MERGED: Where are these 40,000 plus Protestant denominations

[elvisman]

…in fact…all heresy first sprang from the Catholic Church. Has the RC ever held a council to define a doctrine from a pagan society?

This is a redundant statement.
ALL heresy MUST spring from the truth or it’s not heresy. Heresy itself is a perversion of the truth.

It’s as silly as saying, "All bad children are born from women."
ALL children are born of women.

 

[roveau]

Nor do all Protestants say that it is. Methodists, for example, believe in Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience.

Several of the large, early established, Protestant churches believe in the authority of the early church fathers in the interpretation of the Scriptures - for example the Anglicans, Lutherans and Presbyterians. By implication any denomination that celebrates Sundays instead of Saturdays (Sabbath) relys on Church tradition.

 

[Ginger2]

This is a redundant statement.
ALL heresy MUST spring from the truth or it’s not heresy. Heresy itself is a perversion of the truth.

It’s as silly as saying, "All bad children are born from women."
**ALL **children are born of women.

Hense the smiley icon sticking out its tongue. The comment was made in jest. It was not meant as an accusation.

 

[Nine_Two]

There were no “splits” before Luther that still exist today, other than the Orthodox, so they wouldn’t have been counted in the Almanac. The Almanac is only counting religions that exist right now.

But the data is still badly flawed because they are obviously counting at least some of them more than once, and more than several hundred times, in some cases.

The Waldensians originate in the 12th century. The modern day Moravians have their own origin with Hussites who fled to Poland during the Thirty Years War, and the entire Pietist movement, which covers quite a few denominations, originated with them. Of course these groups, despite being pre-Protestant, assimilated into the Reformation.

 

[Nic2009]

As a Catholic I am bemused by the number of times I see this or even much higher figures than 40,000 denominations thrown in to bolster an argument about why sola scriptura is wrong. I think it unfair in debate if it can’t be substantiated.

I want to see a list of these 40,000 denominations. I personally know of perhaps 20 or 30.

no comment

By his graces, his servant, Nic

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ginger2,

I ignored nothing. You, however, have totally missed the point.

So, let’s look just a little deeper. Christ founded One Church. He gave Peter the visible authority (keys) and the instruction that whatever he bound on earth was bound in heaven. (Matt 16:18). Note, Christ promised the Holy Spirit would guide His Church and the Gates of Hell will not prevail.

That was in the 1st Century - and sure enough, there were people who knew better - and their demands that the Gentile converts follow the Law of Moses caused a real problem… that was resolved by Peter in Acts 15 as leader of the entire early Catholic Church. To the best of my knowledge, the Judiazers are no longer with us, and are surely not a Protestant denomination.

Now, Gnosticism was an issue (actually, this group pre-dates Christ) and they certainly caused confusion amongst the early Catholics in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries. I am not sure - maybe these guys are still around - but, they certainly are not a large group.

Then we get to Arius who denied the Divinity of Christ. I think this group is still functioning as JWs and LDS but, Christians believe that Christ is God.

By the 3rd Century Manichaeanism became a more recognized problem for the early Catholic Church - but, basic dualism pre-dated Christianity, too. While this exists in parts of the world, I do not think this is a part of any Protestant denomination today.

I could go on, Ginger2, but, note, Protestiantism did not exist as a recognized group before the 16Century, but that really isn’t the issue. Yours is really one of a number that came late, developed man-made traditions, and split from other groups that had previously split from the Catholic Church. It is the multitude of those splintering factions that is of concern.

Your obvious interest in pointing out faults, failings and major scandals in the Catholic Church is valid. It should be noted that the Catholic Church is composed of sinful men - some of whom fell very short of the mark throughout every Century! Remember, Peter denied Christ not once but three times… so if the first leader of the Catholic Church showed a failing that is truly noteworthy for always remembering that all of us can fail to use the grace of God given to us.

My concern is that with major differences in the doctrines of all of these Protestant denominations (e.g., baptism is: requried? a nice idea? not necessary?) they all can not be right as they all claim. Maybe you don’t see this as a problem…yet.

God bless

My point exactly! You ignore all the splits in the Catholic Church before Luther and attribute all non-catholics as splits originating from Luther. Those non- reformation splits are not from protestant denoinations as you just defined above.
You ignore the aborigine in different countries and count them under the heading of protestant splits, etc.
The Catholic Church is still experiencing splits to this day, albeit, much smaller than the reformation, with minimal reporting.
*Polish National Catholic Church (a church in the US) could be listed as Protestant, but it did not break with any Protestant church. It split from the Latin Rite because it does of recognize the recent dogmas of an immaculate conception and bodily assumption of the Mother of God. But it celebrates the entry of the Mother of God into eternal life and solemnly observes the festival of her dormition.

Not all the so-called denominations are actually separate religions. Many were discovered to be several churches all belonging to the one and same denomination.

Here are a few categories of the Catholic church denominations as listed within Barrett’s Encyclopedia of 22,000 denominations. (30,000 according to the Catholics who arbitrarily upped the number)

Roman Catholics (242 denominations)
Armenian (Eastern-rite Catholic)
Bulgarian (Byzantine rite)
Chaldean (Eastern Syrian rite)
Coptic (Alexandrian rite)
Ethiopic (Alexandrian rite)
etc. (edited for length)

Orthodox (781 denominations) :
Albanian/Greek-speaking Orthodox
Arabic or Arabic/Greek-speaking Orthodox
Armenian Orthodox (Gregorian)
Bulgarian Orthodox
Coptic Orthodox
etc. (edited for length)

Anglicans (168 denominations):
Anglo-Catholic
Central or Broad Church Anglican
Ecumenical (Anglican/Protestant/Orthodox joint parishes)
Anglican Evangelical, Evangelical Anglican
High Church Anglican (Prayer Book Catholic)
etc. (edited for length)

The list goes on and on. As I read, I noticed a very large percentage of denominations had first split from the Catholic church.

In order to reach the 30,000 protestant denominations number, all the splits coming from splitting with the RC are counted as Protestant splits. - even those before Luther and including those who still consider themselves Catholic.

How convenient…

 

[Riccardo]

Hi, Riccardo,

Welcome to CAF! I think you will find this list to be a real blessing and inspiration in your search for the Truth.

Let me make one comment…

If your intial concern is the “…baptism of infants…” maybe this will help. Just imagine that you and your wife (assuming you’re married… ) were lost in a jungle. You come upon an abandoned infant whose parents had just been killed and immediately work to rescue it. During the process you both bond with the infant and want to adopt it. Well… as it turns out you are very wealthy … and you realized that this infant would inherit all of your wealth becuase you want this child to be your child. Since you and wife are childless this works out well. But, you never got around to formalizing your desire for adoption - and shortly after you three are rescued … you and wife are killed (sorry about that…) As it turns out, without the initiation into your family - this infant who you rescued and loved and nurtured … is not your child and will NOT inherit your earthly possessions. (Since you didn’t have a will either - it will wind up going to the State!)

Baptism makes us a Child of God - and an heir to the Kingdom of Heaven. And, this is so great! We are not orphans - we are God’s Children and entitled to all of the bounty of Heaven.

Now, for a much better explanation, here is an excellent link: catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp

God bless

Tom, thank you, and i will look at the link.
Sorry for the delay in replying, i’m on UK time.

Everywhere i read, it was only after they heard the truth, were people baptized.
I understand that jesus himself was dedicated as a baby.That i understand.

So its a real shame that most peolpe are baptized as babies who have nothing to do with the Lord later on in life. They, in most cases never hear the gospel, not hearing, they are not saved. One has to hear etc Mark 16:15-16. So does that make their baptism not valid as a child? Because as a child one would have no say in it.

Just a side issue, i do recall the Lords apostles telling the Lord that there were poeple using his name to cast out demons in his name that were not a part of them, but Christ told them to leave them a lone, as his name was being preached, whether for selfish reasons or not, does this have any place in the discussion on the RCC and others here?
Ric

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ric,

Good to hear from you! Now, let’s see if those questions can get answered.

Tom, thank you, and i will look at the link.
Sorry for the delay in replying, i’m on UK time.

Did you have a chance to see Pope Benedict XVI during his recent visit to the UK?

Everywhere i read, it was only after they heard the truth, were people baptized.
I understand that jesus himself was dedicated as a baby.That i understand.

Ahhhhh… the issue here is to expand your readings… The first thing I would honestly suggest is to take a look at that link I sent. It really has a lot of information I think you can use right now.

Actually, Jesus was dedicated in the same way every other Jewish male infant was dedicated under the Law of Moses. On the 8th day He was circumcised. This is significant for several reasons. Christ tells us that He came to fulfill the Law (Matt 5:17). Notice that the rite of initiation under the Law began when the male child was 8-days old (Luke 2:21) a new-born (infants are from 1 month - 12 months of age) God wanted them in ‘His Chosen People’ family as soon as possible.

I think the take home message is that historically (from the covenant with Abraham) God did not discriminate against babies. Why do you think He would discriminate against them in the New Covenant?

So its a real shame that most peolpe are baptized as babies who have nothing to do with the Lord later on in life.

Seriously, what kind of objective evidence do you have to support this position, Ric?

They, in most cases never hear the gospel, not hearing, they are not saved. One has to hear etc Mark 16:15-16.

Not to sound silly about this, but, your statement sounds like a deaf person could not get to heaven! Unless the baby is deaf - the baby can hear! Now, you may mean understand the gospel … but, that would rule out the mentally defective individual. I thin you have taken Mark’s statement and misapplied it to babies.

So does that make their baptism not valid as a child? Because as a child one would have no say in it.

The quick answer is, “NO!”

The validity of an act done for an infant does not depend on the infant’s disposition or understnading… If the wealthy parents of an infant were to die, the assets of the deceased parents would go to the infant - no one could come along and say, “You are too young to inherit this!” The infant would inherit - even though he had no say in the matter - because this is what human law requires. (Now, as a practical matter, he would need a guardian to manage his estate… but, the issue here is that, by law, he is the recongnized heir beause of his relationship in he family.

Just a side issue, i do recall the Lords apostles telling the Lord that there were poeple using his name to cast out demons in his name that were not a part of them, but Christ told them to leave them a lone, as his name was being preached, whether for selfish reasons or not, does this have any place in the discussion on the RCC and others here?
Ric

Mark 9:38 has always been a curiosity to me - why would someone (not part of Jesus’ company) be using Jesus’ name to do a good deed? The motiviation behind the Apostles complaining to Jesus seem to have been driven by envy or some kind of ‘turf issue’ - you can not do this because you are not one of us! Notice, if there is a case of someone being in danger of death, ANYONE can provide a valid baptism if they intend to do so, use water and the Trinitiarian invocation. While not as dramatic as casting out demons … such an act would allow the dying person to become a Child of God - no matter how old they were!

Hope this helps.

God bless

 

[Riccardo]

Tom, once again thank you.
I did look at the link and found it very helpful.

In my last, what i meant by those who have been baptized and have nothing to do with the Lord, is there are so many who have in fact been baptized as babies, who in later life have nothing to do with the Lord, in fact i know many who dont believe in him, but as babies were baptized.
Speaking with some, they have told me they would not have been baptized, if that was left to them, plus most i speak to think they were baptized in order to be named.??

I feel ashamed of myself, that i’ve been in and out of the CoE, Catholic church at one time, and the Church of Christ, where i was a minister for 7 years.

I wish only to obey the truth, worship in that truth in the Lords church.

I’ve sat at many a feet of men who at the time i thought were teaching truth, in fact they believe what they were teaching. I’ve even used the argument, “What makes you right and me wrong”
So to cut a very long story/journey short, i feel like that reed, which is blowing, and i’m ashamed of that, because i love the Lord with a passion. I study and read, pray etc.

So when we have the CC and the CoE and such like debating on issues, one does get confused.
I fear the Lord, as i should, and only wish to worship him in the truth.

Sorry its long winded here, but i wish there was unity.

If i have left the subject matter, pleae forgive me, but if i feel this way, what do others?

In one street alone where i live we can over 6 different churches preaching, all claim to preach the truth, what on earth does the Lord think about that?

Ric

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ric,

Glad you found the link helpful.

Tom, once again thank you.
I did look at the link and found it very helpful.

In my last, what i meant by those who have been baptized and have nothing to do with the Lord, is there are so many who have in fact been baptized as babies, who in later life have nothing to do with the Lord, in fact i know many who dont believe in him, but as babies were baptized.

This may be somewhat analogous to the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32). Here we have someone who was brought up as a Child of God and then decides to leave. Not told in the story is the possiblity that while this prodigal son was living a debauched life he was probably critical of his Father and the household and everything else he associated with it. Now, something happened to the prodigal (he ran out of money) and he is not confronted with some realities he thought he could avoid.

The parable of the Prodigal has a happy ending in the sense that the son recognizes how bad off he has become and seeks to at least eat real food on a regular basis. The fact that he really did apologize for offending his father is not really there - no matter what his words are - in my opinion. The story of your friend has not ended yet. But, there is no guarantee of a happy ending - the only guarantee is that each person has the gift of a free will and chooses what they really want. That last choice will weigh for all eternity (recall the Good Thief who was crucified next to Christ and then at the last moment repented. Of all the people that Christ intereact with - the Good Thief is the ONLY ONE who Christ said is in heaven!)

Speaking with some, they have told me they would not have been baptized, if that was left to them, plus most i speak to think they were baptized in order to be named.??

Now, Ric, I do not know how things are in the UK… but, in the US - the baby has to be named to get out of the hospital! Baptism has nothing to do with it.

God bless

Glad you found the link helpful.

I feel ashamed of myself, that i’ve been in and out of the CoE, Catholic church at one time, and the Church of Christ, where i was a minister for 7 years.

I wish only to obey the truth, worship in that truth in the Lords church.

I’ve sat at many a feet of men who at the time i thought were teaching truth, in fact they believe what they were teaching. I’ve even used the argument, “What makes you right and me wrong”
So to cut a very long story/journey short, i feel like that reed, which is blowing, and i’m ashamed of that, because i love the Lord with a passion. I study and read, pray etc.

So when we have the CC and the CoE and such like debating on issues, one does get confused.
I fear the Lord, as i should, and only wish to worship him in the truth.

Sorry its long winded here, but i wish there was unity.

If i have left the subject matter, pleae forgive me, but if i feel this way, what do others?

In one street alone where i live we can over 6 different churches preaching, all claim to preach the truth, what on earth does the Lord think about that?

Ric

 

[Portrait]

It amazes me how often the exact same topic is started as something new, but even more amazing is that the same old arguments are brought up even when they were long ago dispelled as myths.

Here is a tidbit from long ago:

Non-White Indigenous, accounts for over one third, 10,956 denominations; obviously these are not protestants. They did not break off from the RC

interesting… but wait til you see this next one!!!

Roman Catholicism accounts for 223 denominations;

If you KNOW there is only one Catholic Church, and your source for 20,000…er…30,000… I mean 40,000 protestant denominations say there are OVER 200 Roman Catholic denominations,

WHY WOULD YOU BE SO EAGER TO ASSUME THAT CLAOIM IS CORRECT AND ACCURATE???

I could go on and on bringing up points as to how thousands and thousand of these “protestant denominations” are not protestant at all, (many exited it the first few centuries after Christ and during the lifetimes of the Apostles) but just the fact that your source claims 223 Roman Catholic denominations, should be enough to put an end to this nonesense!

Dear Ginger2,

Cordial greetings dear friend and thankyou for your contribution above.

By way of reply, it would, I think, be freely admited now that the reference resource, The *World Christian Encyclopaedia *(Oxford University Press) is misleading and not a safe guide, statisically speaking, from either a Catholic or Protestant standpoint. Its flawed method of dennoting denominations is seriously open to question, whatever side of the divide one happens to be on. It is certainly erroneous to count the Catholic Church once in every country and then state that there are c. 240 “denominations”. Quite frankly that is risible and downright silly, since the Catholic Church is the “One, Catholic and Apostolic Church”, established by Jesus Christ, even though it has many districts under the pastoral care of a single Bishop in many countries.

Be that as it may, this by no means destabalises the case against the churches of the Reformation, for the Catholic apologist would continue to draw attention to the multiparous nature of Protestantism and its tragic pathological tendency to divide. This is the very crux of whole problem from the Catholic perspective, not that there 20, 000 or even 40, 000 (granted these figures have often been imprudently cited for polemical purposes) different Christian groupings. Our Lord prayed passionately that all of His disciples would be one (St. John 17: 21) and He said that the Church was to be one flock under one Shepherd (St. John 19: 16). It appears incontrovertible that all the unhappy divisions within Protestant religion have their roots in the Reformation when a single, historic and unified Church authority was abandoned. Alas, each fresh division engenders a smaller and more extreme splinter group (oftentimes dividing over the most trivial of issues), further from the mainstream of historic, fundamental Christianity. Is that really what our Lord envisioned for His Church? Surely not.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Todd520]

This thread has brought up an old question, from my agnostic days

In all these Christian Denominations, many if not most of the leaders are devout Christians. As such the Holy Spirit is available to all and must have touched leaders and members alike.

• Why hasn’t the Holy Spirit led us devout seekers to the same One True Faith?
• Could it be that in our own way, we are still on a path acceptable to God?

 

[Riccardo]

Tom, thanks.

A baby here can leave the hospital, but has to be registered within so many days.

But those who are not churched, as such, who never have anything to do with God, (a tradition if you like) go to church and get them baptized.

My parents did that with me. They never attended church before or after.

In the CoE, and other (some) churches baptism is the same as the RCC, at the age when wants to take that responsibility on themselves, they get confirmed, which I did, is see no difference with the RCC, what I don’t see is this in scripture.

So, we have churches teaching very much the same, but very eager to condemn each other.

What I thought was good was that Pope did partake in worship with the CoE here.

So where does that leave the man/men who want to worship in the church of the Lord?

Oh, just fro me, if males were circumcised as so known by God, what happened to the females babies?

I could not get to see him, the main events were tickets only.

God bless
Ric

 

[elvisman]

This thread has brought up an old question, from my agnostic days

In all these Christian Denominations, many if not most of the leaders are devout Christians. As such the Holy Spirit is available to all and must have touched leaders and members alike.

• Why hasn’t the Holy Spirit led us devout seekers to the same One True Faith?
• Could it be that in our own way, we are still on a path acceptable to God?

The Holy Spirit does and HAS led many Protestants to the fullness of the Christian faith of the Catholic Church. Still, many others are still on the path.
**He has revealed himself to MANY - but we must remember one thing: **We must cooperate with God’s grace because we have a free will.

**Those who have come to the fullness of truth that is the Church have chosen to cooperate with that grace. God shows us the way - but he doesn’t drag us there as the Calvinists and others believe. That is simply not a Biblical view or one that was ever a part of the historic Christian faith.

 

[Riccardo]

This thread has brought up an old question, from my agnostic days

In all these Christian Denominations, many if not most of the leaders are devout Christians. As such the Holy Spirit is available to all and must have touched leaders and members alike.

• Why hasn’t the Holy Spirit led us devout seekers to the same One True Faith?
• Could it be that in our own way, we are still on a path acceptable to God?

Thats a good point, is the Lord leading some of us to look at all these others, so we have an idea in depth, then finally we come to the one true one?
But, we do see much being done within some of these other churches, is it not the HS doing this good, or is the devils children, wolves in sheeps clothing? surely not
Ric

 

[jmcrae]

Several of the large, early established, Protestant churches believe in the authority of the early church fathers in the interpretation of the Scriptures - for example the Anglicans, Lutherans and Presbyterians. By implication any denomination that celebrates Sundays instead of Saturdays (Sabbath) relys on Church tradition.

Exactly my point.

 

[Todd520]

The Holy Spirit does and HAS led many Protestants to the fullness of the Christian faith of the Catholic Church. Still, many others are still on the path.
He has revealed himself to MANY - but we must remember one thing: We must cooperate with God’s grace because we have a free will.

Those who have come to the fullness of truth that is the Church have chosen to cooperate with that grace. God shows us the way - but he doesn’t drag us there as the Calvinists and others believe. That is simply not a Biblical view or one that was *ever *a part of the historic Christian faith.

Elvis,
So is it your position that the Holy Spirit does not guide leaders or members that are active and stable in their respective non-Catholic denominations?

 

[Todd520]

If the Holy Spirit wanted us to explore and then return home, 90% of us would have joined the one True Church by our age of retirement .
Clearly people move both ways across denomination boundaries, but I’m not aware of a statistically significant trend, especailly age related.

Thats a good point, is the Lord leading some of us to look at all these others, so we have an idea in depth, then finally we come to the one true one?
But, we do see much being done within some of these other churches, is it not the HS doing this good, or is the devils children, wolves in sheeps clothing? surely not
Ric

 

[Portrait]

Elvis,
So is it your position that the Holy Spirit does not guide leaders or members that are active and stable in their respective non-Catholic denominations?

Dear Todd520,

Cordial greetings dear friend. Perhaps this passage from the Catechism of the Catholic Church may be of some help in showing the Church’s relation with non-Catholic Christians:

“Many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: 'the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements. Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as mmeans of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to ‘Catholic unity’” (Para. 819).

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Ginger2]

That is incorrect. James made the final decision.
Acts 15:13-19 After they had fallen silent, James responded, “My brothers, listen to me. … It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God,”

Furthermore neither the Apostles nor Peter created a new Tradition. They simply used what was obvious to all, and the same Scriptures we use today to determine the answer.

Acts 15:7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “… 8 God, who knows the heart, showed **that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit **to them, just as he did to us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.”

Peter reminded the council that these gentiles were given the Holy Spirit without being circumcised - God already dropped circumcision by giving them the Holy Spirit!
(Remember, circumcision was a sign of the old covenant which had been fulfilled through Christ Jesus, and Jesus told them a new covenant was in place - a covenant written in his blood)
Peter shared his observations, but James made the final decision:

13 …James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. 14 Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. **15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written: **
It was not a matter a few being led by the Holy Spirit, but all being able to see God had already accepted them into the new covenant by giving them the Holy Spirit without circumcision. …God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
God had already taken the Gentile believers into His new covenant. The Judaizers were legalists who were holding to the law of Moses. They would not have accepted a new “Tradition”, but they had to accept the decision of the council when it was shown it agreed with the law.

Now, Gnosticism was an issue (actually, this group pre-dates Christ) and they certainly caused confusion amongst the early Catholics in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries. I am not sure - maybe **these guys are still around **- but, they certainly are not a large group.

Then we get to Arius who denied the Divinity of Christ. I think **this group is still functioning as JWs and LDS **but, Christians believe that Christ is God.

By the 3rd Century Manichaeanism became a more recognized problem for the early Catholic Church - but, basic dualism pre-dated Christianity, too. While this exists in parts of the world, I do not think this is a part of any Protestant denomination today.

Exactly. Yet, Catholics insist on counting all these in the erroneous number of Protestant denominations and as if that weren’t enough - they arbitrarily double the number.

I could go on, Ginger2, but, note, Protestiantism did not exist as a recognized group before the 16Century, but that really isn’t the issue. Yours is really one of a number that came late, developed man-made traditions, and split from other groups that had previously split from the Catholic Church. It is the multitude of those splintering factions that is of concern.

Two things here:

1. Splits are continually happening within the RC but on a much smaller scale. Also, individuals don’t need to cause a split in the RC since there are other choices available to them.
2. Using the analogy of the RC stating there is only one church, the others are still in partial communion … The same is true about Protestant denominations. The differences are trivial in most cases and not based in fundamental beliefs. We all hold the same basic, essential truths.

Your obvious interest in pointing out faults,

Not interested in pointing out faults, at least not in this thread. I am pointing out that you shouldn’t use a source that you claim is wrong, in what it says about you and then claim it’s reliable in what it says about your foe.

My concern is that with major differences in the doctrines of all of these Protestant denominations (e.g., baptism is: requried? a nice idea? not necessary?) they all can not be right as they all claim. Maybe you don’t see this as a problem…yet.

True Christian Protestants all hold the same basic and essential doctrines. If you are going to use this as an argument you must now explain how the different Catholic Rites can adhere to various doctrines yet still be considered one Church. :thumbsup