I disagree with this. Before the doctrine became a de fide dogma, people in the Church were free to believe or disbelieve, according to their conscience. Once it was made a dogma, the freedom was taken away, and it became a matter of “believe, or else…”
You were always required to believe. Look at Paul in his letter to the Galatians:
“I am surprised at how quickly you have abandoned God who called you according to the grace of Christ, and have gone to another gospel.”
Galatians were in disbelief and Paul told them they had gone to another Gospel, just like protestants and whoever rejects the teachings of the Church.
Now I’m very curious. The most recent edition I can find is from Jan, 2001 (looking on Amazon). I checked the Oxford University Press, and they don’t even have it listed. Where did your copy come from? Just to clarify things, more than 2/3rds of the denominations are “non-denominational” denominations, and they use “Christian” in a very broad sense (for example, they don’t have a problem including several Mormon and Jehovah Witness denominations). What I find really interesting is that they also include (in the 2001 edition) over 1,000 Catholic denominations. To be fair, 242 are Roman Catholic denominations, but either way, it makes it a little difficult to determine which Catholic denomination is the “one, true, Holy Church”. Perhaps they’re counting denominations in a way that you wouldn’t accept for your church? If so, why insist that the unfair method be applied to non catholic denominations?
It also appears that you are confusing “churches” with “denominations”. While this may be somewhat true for how the non-denominational denominations are being counted, it doesn’t always work out that way (otherwise I’m sure there would be more than 242 Roman Catholic denominations).
From Bob Stanley, a Catholic apologist. He has a 2006 version of it. The World Christian Encyclopedia is a protestant publications, seeing there are so many protestant churches/denominations it tries to place the same division among Catholics, calling the local Catholic authorities as different churches, which we are not because all Catholics are under the Pope. Nationalities do no apply to the Catholic Church as they do in the Orthodox Church.
When someone asks “what’s your church?”, the answer is not “my denomination is Baptist”. They all call it church, they are registered as churches, they have tax exemption as churches, not denominations. And they all teach a different gospel, not so in the Catholic Church. Every mass is the same in all Catholic churches (the buildings) around the world every day, every Sunday. Same lecture of the Gospel, same lecture from the Old Testament and the epistles. We are one whole body. Not so in the protestant churches. The local pastor decides what’s he gonna preach each sunday. Across the street there might be a different protestant church and it’s pastor will preach something else. There is no unity among protestants, perhaps the only thing that unites them is their rejection of the Catholic Church.
I’ve heard the assertion many times. I have yet to see any proof of the claim. I do, however, see plenty of evidence in Scripture for the doctrine of the Trinity.
Unproven assertions. God (the Holy Spirit) inspired the writers of the NT to write, and He certainly led them to include what He considered important. While we know not everything Jesus said or did is written down, how do you know we don’t have everything He taught recorded for us? I know, we don’t have everything He said or did recorded for us, but does that mean that the teachings we have are somehow insufficient to know what He expects from us? In light of 2 Tim 3:16-17, I would assert that we have everything we need in Scripture to live a successful Christian life.
It definitely comes down to final authority. I look to the Scriptures and find no reason to believe in the immaculate conception (even though I readily admit it could have happened). You (and Catholics in general) accept it on nothing more than the say so of the “infallible” teaching magisterium of the church. You accept and defend, without question, the “evidence” you are given by the church. I don’t think we have anything more to say on this, do you?
I’ve showed you that part of the Gospels were told to the Gospel writers by the Virgin Mary, and the Holy Spirit INSPIRED HER to include what was important.
Why do you believe Napoleon existed? Well, because like everyone else you look at what historians have told about him in the last 200 years. The Catholic Church has its historians too. It started with the NT writers and continued with what we call the Church Fathers, who like the historians that tell you about Napoleon (whom you believe), wrote what they learned from the Apostles themselves (whom you don’t believe), which is what was contained in the NT plus a more detailed and comprehensive account of the Christian doctrine. Jesus said:
“Go, therefore, and make disciples from all nations. Baptize them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and TEACH THEM TO FULFILL ALL THAT I HAVE COMMANDED YOU. I am with you always until the end of this world.” (Matthew 28:19-20)
If all that He commanded them is not in the Bible, where is the rest? It’s in what the Apostles told their successors. That’s where it is. We Catholics accept it because there is no reason to deny Jesus, not the Apostles, but Jesus, for He said “
I am with you always until the end of this world”. And the Catholic Church is the only church that can trace its roots back to the very Apostles. That’s why I believe in the Church, because first I believe in Jesus and His promise.
