion, ditto the “Protestant Episcopal Church (what’s that?)”.
Your quotes illustrate one of the central problems of Christianity. Who is Jesus and what did he say?
BTW, I wasn’t either.You’re missing my point, one of which is – at least those protestant churches you refer to are honest and have broken away from other churches that believe differently rather than secretively practice wrong things while acting as if they are someone they aren’t.
This is a totally unsubstantiated statement. Now, you can correct it by giving a citation, or you can back down from it … or, you can ignroe it. Your call.
Another point is that, in practice, within the CC are thousands and thousands of little denominations. At least the protestants have the integrety to be honest they disagree. In practice, it is a ‘stone throwing’ thing with your first statement.
Again, a totally unsubstantiated statement. Note, there are different rites but not different denominations. For example: some Protestant groups believe in the Immaculate Conception and Virgin Birth (as Luther did) … and, some don’t. Conversely, ALL Catholic rites believe these articles of Faith. And, this bit about having the “iontegrity to be honest”… seems rather self serving in addition to be undocumented.
A third point is that as unfair as it is to blame the CC for its members that practice different that the church’s belief, you shouldn’t point fingers at non-catholic believers who honestly differ from you.
Catholics may hold certain private devotions that have not been declared articles of Faith or condemned as heretical. There is not a problem with this that I am aware of. A Catholic who would claim, for example, that Holy Communion is just a memorial service and not the actual transubstantiation of common bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ are no longer Catholics - they, through their refusal to believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church have removed themselves from the Body of Believers.
The fingers you see are the ones you use look up the scripture I gave you to read that substantiates the issue: there is no central authority - and this is the same central authority inspired by the Holy Spirit to insure that everything in the Bible is the inspired Word of God. There is no central to interpret God’s meaning - and this teaching is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Lacking such a central authority (the Magisterium) you have solo scriptura run amuck and 40,000+ Protestant denominations all proclaiming theirs is the true faith - while all others are false.
BTW, I wasn’t speaking of the past sins of people in the pews. I was speaking of those that practice such things before and after they sit in the pews. I apreciate forgiveness more and more the older I get because I’m convinced more and more of my sin nature and its potential to destroy me and those around me.
It sounds like you are having your doubts about the inspirational validity of the New Testament… 
And, it sounds like you are having a problem specifically with St. John’s Gospel. Is this what you are questioning? Now, if you would rather me quote another Sacred Writer of the NT, just give me the verse and I will be happy to look at it. 
My statements stand or fall on their own.Hi, Dokimas,
You have been on CAF long enough to know better!
Your point(s) should at least generally match up with the thread - you are spinning out entirely different material. Now, this is fine if you want to start a new theread - but for the benefit of those who do not want to be hijacked… please stay focused. Thanks.
BTW, I wasn’t either.
What is necessary is that a Catholic have true contrition for their sins, confess their sins to a priest, receive absolution (John 20:22) and do the penance required. If there is not firm purpose to amend their sinful life (no matter how often they fail) then there was not a valid confession. And, in case you are wondering - St. Paul is quite clear when he says, “God will not be mocked…” (Gal 6:7). Those who would abuse the Sacrament of Reconciliation have committed a serious sin, have not been forgive of their current sins - and, are much worse off than they were before they tried this stunt.
Please re-focus on this thread and if you decide to open a new thread let me know.
God bless
There are two types of ignorance: vincible and invincible. My understand is Protestants that truly believe what they are doing is correct and a valid way to God are guilty of no sin because of invincible ignorance. Those, however, who know that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ but, for human reasons refuse to leave error will be judged more severely. There is nothing ‘unfair’ or uncharatable about pointing our error to another… in fact, it really is a requirement (Matt 18:15, Luke 17:13)My statements stand or fall on their own.
For each CC member that commits adultery, has children out of wedlock, is a pediphile, is a mobster, etc are like a denomination all their own. If those whose life style reveals they don’t believe the teaching of the CC left the church and formed their own church, how many would be left.
So, if all sinners who claim to be Catholic were to leave the Catholic Church, how many would be left? That’s an easy one - NONE! Now, maybe you are laboring under the delusion that your group would remain intact … but, let me assure you, that as long as they are human they are inclined toward evil. Reading your post brought back an old memory of a Rev Arthur Dimmesdale and Hester Prynne… but, that’s another story…
I understand we are all sinners. That’s not my point. My point was to show that pointing out the sinful protestant practices or is an unfair way of dismissing all non-catholic Christian churches.
Let me stop you here because I think there is some confusion on how that conversation got to the point where it did in my post. It was stated that “Christ founded ONE church,” and that with this church there was no reason to start another (source). Therefore I asked, if this was true, then did the gates of hell prevail against the church because of the schism in 1054? You say, “1054 was a rough year,” and I have to confess that’s a rather gross understatement for a year where one Holy See (the Roman Church) excommunicated the other four (the Holy Sees of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch). All of these churches were founded by apostles and evangelists, and yet in 1054 these “apostolic” churches split from one another.
Just open your phone book and you can see most of them calling them self Christians,I think it is also all the cult of the world,and think of all the phone books,any Tom,Dick or Harry is opening a church
Where does Wikipedia claim that? Also most denominations don’t claim to be the one true path.According to Wikipedia, approximately 38,000, all who claim to be the one true path God
That’s the most rational and logical estimation of Protestant numbers I’ve ever seen. Make this guy a mod.
The consistency is this: Christ founded His Church, and that would be the Catholic Church, on Peter and Peter’s successors. And the current successor is Pope Benedict XVI. He did not found His Church on the Patriarchs of Asia Minor. Christ also did not found His Church on Luther, or Calvin or Robert H. Schuller or Joel Osteen. The consistency is that for 2,000 years the same message has been preached by the Catholic Church: Baptism IS necessary, Holy Communion IS the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Christ and men DO go to other (ordained) men to have their sins forgiven. The very sense of history that you are looking at can take you much further than 1054… it can take you back all the way to Christ - and then move forward with Christ in today’s world. Since the same beliefs are being taught in the CC as identified in the Bible, then there is the evidence that the Gates of Hell have not prevailed. Check any other Christian group - the same can not be said.You say, “1054 was a rough year,” and I have to confess that’s a rather gross understatement for a year where one Holy See (the Roman Church) excommunicated the other four (the Holy Sees of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch). All of these churches were founded by apostles and evangelists, and yet in 1054 these “apostolic” churches split from one another. EDITED FOR BREVITY
I am remined of a variation of a often quoted verse - “God so loved the world that He did not send a committee…” The basis for answering your question lies in two area: Papal Primacy and Papal Infallability. Here is a link: ewtn.com/expert/answers/papal_primacy.htm The basis for this lies in Matthew 16:18 when Christ puts Peter in charge of the Church of Christ - the Catholic Church. He did not put a committee in charge, and this is an important consideration. Now, if you think He did, you will need to provide a reference.
*
“The doctrine of papal primacy upholds the divine authority of the Successor of St. Peter to rule over the entire Church with ordinary and immediate jurisdiction. Two Magisterial texts are key to understanding its supreme nature and the obligation of all who are not invincibly ignorant of this truth to submit to Papal authority for the sake of their salvation.
Pope Boniface VIII, in his Bull Unam Sanctum (1302), spelled out the doctrine of the necessity of the Church for salvation and with it the necessity of submission to the Roman Pontiff. Regarding the primacy of authority of Peter and his successors he stated…”* EDITED FOR BREVITY - GO TO LINK PROVIDED FOR FULL EXPLANATION.
Now, go to John 21:15-23. Here we see the Risen Christ speaking with the Apostle who denied even knowing Jesus - working on his rehabilitation! And, does Christ say something like “Peter, you’re fired!” No. Christ focuses on Peter’s primary role in the Church Christ has founded - to feed both lambs and sheet. Peter is in charge, and simply stated, the other Apostles are NOT in charge of the Church.
Either you believe that God the Father knew what He was doing when He selected Peter and gave him the answer to Christ’s question (Matt 16) or, you don’t. And, yes, this takes faith in the word of God. But, just read what is there. Peter is not just one vote out of total.
In response to this, you jump subjects and declare that the Roman Catholic Church is the true one because God is preaching the gospel throughout the world with it. Well…I could very well look at other churches, most of them Protestant, who are doing likewise. EDITED FOR BREVITY
Well, this too will take faith - but, here goes, Matt 28:19 specifically tells the Apostles to go out into the world and baptize in the name of the Trinity. The role of the Church is to evangelize and witness to all. Yes, others (Protestants) are doing this… and truly this is part of God’s Divine Plan - but, I can not explain what this plan is (effectively, different groups are bearing witness to Christ, yet taking His Words and standing them on their head (Baptism is NOT necessary for salvation, Holy Communion is NOT the Body of Christ, we do NOT go to men to have our sins forgiven, etc.). All I can say is that merely because groups shout, "Lord! Lord! ( Matt 7:21 ) or, cast out devils in the name of Christ ( Matt 7:22 ) does not mean that they will receive a eternal reward of being with God. Personally, I am not satisfied with this answer, so, if anyone wants to lend a hand…consider this an invitation!
Again, however, this jumps from the point that if we’re going to say Christ founded one church through the apostles…what happened when those apostolic churches (again, all the major churches in Asia Minor and Italy were founded, for the most part, by apostles and evangelists) split from one another? I guess what I’m asking for is a consistency in the logic of what we’re using to define the gates of hell prevailing against the church of Christ.
) Now, a long time ago… when I was growing up, it was 20,000+ Protestant denominations … and there weren’t mega churches, either. I certainly won’t do any serious arguing with 20,000+ but, that is not the point. While they didn’t have mega churches back then…they also did not have strip mall churches either - and non-denominationals are popping up like mushrooms!I suspect any and nearly all magor cities have a number that exceeds your estimate.
The point is mute [or ought to be] as Christ intended and DID make only One new Covenant, founed Only One Chruch and One new Faith. There are in excess of 100 NT references to ONLY ONE CHURCH. Is this fact to be ignored without cupable consequences?