Nothing new here—Phil’s followed the same course Armstrong does, and the anti-Catholics continue to beat the same drum they do in the article.
I’m still waiting to see this too. Phil has backed up his argument thoroughly, and this is the point where the other side of a debate tends to offer a rebuttal. It doesn’t work like this:
I could not agree more. Once the authority of the Catholic Magisterium and Catholic Tradition are rejected in favor of private interpretation then instantly anyone who can get a KJV (scripture lite) into her hands becomes qualified to be one’s own church of one. In Luther’s day very few average citizens could even read and write - much less understand hermeneutics, ancient Jewish social customs, or understand archaic word usage, read or write Greek etc.
And notice how in the article Randy linked to James White claimed Catholics were “slandering” Protestants by using the 33,000 number. Isn’t that an admission that more Protestant denominations rather than less is a bad thing, which is what Catholics have maintained all along?
Hey, I did! Parts of it, twice & three times! The questions remained…
Yes, why should it be bad to be so numerous? If there is invisible unity all along?
The abortion dodge, which, I’m sad to note, was invented by the Kennedys working in conjunction with Boston’s Catholic clergy (cf. “The Faithful Departed”) precisely to allow them to have it both ways—to support infanticide while still retaining the support of faithful Catholics. One cannot please God and Mammon both.
I see it as a sure sign that there is a conscience and a slim hope of getting these people to repent and see the irrationality of their position.
Please point us to scripture that tells us the “one true church” is based in Rome and how John 17 is really about, visible mortar, bricks, and uniformed clothing unity at all costs, even over doctrinal unity?
Why should I point to Scripture at all? How do you know what Scripture is, much less how it is to be used?
Who is them? Would you have preferred that the Pope conquered the Byzantines and forced them to renounce the Orthodox Patriarchs?
lol—you can’t even maintain consisting within a single post, much less within a single denomination.Why are 22 churches with their own liturgy and traditions (three western rite churches and the rest are eastern rite churches) that recognize the Pope NOT counted as denominations? They are “Catholic” denominations! I guess 23 Catholic churches don’t have the same polemic effect on the ear as sayig “the one true church.”
Always blaming the victim, eh? On the one hand, anti-Catholics condemn the Church for any attempt to address heresy and keep the faithful in the fold. On the other hand, they condemn the Church for failing to enforce the obedience of the unwilling. Such cognitive dissonance is apparently easy for Protestant minds steeped in such incoherence.
Given that your sentence makes no sense, I can’t even begin to answer it.
You apparently don’t live in the Bible Belt, where Baptists and Pentecostals and Holiness communities are constantly fighting. How come every Protestant isn’t welcome at Moody Bible Institute?
What is the correct number of Protestant denominations?
I will take your lack of response and changing the subject as an admission that you can’t show me.
Well, certainly the RCC regularly resorted to physical coercion to suppress dissent back when it had the political clout to use force.
So, RC unity has less to do with precise doctrine than submission to the Pope. In other words doctrinal differences are allowed as long as the papal doctrine is not violated. Which again begs the question of why are they not counted as denoms if their doctrine is not the same?
Oh, i am not blameing anyone, just noticing that the claimed unity provided by the magesterium is really just a formal statement of faith one assents to but disagreements are just as common among Catholics.
Certainly Moody cares about doctrine, and there certainly are doctrinal differences. Why is liberal blasphmemy taught at catholic universities?
Gee, i thought that WAS a test for orthodoxy and unity? Hmm, the Nicene Creed does not mention allegiance to a pope or magesterium. Why? Strange, that a creed written during the 4th century AD in an attempt to unify the Christian church under emperor Constantine, does not mention the Pope.
Oh well, we would’nt want to have anything like “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity”
So why is the “chaos” of the Thomasts, Molinists, Charismatics, Opus Dei, traditionalists, liberals, Novus Ordo, Militia of the Immaculata still considered unity? Are you telling me there are no heated “differences” among the numerous factions, sects, and movements in the Catholic church?
You seem to have missed the point. Perhaps a followup question will help: Where in Scripture can I find the definition of “substitutionary atonement”? Where in Scripture can I find the altar call?
As opposed to the Puritans?
No, as you’ve been told many times before. To be a Catholic, one must a) believe the de fides of the Church (dogma); b) not be in a state of mortal sin and c) not violate canon law in a fashion resulting in denial of the sacraments. We recognize the Supreme Pontiff as just that. That is unity. I know it must seem miraculous to you.So, RC unity has less to do with precise doctrine than submission to the Pope. In other words doctrinal differences are allowed as long as the papal doctrine is not violated. Which again begs the question of why are they not counted as denoms if their doctrine is not the same?
Catholics do not run off and found their own churches when we disagree. The difference between Catholics and Fundamentalists is that we tolerate different points of view on doctrine so long as these are not dogmatic. We don’t hold purges. We do this because that is what Christ did.
First, it would be good form to admit that you lost that point. If Protestantism were so welcoming to different doctrinal points of view, Episcopalians would be welcomed at Moody.
“One holy, catholic, and apostolic Church”. One.Gee, i thought that WAS a test for orthodoxy and unity? Hmm, the Nicene Creed does not mention allegiance to a pope or magesterium. Why? Strange, that a creed written during the 4th century AD in an attempt to unify the Christian church under emperor Constantine, does not mention the Pope.
Oh well, we would’nt want to have anything like “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity”
I have never claimed there to be “no heated differences” between Catholics; rather, these factions, sects and movements operate WITHIN the Catholic Church. Disagreement over whether the Mass ought to be performed in Latin or in the common tongue is not the same thing as disagreement over whether baptism is salvific, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the necessity of the sacrament of penance and reconciliation, or even the triune nature of God.
Most of your list is chaos in the same way that having toes different from eyes different from ears is chaos in the body. Except you’ve got so many apples and oranges mixed in here together, I actually don’t know what you think this is a list of.
