"The Hidden Exodus" - Do Catholic Churches Need More Bible?

[TobyLue]

These are my :twocents:worth.
In my parish, the priests always explain the scriptures and how we should live them. I don’t think they are so much interested in we memorizing them, than in living them.

Now, from what I have seen in many non-Catholic churches, is that the pastor(s) will usually preach over and over certain passages that they like. They “drill” those passages to their congregants; book, chapter, verse. They will have 1-2 hours of that with bible in hand. However, the Mass is full of scripture and it is the most complete of prayers. Mass is NOT a bible study group, but praise and thanksgiving to our God. Non-Catholic pastors will take isolated verses, once which they like, do the same thing the next week with whatever scripture they want to use, and which they feel will have a greater impact on their congregation. No so in the CC BUT there is scripture at every since mass every day and not whatever the priest wants. So Catholics are getting more Scripture than non-Catholics. I have yet to turn my radio or TV and hear a non-Catholic pastor deal with John 6, or Matthew 16. I attended a non-Catholic week-long event long time ago and the speaker was going through the Gospel of John and he spent about 30 seconds on John 6 and all he said was that when Jesus was saying to eat His Body and drink his Blood he was actually saying to consume His word; to take scripture into yourself and that was the end.

I know many people that will get together for “bible study” and actually wind up with more bible ignorance because they will read into it whatever they want.

What I personally believe is happening in that many Catholics that have not been well catechized will fall into the trap of some non-Catholics drilling certain passages of scripture and they sound so appealing because now they are “free” from the clutches of the CC. Case in point: This couple I know were each married in the CC, got divorced from their spouse then when they met wanted to marry in the CC and the priest told them the could NOT marry after being divorced unless they took the time to see if their marriages could be annulled. They didn’t want to wait so went around searching until they found some little church that agreed to marry them as they “didn’t judge” the individual, left the Church, started their own bible study, memorized scripture and are now “saved”.

I feel that not only is the CC loosing members but so are many mainline Protestant Churches as people are going for those whatever feels good churches around the corner.

 

[cooterhein]

James the Older, I think there was a bit of “nesting” in the post I’m replying to…I think it’s called nesting, anyway. It’s not a huge deal; I just had to do a quick copy-paste before hitting “reply with quote.”

These are the parts that wound up getting nested. If that’s the right word. First, I said American Catholics have the worst net ratio of converts gained to converts lost of any major religious group in America. You said:

Please reference your statistics. The Catholic Church is growing faster than even the Southern Baptists (in second place) according to easily available statistics from a non-Catholic source on the Internet.

I don’t know if you’re talking about global stats or American stats, but I was talking about American stats and I was referring specifically to net gains or losses via conversion. The most recent data from the Pew Forum indicates what I said about Catholic conversion numbers in America; I basically paraphrased what the report says. This short quote says it all.

Catholicism has experienced the greatest net losses as a result of affiliation changes.
religions.pewforum.org/reports

Perhaps the author of the article in the OP has a point. These numbers do seem to be hidden from you, even if they’re not hidden from me. You did read the article, right? It references the Pew Forum reports almost immediately. And coincidentally, that is the source I give when you ask for one.

Second, I stated that from what I can tell, there’s no single thing or even small group of notable things that can provide an easy fix for American Catholicism. If Catholics do right the ship in America and avoid falling below the 20% mark relative to the total population, they’ll have to work hard on a variety of different things and do them well, not just one or two.

That may, or may not, be true. The main reasons why Catholics leave the Church is (1) lack of catechesis (including Bible study…and that is mostly an individual decision), and, due to that lack of catechesis, a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching/along with an idea they don’t agree with that “teaching”…of course, that is only anecdotal evidence.

Of course it’s anecdotal, and it shows our differing perspectives on how we evaluate these things. I’m primarily focused on a process by which you ask a representative sampling of ex-Catholics about why they left the Catholic Church, and you’re primarily focused on the reasons why they, in your own judgment, are mentally deficient to the point of leaving Catholicism. That approach is as laughable as it is disrespectful to those who choose to part ways with your religious group. That’s 10% of America, btw- half of whom become Protestants; see the source previously indicated.

I then indicate that the things suggested in the OP require that Catholic priests and other religious figures demonstrate that all the teachings of Catholicism harmonize with Scripture. I state that this might be a tough sell and imply that while you’ll see some people strengthen their faith in the Magisterium, others will not be convinced and leave the CC. I do think this idea is best for the CC in the long run, though.

Tough sell? That is what is needed. Better the quality of Catholic is there, rather than shoot for “numbers”.

I fully agree.

I then indicate (with a hint of irony) that it would be really nice if Catholics would just regard Scripture as the highest authority while everything else is, at best, second in authority to that. You say:

Baloney.

Great argument. I chose to bring it up because it’s the right thing to do, not because I really thought the CC would ever do it.

One point made by most knowlegeable Scripture scholars is that the Church existed for 300 to 400 years without a defined canon of Scripture;

But you don’t need a defined canon of Scripture in order to have the highest possible regard for anything that does happen to be the Word of God. Furthermore, the “order of authority” that I described is far more ancient than either Protestantism or Catholicism. Ancient Judaism (and Judaism from any point in time, for that matter) held the Word of God (initially the Torah, and then the Tanakh) to be first in authority while nothing else could be any higher than second in authority. Take the Mishnah, for example- it is the codification of Jewish tradition. If the capital-T kind of Tradition is applicable to Judaism, that is where you would want to affix the label. As highly as the Mishnah is regarded, however, its name is actually derived from a word meaning “secondary”- second only, that is, to the Tanakh as a basis for passing judgment, creating laws, etc.

That was the relationship between Scripture and Tradition for the entire history of Judaism. Do you have some kind of problem with that?

sola scriptura has been discredited so often (Hahn, Cavins, etc., etc.) that I’m surprised you brought it up.

I’m sure they seemed very convincing to you.

Finally, you inserted a few comments within one that I made. I’ll do yours in red.

Realistically, though, it would be nice if Catholics started treating Scripture like a self-interpreting (Ha!) document. They already do that with the Catechism (not the folks I know), but they currently don’t do it with Scripture.

To both of your comments, I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. Self-interpreting is a borrowed legal term, and I’m not sure you know what it means. In that I don’t think you’d be able to describe the types of documents or evidence that are referred to as “self-interpreting.” If you knew what it meant, you’d know that most Catholics (probably including you) do treat the Catechism in this way, while the Bible is not treated in this way.

 

[cooterhein]

No text is self-interpreting.
Edwin

Your statement is incorrect; “self-interpreting” is a borrowed legal term that’s regularly applied to a particular grouping of documents or other kinds of evidence. This grouping does exist. I didn’t just make it up.

You probably misunderstand this grouping (and the nature of its existence) because you don’t know what a self-interpreting document is and you wouldn’t be able to describe the rationale for putting one type of evidence in this group and another type of evidence in a different group. In all probability, whatever you imagine “self-interpreting” to mean is an absurdity. This indicates a deficiency in your understanding of the term, though, not in the term itself.

 

[cooterhein]

I know exactly what the church says about the Bible. I read the daily mass readings and use a Catholic study bible to understand them in the context of the magisterium.

Do you understand the daily mass readings and the notes in the study bible all by yourself and without some kind of special explanation from an expert?

And from my experience

I’m sure it’s quite different from my experience.

The CCC is why there aren’t 20,000 Roman Catholic denominations

The organization that created the CCC is why there aren’t hundreds or thousands of Catholic denominations. If the hierarchy wasn’t so rigid and pyramid-shaped, Roman Catholicism would be one of those denominations by virtue of using the Roman rite. Any other Catholic group that uses a different rite (there’s 27 of them, yes?) would be classed as a different denomination. And any one of these rites that’s practiced in more than one country would be numbered by as many denominations as there are countries in which it is practiced. The CCC isn’t what stops these denominational labels from being widely used; it’s the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church and the common submission to the Pope.

The amount of reasons to label different groups as different denominations is no different in the Eastern Orthodox Church (or any of the other Orthodox churches). But their system of governance is more conciliar, the different sees are more autonomous, and there isn’t one single position of leadership at the head of it all. That’s why you’ll see those churches broken up into different denominations in a more official capacity. Truth is, though, the usual reasons for referring to different groups as different denominations are more plentiful in the CC than they are within any of those orthodox churches.

Along with the various rites and the different countries within which a religion is practiced, Traditionalist Catholics that belong to the order of St. Pius X would be classed as a particular denomination within Catholicism if it weren’t for the universal headship of the Pope. The differences between Thomists and Molinists (and the other type of Thomists and the Augustinians and several other schools of thought) would be grounds for labeling all of them as “denominations” in any situation outside of Catholicism- and then you’d multiply those figures by the number of countries in which they are represented. Quite a few religious orders have been formed with Catholicism through the years, and they are associated with some of the aforementioned “schools of thought” to greater or lesser degrees. So if it weren’t for papal exemption, you would have more reasons to multiply the total number of denominations by the extent to which a particular group is associated with one or another of these religious orders. Take the Jesuits, for example- most of them are Molinists, but not all. They’re represented in most of the countries of the world. If you changed absolutely nothing about the Jesuits except for the headship that the Pope has over them, you’d have more than adequate grounds for counting up hundreds of different denominations from that order alone. This hypothetical situation would come to pass for the exact same reason that Lutherans and Baptists are counted as representing hundreds or even thousands of different denominations. They each have material that’s comparable to the CCC, and all the different denominations are united in terms of doctrine and practice. (Of course there’s some variety in practice, but the extent of that variety within either group is negligible in comparison to the variety within Catholicism. Look at the comparison of the TLM to the NO for starters).

Despite all of this, however, Catholics maintain that common submission to Papal authority negates all the other factors that ordinarily lead to what the statisticians call “hundreds, perhaps thousands of different denominations.” And for the most part, statisticians cooperate with this- and when they don’t, you will (predictably) discard and ignore any number of Catholic denominations that is greater than 1.

The CCC is where Catholics can find the answers to those questions that cause non-Catholics churches to split.

The existence of various Protestant denominations usually has nothing to do with splitting. The first Great Awakening did have this kind of effect, and it led to about 93 of the splits that you’re talking about. The Second Great Awakening was different, though- new denominations generally did not form as a result of “splits.” And the result of the Second Great Awakening (over the course of 80 years between 1780 and 1860) was that the number of Protestant congregations in America skyrocketed from around a thousand to nearly 40,000. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Growth_of_Denominations_in_America_1780_to_1860.jpg Oh, I should add one thing- the vast majority of that denominational growth was extremely healthy for American Christianity in the short term as well as the long.

This was not the result of thousands of splits. It is not indicative of 40,000 brand-new doctrinal disagreements. That’s not how a new denomination is generally formed. It usually has nothing to do with “splintering off”- this applies to a tiny minority of Protestant denominations and the initial ones split directly from Catholicism. There was one more generation of denominational growth largely due to “splits” in the decades surrounding the American Revolution, but even those accounted for less than a hundred new denominations by virtue of the “split route.” Since then, only a tiny fraction of denominations (and I do mean very tiny- we’re talking hundreds out of 40,000) are “splinter groups” or the result of anything like a split.

 

[Nicea325]

But you don’t need a defined canon of Scripture in order to have the highest possible regard for anything that does happen to be the Word of God. Furthermore, the “order of authority” that I described is far more ancient than either Protestantism or Catholicism. Ancient Judaism (and Judaism from any point in time, for that matter) held the Word of God (initially the Torah, and then the Tanakh) to be first in authority while nothing else could be any higher than second in authority. Take the Mishnah, for example- it is the codification of Jewish tradition. If the capital-T kind of Tradition is applicable to Judaism, that is where you would want to affix the label. As highly as the Mishnah is regarded, however, its name is actually derived from a word meaning “secondary”- second only, that is, to the Tanakh as a basis for passing judgment, creating laws, etc.

That was the relationship between Scripture and Tradition for the entire history of Judaism. Do you have some kind of problem with that?

Actually I do,because not all Jews adhered to the same books,so exactly tell us what constituted the Word of God to what sect of Jews? Did the Sadducees accept anything outside the Pentateuch? Did the Essenes adhere to more than 5 books?
What about the Pharisees?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

James the Older, I think there was a bit of “nesting” in the post I’m replying to…I think it’s called nesting, anyway. It’s not a huge deal; I just had to do a quick copy-paste before hitting “reply with quote.”

These are the parts that wound up getting nested. If that’s the right word. First, I said American Catholics have the worst net ratio of converts gained to converts lost of any major religious group in America. You said:

I don’t know if you’re talking about global stats or American stats, but I was talking about American stats and I was referring specifically to net gains or losses via conversion. The most recent data from the Pew Forum indicates what I said about Catholic conversion numbers in America; I basically paraphrased what the report says. This short quote says it all.

Catholicism has experienced the greatest net losses as a result of affiliation changes.
religions.pewforum.org/reports

The report also says that the percentage of Catholics is the same(around 25%). As a whole Catholic Christians have always been a minority in this country. So I have to ask, what’s your point? Wait a few years and that number will rise again.

The report you cited says nothing about “converts”, only about affiliations. You’re reading into the report your own assumptions. Not very scientific.

And it says nothing of those Protestants who regularly go “church shopping”, changing from one church to another.

Perhaps the author of the article in the OP has a point. These numbers do seem to be hidden from you, even if they’re not hidden from me. You did read the article, right? It references the Pew Forum reports almost immediately. And coincidentally, that is the source I give when you ask for one.

No, you just want to make more out of them than is actually there.

Second, I stated that from what I can tell, there’s no single thing or even small group of notable things that can provide an easy fix for American Catholicism.

And let me guess, you have the answer for us? Right…

If Catholics do right the ship in America and avoid falling below the 20% mark relative to the total population, they’ll have to work hard on a variety of different things and do them well, not just one or twf course it’s anecdotal, and it shows our differing perspectives on how we evaluate these things. I’m primarily focused on a process by which you ask a representative sampling of ex-Catholics about why they left the Catholic Church,

Which is utterly subjective and relative which Protestants are waaay too familiar with.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

…and you’re primarily focused on the reasons why they, in your own judgment, are mentally deficient to the point of leaving Catholicism.

Non sequitur. How does “bad catchesis” translate to us calling fallen away Catholics “mentally deficient”? This could be very telling of how you view former evangelical protestants who become Catholic.

That approach is as laughable as it is disrespectful to those who choose to part ways with your religious group. That’s 10% of America, btw- half of whom become Protestants; see the source previously indicated.

Again, non sequitur.

I then indicate that the things suggested in the OP require that Catholic priests and other religious figures demonstrate that all the teachings of Catholicism harmonize with Scripture.

The problem with your assertion is what criteria to you assign to the word “harmonize”? If “harmonize” means only what you believe the scriptures say then you are assuming the truth of your theology and traditions and are therefore arguing in a circle and begging the question.

I can easily teach a course on the Bible and how Catholic theology “harmonizes” with it. And I would gladly do it. Our priests are busy enough as is.

I then indicate (with a hint of irony) that it would be really nice if Catholics would just regard Scripture as the highest authority while everything else is, at best, second in authority to that.

It’s so funny that you don’t even see the irony of your own words.

Again, circular logic. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that it is the highest authority. Jesus didn’t teach it. The apostles didn’t teach it. The Bible says that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth(1 Tim 3:15) and that the Church is the fullness of Christ(Eph 1:22-23).

In the Church are the Bishops who make up the Magesterium. The Church, who received Jesus’ authority(Matt 28:18; John 20:21), says that the Bible is the word of God.

By believing that the Bible is the Word of God you implicitly confirm the Church’s Tradition and authority.

You say:

Great argument. I chose to bring it up because it’s the right thing to do, not because I really thought the CC would ever do it.

But you don’t need a defined canon of Scripture in order to have the highest possible regard for anything that does happen to be the Word of God. Furthermore, the “order of authority” that I described is far more ancient than either Protestantism or Catholicism. Ancient Judaism (and Judaism from any point in time, for that matter) held the Word of God (initially the Torah, and then the Tanakh) to be first in authority while nothing else could be any higher than second in authority.

Not true. The Jews didn’t define their canon until many decades after Jesus’ death. Jews today still hold different beliefs as to what is the “Word of God”

Take the Mishnah, for example- it is the codification of Jewish tradition. If the capital-T kind of Tradition is applicable to Judaism, that is where you would want to affix the label. As highly as the Mishnah is regarded, however, its name is actually derived from a word meaning “secondary”- second only, that is, to the Tanakh as a basis for passing judgment, creating laws, etc.

I think it funny that you would use the Jews for this example, considering that Paul says, “[14] But their minds were hardened; for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. [15] Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their minds…”(2 Cor 3:14-15).

That was the relationship between Scripture and Tradition for the entire history of Judaism. Do you have some kind of problem with that?

Paul certainly did.

Finally, you inserted a few comments within one that I made. I’ll do yours in red.

To both of your comments, I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. Self-interpreting is a borrowed legal term, and I’m not sure you know what it means. In that I don’t think you’d be able to describe the types of documents or evidence that are referred to as “self-interpreting.” If you knew what it meant, you’d know that most Catholics (probably including you) do treat the Catechism in this way, while the Bible is not treated in this way.

Show me in the Bible where it says that it is “self-interpreting” or that you can use legal terms in its interpretation.

You just showed your extra-biblical approach to Scripture.

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by cooterhein
I then indicate (with a hint of irony) that it would be really nice if Catholics would just regard Scripture as the highest authority while everything else is, at best, second in authority to that.

UNBIBLICAL belief. Show me ONE verse where Jesus or the 12 teach:

Scripture as the highest authority while everything else is, at best, second in authority to that.

 

[elvisman]

Nope. I think that would unfairly single out one seminary (which I think many posters here would want to jump all over anyway as a “liberal” seminary and thus miss the whole point) when it’s just part of a much broader problem.

Then don’t use it to defend your position. This is Debating 101:
If you can’t provide proof for your claim - then don’t use it.

 

[elvisman]

I then indicate that the things suggested in the OP require that Catholic priests and other religious figures demonstrate that all the teachings of Catholicism harmonize with Scripture. I state that this might be a tough sell and imply that while you’ll see some people strengthen their faith in the Magisterium, others will not be convinced and leave the CC. I do think this idea is best for the CC in the long run, though.I fully agree.

**The Church already HAS fully explained how our beliefs harmonize with the Scriptures. It’s called the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You can find it here: **vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

No tough sell at all - just the TRUTH.

I then indicate (with a hint of irony) that it would be really nice if Catholics would just regard Scripture as the highest authority while everything else is, at best, second in authority to that.

**The only problem with that statement is that the Scriptures themselves point to the CHURCH as being the Supreme authority on earth - NOT the Scriptures themselves: **Matt. 16:18-19, 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, 20:21-23, 1 Tim. 3:15, Eph. 1:22-23.

Your idea that the Bible is the final authority is simply unbiblical . . .

 

[elvisman]

I then indicate that the things suggested in the OP require that Catholic priests and other religious figures demonstrate that all the teachings of Catholicism harmonize with Scripture. I state that this might be a tough sell and imply that while you’ll see some people strengthen their faith in the Magisterium, others will not be convinced and leave the CC. I do think this idea is best for the CC in the long run, though.I fully agree.

**The Church already HAS fully explained how our beliefs harmonize with the Scriptures. It’s called the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You can find it here: **vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

No tough sell at all - just the TRUTH.

I then indicate (with a hint of irony) that it would be really nice if Catholics would just regard Scripture as the highest authority while everything else is, at best, second in authority to that.

**The only problem with that statement is that the Scriptures themselves point to the CHURCH as being the Supreme authority on earth - NOT the Scriptures themselves: **Matt. 16:18-19, 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, 20:21-23, 1 Tim. 3:15, Eph. 1:22-23.

Your idea that the Bible is the final authority is simply unbiblical . . .

 

[JSAD]

As a young adult that has been a cradle Catholic(with a lot of Chrismatic spirituality) my observations of the whole ‘Catholic v/s Evangelical’

The Evangelical Churches do seem to do a much better job when it comes to fellowship and community. At the end of the day for young people, especially those who do not have familes where do i go to grow in my faith…most of the Catholics in my church(and all churches in my area) are all in their 40’s and 50’s …or they have huge families…and stuff like life teens /Edge are what they busy themselves…

All am saying is that Evangelical worship can provide that intimacy and touch with Jesus that the tradititional Catholic worship does not usually provide…Just my honest viewpoint

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Do you understand the daily mass readings and the notes in the study bible all by yourself and without some kind of special explanation from an expert?

2 Peter 1:20] First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation…

The Ethiopian eunuch had Isaiah interpreted to him by Stephen.

Btut don’t let these verses from scripture interrupt your man made traditions…

The organization that created the CCC is why there aren’t hundreds or thousands of Catholic denominations. If the hierarchy wasn’t so rigid and pyramid-shaped, Roman Catholicism would be one of those denominations by virtue of using the Roman rite. Any other Catholic group that uses a different rite (there’s 27 of them, yes?) would be classed as a different denomination. And any one of these rites that’s practiced in more than one country would be numbered by as many denominations as there are countries in which it is practiced. The CCC isn’t what stops these denominational labels from being widely used; it’s the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church and the common submission to the Pope.

Wrong again. The reason that there are no denominations in the Church is in the Bible: “Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.”(Heb 13:17).

Its your arrogance that assumes that rites equals “denominations”. “Denominations”, as in those in Proetstantism, believe different doctrines. The rites in the Church do not.

Essentially you’re confusing “doctrines” with “practice”; lex orandi with lex credendi.

You really don’t understand the Chruch’s structure so you really should abstain from commenting on it.

The amount of reasons to label different groups as different denominations is no different in the Eastern Orthodox Church (or any of the other Orthodox churches). But their system of governance is more conciliar, the different sees are more autonomous, and there isn’t one single position of leadership at the head of it all. That’s why you’ll see those churches broken up into different denominations in a more official capacity. Truth is, though, the usual reasons for referring to different groups as different denominations are more plentiful in the CC than they are within any of those orthodox churches.

This is called the genetic fallacy. You see similarities and you assume something that isn’t there.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Along with the various rites and the different countries within which a religion is practiced, Traditionalist Catholics that belong to the order of St. Pius X would be classed as a particular denomination within Catholicism if it weren’t for the universal headship of the Pope. The differences between Thomists and Molinists (and the other type of Thomists and the Augustinians and several other schools of thought) would be grounds for labeling all of them as “denominations” in any situation outside of Catholicism- and then you’d multiply those figures by the number of countries in which they are represented. Quite a few religious orders have been formed with Catholicism through the years, and they are associated with some of the aforementioned “schools of thought” to greater or lesser degrees. So if it weren’t for papal exemption, you would have more reasons to multiply the total number of denominations by the extent to which a particular group is associated with one or another of these religious orders. Take the Jesuits, for example- most of them are Molinists, but not all. They’re represented in most of the countries of the world. If you changed absolutely nothing about the Jesuits except for the headship that the Pope has over them, you’d have more than adequate grounds for counting up hundreds of different denominations from that order alone. This hypothetical situation would come to pass for the exact same reason that Lutherans and Baptists are counted as representing hundreds or even thousands of different denominations. They each have material that’s comparable to the CCC, and all the different denominations are united in terms of doctrine and practice. (Of course there’s some variety in practice, but the extent of that variety within either group is negligible in comparison to the variety within Catholicism. Look at the comparison of the TLM to the NO for starters).

Despite all of this, however, Catholics maintain that common submission to Papal authority negates all the other factors that ordinarily lead to what the statisticians call “hundreds, perhaps thousands of different denominations.” And for the most part, statisticians cooperate with this- and when they don’t, you will (predictably) discard and ignore any number of Catholic denominations that is greater than 1.

That is one giant exercise in circular logic. Not even worth responding to.

The existence of various Protestant denominations usually has nothing to do with splitting. The first Great Awakening did have this kind of effect, and it led to about 93 of the splits that you’re talking about. The Second Great Awakening was different, though- new denominations generally did not form as a result of “splits.” And the result of the Second Great Awakening (over the course of 80 years between 1780 and 1860) was that the number of Protestant congregations in America skyrocketed from around a thousand to nearly 40,000. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Growth_of_Denominations_in_America_1780_to_1860.jpg Oh, I should add one thing- the vast majority of that denominational growth was extremely healthy for American Christianity in the short term as well as the long.

This was not the result of thousands of splits. It is not indicative of 40,000 brand-new doctrinal disagreements. That’s not how a new denomination is generally formed. It usually has nothing to do with “splintering off”- this applies to a tiny minority of Protestant denominations and the initial ones split directly from Catholicism. There was one more generation of denominational growth largely due to “splits” in the decades surrounding the American Revolution, but even those accounted for less than a hundred new denominations by virtue of the “split route.” Since then, only a tiny fraction of denominations (and I do mean very tiny- we’re talking hundreds out of 40,000) are “splinter groups” or the result of anything like a split.

The real question is that if their not “splits” but just merely “new congregations” why do they not identify themselves under the same name as the old congregation? Why form a “new congregation” at all if there weren’t real splits in doctrines and practices?

How could there be any such "new congregational splits " if all of you hold as the sole authority the same data: the Bible?

You manage to type a lot of words with a lot of assumptions but little Biblical backing to support such a fracturing of Christendom.

What you’ve clearly demonstrated is how unity proceeds from the authority of one(Matt 16:18; Acts 15:7) despite diversity of practices and methods; whereas when that one is ignored( along with the BIble) and you turn the laity into their own pope of their own church confusion, fracture, subjectivism, and relativism proceeds.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Then don’t use it to defend your position. This is Debating 101:
If you can’t provide proof for your claim - then don’t use it.

So here you go, then. I took a look at the M.Div. requirements for the 25 Catholic seminaries as follows:

Athenaeum, Cincinnati, OH
Blessed John XXIII, Weston, MA
Catholic Theological Union, Chicago, IL
Dominician School of Theology, Berkeley, CA;
Franciscan School of Theology, Berkeley, CA;
Holy Apostles Seminary, Cromwell, CT
Jesuit School of Theology, Berkeley, CA;
Kenrick-Glennon, St. Louis, MO
Mt. Angel, St. Benedict, OR
National Seminary-Catholic U., Washington, DC
Notre Dame, New Orleans, LA
Pontifical College Josephinum, Columbus, OH
Sacred Heart, Detroit, MI
St. Charles Borromeo, Wynnewood, PA
St. John Vianney, Denver, CO
St. John’s Collegeville, Collegeville, MN
St. John’s, Boston, MA
St. John’s, Camarillo, CA
St. Mary’s, Baltimore, MD
St. Meinrad, St. Meinrad, IN
St. Patrick’s Seminary, Menlo Park, CA;
St. Paul Seminary, St. Paul, MN
St. Vincent, Latrobe, PA
University of St. Mary of the Lake, Mundelein, IL
Washington Theological Union, Washington, DC

Of the seminaries, the average number of hours to complete the degree is 107.72, with a high of 135 (St. John’s, Boston) and a low of 79 (University of St. Mary and CTU–both Chicago). Of these seminaries, the average number of semester-equivalent seminary courses in Bible is slightly less than 6, With St. Meinrad with a low of 11 credits (or not quite four courses). But to zero in further on the problem, almost all of these seminaries teach the synoptic gospels in one course, and about 1/2 of the time the synoptics are combined with the book of Acts, basically allowing only a few weeks of instruction for each gospel. That, in my opinion, is insufficient when the synoptic gospels will constitute the bulk of the priest’s preaching for the rest of his career.

The true standout seminary of those listed above is St. Charles Borromeo (Philadelphia area). They require 10 semester-equivalent classes in Bible, with a separate course in each gospel, which seems much closer to a reasonable level of academic coverage. The next highest seminaries were several requiring 6 courses in Bible.

One of the key differences that I noted above was the lack of training in original languages. Of the seminaries listed above, only 1 (St. John Vianney, Denver) requires training in Greek, Hebrew and Latin. 6 others require various amounts of Latin as a prerequisite or as part of their program. Three others (besides St. John Vianney) require some training in Greek. St. John Vianney is the only seminary listed above that requires some training in Hebrew.

 

[JamestheOlder]

James the Older, I think there was a bit of “nesting” in the post I’m replying to…I think it’s called nesting, anyway. It’s not a huge deal; I just had to do a quick copy-paste before hitting “reply with quote.”
I don’t know if you’re talking about global stats or American stats, but I was talking about American stats and I was referring specifically to net gains or losses via conversion. The most recent data from the Pew Forum indicates what I said about Catholic conversion numbers in America; I basically paraphrased what the report says. This short quote says it all.

Catholicism has experienced the greatest net losses as a result of affiliation changes.
religions.pewforum.org/reports

Perhaps the author of the article in the OP has a point. These numbers do seem to be hidden from you, even if they’re not hidden from me. You did read the article, right? It references the Pew Forum reports almost immediately. And coincidentally, that is the source I give when you ask for one.
(snipped)

Lets start with the statistics, first:

 

[JamestheOlder]

I almost forgot one unknown statistic, which even PEW recognizes they regularly get wrong: the number of Latinos who are many times “unregistered” members of Catholic parishes, and are not counted (properly).

In another thread, one correspondent noted there might be 80-90,000 in the Southern Florida area, alone.

Let’s add perhaps another 9 million or so to the total in the US…as was noted in the CARA statistics.

(bow and exit right)

 

[cooterhein]

2 Peter 1:20] First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation…

It actually says “no prophecy of scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation,” and the surrounding verses make the meaning quite clear- the origin of Scripture is God, not man. This is the number one proof-text that is mis-quoted on Catholic forums, and I laugh every time I see it.

Wrong again.

You’re clearly not interacting with anything I say. I’m giving you information that is true, and you could verify this if you look into it a little more. But no, this is what you do instead.

Its your arrogance that assumes that rites equals “denominations”.

In every religious grouping aside from Catholicism- whether it’s the Eastern Orthodox or the Coptic Orthodox or the Assyrian Orthodox or the Ethiopian Orthodox- “rites” does, in fact, equal “denominations.” That is one of the ways in which statisticians count denominations. It’s the same for non-Christian religious groupings where rites are of any relevance. For example, Judaism is enumerated with a variety of denominations, and one of the reasons for this enumeration is the practice of one rite vs. a different rite.

“Denominations”, as in those in Proetstantism, believe different doctrines.

Not necessarily.

The rites in the Church do not.

That typically doesn’t matter. Regardless of doctrine, the practice of different rites is sufficient for a religious group to be numbered as more than one denomination. And if there are two rites and each of these rites are practiced in Germany and France, for example, that’s sufficient reason for saying there are four denominations total. One of Rite A in France, one of Rite A in Germany, one of Rite B in France, and one of Rite B in Germany. The doctrine is identical and they all submit to the same church government, but statisticians count four denominations.

Riddle me this- how else do you arrive at a number like 781 for the total number of Orthodox denominations in the world? I’ll give you a hint- anyone in schism is included in the “independent” list instead. So anything like “Old Calendarist” or “Independent Russian Orthodox” or “Reformed Orthodox” joins a list of about 22,000 others in the “Independent” category. The total of 781 is exclusive to “denominations” that are really and truly Orthodox.

So if the denominations don’t add up to 781 due to reasons like different rites and different nationalities or languages that are spoken, how else do you get to a number like 781? (That’s from the year 2000; I’m sure it’s gone up since then).

Essentially you’re confusing “doctrines” with “practice”; lex orandi with lex credendi.

You’re confusing “the way you would count denominations” with “the way in which denominations are actually counted.”

 

[cooterhein]

The real question is that if their not “splits” but just merely “new congregations” why do they not identify themselves under the same name as the old congregation?

They generally do use the same name. Do you really think there’s 781 different signs that go up in front of Orthodox churches? Do you really think there’s 781 distinctly different Orthodox doctrines?

Come to think of it, do you think there’s 242 Catholic denominations? That is the number statisticians arrive at on occasions when they don’t acquiesce to Catholic requests for special treatment.

Why form a “new congregation” at all if there weren’t real splits in doctrines and practices?

Usually because you’re in a different place. Possibly a different country.

How could there be any such "new congregational splits " if all of you hold as the sole authority the same data: the Bible?

Historically, this mostly began in the First Great Awakening, and most of those new denominations were the result of doctrinal differences and can rightly be called “sectarian.” (There were 93 new denominations created by this means, if memory serves). But it was after the Second Great Awakening that an explosion of denominations really took off, where we saw an increase from less than 1,000 to over 30,000 over the course of about 80 years.

The way it generally happened was like this: Many parts of America had been newly settled by people who didn’t establish any kind of church in their communities. So in and around these types of communities, there would be some kind of tent revival that would last days at a time. It would generally include speakers that represented three or four different major denominations, all working together and in no way in dissent with each other. In any given community, a large number of people would become Christians. Then after the revival was over, they’d build a church if that was necessary and they’d continue practicing Christianity indefinitely.

That tended to be how it worked a lot of times. These new denominations didn’t split off from other ones by virtue of doctrinal disagreement; they would typically come into existence out of a community where there was no Christianity to begin with. And typically, these new denominations were born out of inter-denominational efforts. Since then, the number of denominations has multiplied exponentially. That’s because these new denominations often developed a missions focus, and every time one of those denominations was represented in a new country, a new denomination was born…in the minds of statisticians, at least.

So that’s how hundreds of new denominations were added to the American total, and that’s how they multiplied by a factor of over 100 in the course of just 80 years.

Oh, that’s right, a tiny fraction of that figure does represent some divisions that happened due to doctrinal disagreement. But if you don’t know what happened during and after the Second Great Awakening, you have no clue about the beginnings of well over 90% of the Protestant and Independent denominations that you see today.

You manage to type a lot of words with a lot of assumptions but little Biblical backing to support such a fracturing of Christendom.

Let me clue you in- the Second Great Awakening happened in the 19th century. That is what looms largest among reasons for all of these denominations. This is what you ask for, and this is what you get. I’m afraid the Bible doesn’t cover much of anything from the 19th century; it’s largely confined to things that happened in the 1st century and prior to that.

What you’ve clearly demonstrated is how unity proceeds from the authority of one

I’m not sure who the “one” is that you refer to…I skimmed the rest of your comment and decided you’re not worth it, though. If you’re going to throw around disparaging terms at random, I’m sure you’ll get lots of support from the Catholic faithful. I’ll do nothing to encourage it, though.

 

[cooterhein]

Lets start with the statistics, first:

Before we do that, can you acknowledge some level of understanding pertaining to the net conversion numbers in America and how Catholicism is in last place on that list?

I understand that the rate of retention is not that bad, comparatively. However, net conversion numbers indicates the total gains along with the total losses due to conversion.

American Catholics are particularly bad at converting…anyone, really. And while they’re not the worst at converting, the total losses from conversion on balance with the total gains via conversion yields the worst net numbers of any religious group in America.

Yes, the raw numbers went up slightly, and Catholicism did grow numerically even if it has slipped from 24% of the population to 21% in the past 10 years or so. These gains are due to the addition of cradle Catholics and Catholic immigrants- 45% of immigrants are Catholic, which is disproportionate by over double the percentage that’s there to begin with. You don’t get these gains due to conversion, though, and an inordinate amount of focus on numeric gains and willful ignorance of the Catholic failure to evangelize and convert is only going to hurt you in the long run.

Again, could you please acknowledge that you saw those figures? I’m talking about net gains and losses due to conversion. The American numbers are actually pretty similar to the global numbers in this regard, but the only ones I’ve given you so far are the American ones.

Could you please interact with the net conversion numbers in some way? Thank you.

Oh, and make sure you edit your post appropriately if you inadvertently format it in such a way that there is nesting or “snippets” or whatever else there is to do. You’ve made enough posts that you should know how to avoid these things; just be sure to make use of the 15 minutes you have to edit them.