There are 2,942 Catholic Denominations, Maybe more

[rr1213]

That would be a good point if you could claim some sort of doctrinal cohesion between the 30 major groups.

I don’t claim that there is doctrinal cohesion among those 30 some major groups or denominations. Certainly there is to some extent…for that matter there is some doctrinal cohesion between most Protestant Churches and the Catholic Church to some extent. I would submit that the Protestant Churches are not as far apart from each other in their doctrines as Catholics often make us out to be, but that would be merely an opinion on my part. I guess it would be fair to say that, as Christian brothers, many Protestants from different denominations don’t consider ourselves to be as far apart as you think we are.

 

[Wampa]

I note that you refrain from identifying which statement you believe to be a point of logic.

If you wish to make that identification, then we can discuss whether or not the statement is in fact logical. If you do not wish to make that identification then you concede the point.

I guarantee you that Syele, rr1213, and others know exactly what I am referencing. I knew you and several others would not get my point and that’s fine because I was really directing my comment at Syele (I directed it to her by name).

For your clarification, I am referring to post #1: her intention to have a discussion about the methodology used to come up with the statistic used in debating the “larger issue”. She was very clear that she was not looking to argue the larger issue of fractionalization of Protestants and whether it exists (she conceded it does). She merely wanted to discuss the point of logic re the study methodology and leave the larger substantive debate for the other threads where it already exists.

And yes, when I told her “It’s interesting to see what you’re now being accused of” I was referring to the fact you’ve accused her of a sinister ulterior motive in even starting this thread:

rtconstant;2057795:

Anyway, the point of the OP has been made the specific study in question has questionable methodologies.

Was that the point of the OP? Or was the point of the OP a ploy to distract attention from the proliferation of schisms among the Protestant denominations? An appeal to factitiousness rather than to underlying truth?

For someone who seems to accuse others quite a lot of “violating the friendship necessary for furthering a discussion on these forums”, “not arguing in good faith” , and “using unfriendly language”, you don’t seem to have a problem questioning her motives and even suggesting this entire thread is a sinister attempt to somehow “win” the larger debate by distaction.

 

[Syele]

Thanks, Wampa for your support.

 

[lak611]

Thanks, Wampa for your support.

Wampa is right. I concur.

 

[Syele]

Wampa is right. I concur.

Thanks to you too, and the others who “get it.”

Those who didn’t get it: Some of you are judging me as a person without even knowing me. There was no ulterior motive. This was not a plot to undermine your arguments. I’m tired of being accused of being anti-Catholic and of all sort of other infractions. If you can’t discuss Baretts numbers without attacking me personally and my motives, I’m done discussing this with you.

 

[banarkle]

Syele,

I don’t understand the point of thread. Are you just informing us Catholics that you read somewhere that there is 2900+ Catholic denominations? The tone seems bitter as if it was the Catholic Church who produced the 30,000+ Protestant denominations.

 

[MrS]

Syele,

I don’t understand the point of thread. Are you just informing us Catholics that you read somewhere that there is 2900+ Catholic denominations? The tone seems bitter as if it was the Catholic Church who produced the 30,000+ Protestant denominations.

While you await an answer, if there is one… you might consider reading this thread if you can… some posters don’t like it when a new poster starts with a question that may have already been answered ., often. Just a thought…

.

 

[Syele]

Syele,

I don’t understand the point of thread. Are you just informing us Catholics that you read somewhere that there is 2900+ Catholic denominations? The tone seems bitter as if it was the Catholic Church who produced the 30,000+ Protestant denominations.

sigh do read the thread. I’ll sum it up though.

The 2900+ figure came from the same source as the 30,000 figure and the 30,000 is a misquote besides.I’m not bitter. I’m just requesting people be honest.

 

[Wampa]

I don’t understand the point of thread. Are you just informing us Catholics that you read somewhere that there is 2900+ Catholic denominations?

I got slammed for laughing, but y’all have to admit, as some point, it’s so comedic that you couldn’t write better material if you tried. This is like watching Jaywalking on Jay Leno. [Note: I suspect they’re pulling your leg now, because seriously, no one can be this, um (working for charity here), unobservant.]

Speaking of that, I was watching Jaywalking the other week and he was asking Bible questions. Nothing difficult, just really basic stuff. This was the best one:

Leno: What was Jesus’ occupation?
Woman: Son of God?
Leno: Well, I mean more like a day job. Working with his hands… [she’s not following his lead] Maybe a carpenter?
Woman (dead serious): No, they didn’t have carpet back then.

 

[banarkle]

MrS,

I did read this thread. I apologize for my privious reply. It is obvious to me now the point this thread’s creation.

 

[MrS]

I understand…

welcome to the forum… and all the types of posters here… especially the ones who are fasinated by their own wit.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I guarantee you that Syele, rr1213, and others know exactly what I am referencing. I knew you and several others would not get my point and that’s fine because I was really directing my comment at Syele (I directed it to her by name).

For your clarification, I am referring to post #1: her intention to have a discussion about the methodology used to come up with the statistic used in debating the “larger issue”. She was very clear that she was not looking to argue the larger issue of fractionalization of Protestants and whether it exists (she conceded it does). She merely wanted to discuss the point of logic re the study methodology and leave the larger substantive debate for the other threads where it already exists.

And yes, when I told her “It’s interesting to see what you’re now being accused of” I was referring to the fact you’ve accused her of a sinister ulterior motive in even starting this thread:

For someone who seems to accuse others quite a lot of “violating the friendship necessary for furthering a discussion on these forums”, “not arguing in good faith” , and “using unfriendly language”, you don’t seem to have a problem questioning her motives and even suggesting this entire thread is a sinister attempt to somehow “win” the larger debate by distaction.

Asking for clarification as to why a certain question has been posed and asking for clarification as to why delimitations have been placed on the responses to that question – both requests for clarification are fair game.

Both requests for clarification are not accusations.
Mindreading is not fair game.
Pulling in other threads is not fair game.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Further… with languages, I doubt that a family speaking a relatively obscure tongue would expect their children to then start their own unique tongues.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

If you can’t discuss Baretts numbers without attacking me personally and my motives, I’m done discussing this with you.

Sigh. Some distinctions perhaps?

1. A personal attack is an attack against the person as opposed to a disagreement with what the person says.
2. A disagreement with something a person says is not a personal attack.
3. Questioning the reasons for proposing a theory is also not a personal attack.

 

[jonfan]

ok, despite it being pointed out many times before, 30,000 protestant denominations is misleading, unfair, and downright false. The figure in my thread title is from EXACTLY the same source as the 30,000 denominations number people here keep referring to. If your point is to show protestants are divided, just say so and avoid making yourself look dumb.

• The figure comes from a study by David A Barrett

•          the first figure was 20,780             denominations with some figure about how many there would be in the future coming *from a different source*.

• All the denominations listed are not protestant.
• 8,196 were protestant
• 2,942** of this number were Catholics, 194 Latin-rite,**** 580 are Orthodox and other Catholic (non-Roman) 504**

•          According to Barrett, a "distinct denomination" is ANY division, including style of music, location of church, and other things that really are NOT divisions associated with the standard "denomination".

•          Barrett uses the standard definition of denomination but calls it "traditions."

• **He says there are 21 Protestant “traditions”, 6 marginal Protestant, 4 Catholic (non-Roman), 6 Anglican, 20 mixed pagan and Christian (two of which he deems Catholic), 19 Orthodox, 16 (Roman) Catholic
  **
• Barrett also lists Roman Catholicism and Protestantism on the same level each considered a SINGLE ecclesial tradition.
  I’m not denying that there are divisions among protestants. I’m simply asking you to be honest in your discussions here. If you want to say Protestantism is bad cause it’s divided, fine But stop throwing around meaningless numbers.

Churches that don’t accept the RCC by definition would be a different denomination.

 

[Syele]

Sigh. Some distinctions perhaps?

1. A personal attack is an attack against the person as opposed to a disagreement with what the person says.

Let’s see, since the thread started I’ve been called anti-Catholic and been accused of having motives for the thread that have nothing to do with my motives, I was accused of plagiarism (which up to now, I didn’t make a big deal out of). No you were not the culprit on all of these, but it IS getting tiring.

1. A disagreement with something a person says is not a personal attack.

Calling me anti-catholic is not a disagreement with something that was said, neither is making judgment calls on weather I have access to a $300 book. Note that my post wasn’t directed at only you, it was directed at several people in the thread.

1. Questioning the reasons for proposing a theory is also not a personal attack.

Well since I made clear my reasons in multiple posts questioning it at that point was implying I was lying.

 

[lak611]

Churches that don’t accept the RCC by definition would be a different denomination.

What about the Orthodox?

 

[Syele]

What about the Orthodox?

Apparently they are a separate denomination.

 

[jonfan]

Apparently they are a separate denomination.

Are they in communion with Rome? If not than unfortuantely yes. Seperate.

 

[Syele]

Are they in communion with Rome? If not than unfortuantely yes. Seperate.

Who’s definition of Denomination are you using that bases it on “Communion with Rome”? With that I see only two “denominations” “Roman Catholic” and “Not Roman Catholic”. Maybe you could be more specific?