What's wrong with this statement?

[exiled]

“Not only is the “disunity” charge against Protestantism unsubstantiated, the
disunity among Catholic traditions is ignored”

I’m not good at logic, rhetoric, philosophy etc. but there is a fundamental problem with this statement beyond the apologetics of it. Can anyone helf me figure out what it is?

 

[mosher]

“Not only is the “disunity” charge against Protestantism unsubstantiated, the
disunity among Catholic traditions is ignored”

I’m not good at logic, rhetoric, philosophy etc. but there is a fundamental problem with this statement beyond the apologetics of it. Can anyone helf me figure out what it is?

Well we can’t speak about its logic as it is only part of a larger syllogism so I can’t tell you if it is a valid syllogism or not. However it is a bit of rhetoric but not an issue for philosophy.

The rhetoric error is that it is making a comparison between apples and oranges and not apples and apples. In the first part it speaks of “Protestantism” as a unit but then in the second part instead of using “Catholicism” which would be the corresponding unit it uses “Catholic traditions” which is a separate type of unit. This would in effect be used as the foundation to build a straw-man argument against the unity of the Church but with an error of inaccurate equivocation at its base.

 

[Liberian]

Exiled,

The first problem with the statement is that the “disunity” charge against Protestantism has been well and repeatedly substantiated. If you ask a Protestant to explain or justify something embarrassing that a different church believes or that someone from a different church has done, the usual response is “I don’t believe that” or “that wasn’t my church” and a general washing of the hands of the matter.

The second problem is the vagueness of the term “disunity among Catholic traditions.” Do they mean the traditions that Polish Catholics eat kielbasa while Irish Catholics eat potatoes?

• Liberian

 

[exiled]

This statement was made within an ongoing apologetics discussion. The writer is trying to convince me that SS protestants are united in doctrine, while saying Catholics are not actually as united as they claim because Catholics do not all believe the same things.
I’ve pointed out that individual Catholics’ opinions have nothing to do with Truth, and that the test to unity is consistency through time.
In any case, this statement within the text of a letter to me stood out, as I said, as being fundamentally flawed, but I can’t place what the problem is.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

“Not only is the “disunity” charge against Protestantism unsubstantiated, the
disunity among Catholic traditions is ignored”

I’m not good at logic, rhetoric, philosophy etc. but there is a fundamental problem with this statement beyond the apologetics of it. Can anyone helf me figure out what it is?

This statement was made within an ongoing apologetics discussion. The writer is trying to convince me that SS protestants are united in doctrine, while saying Catholics are not actually as united as they claim because Catholics do not all believe the same things.
I’ve pointed out that individual Catholics’ opinions have nothing to do with Truth, and that the test to unity is consistency through time.
In any case, this statement within the text of a letter to me stood out, as I said, as being fundamentally flawed, but I can’t place what the problem is.

Catholic disunity is based in who is in charge of carrying out or interpreting the unified teachings. Some Protestants are in that group, but not the Sola Scripture. The Sola Scripture groups have ignored authority completely to allow open interpretation of first the bible and then eventually the doctrine the process is inevitable. In the Catholic Church this is known as the sin of Presumption. All Catholics unity on dogma and doctrine.

 

[Scottgun]

This is a classic example of a rabbit-trail. Take baptism. If you go through the various denominations you might come up with as many as six different doctrines of what it is and what it does. There is only one teaching on baptism in the Catholic Church and it will do no good to say x Catholic theologian has a different view or certain Catholics don’t believe it. All the Church’s authoritative teachings are what they are.

 

[Della]

His statement that SS Protestants all believe the same things is just plain wrong. A simple example is the Assemblies of God and Baptist and yet both hold quite strongly to SS. The AoG does not believe in OSAS and for the Baptist it is essential. If there’s even one example to disprove his assertion, then obviously his assertion is wrong.

And, as others have stated, only the Magisterium (all the bishops in union with the Pope) of the Church decides matters of faith and morals not individual dioceses or parishes. The things that we Catholics are to believe and/or must believe are clearly set out–the things that your Protestant friend would call the “essentials.” On all other matters Catholics are free to disagree, just as our Protestant brethren are free to do.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

“Not only is the “disunity” charge against Protestantism unsubstantiated, the
disunity among Catholic traditions is ignored”

I’m not good at logic, rhetoric, philosophy etc. but there is a fundamental problem with this statement beyond the apologetics of it. Can anyone helf me figure out what it is?

I once asked a Salesian nun whether she had ever been on an Ignatian retreat. She told me that the Salesians don’t get on with the Jesuits and certainly wouldn’t go on nay of their retreats.

So yes, there are certain internal tensions.

However the Church still has unity. The Pope is in charge, and can knock heads together if things get too heated.

Protestant denominations are sometimes sympathetic to each other, sometimes not. However mergers are fairly rare. There was one between the Presbyterians and Congregationalists to make the United Reformed Church, but this was the exception. Normally the leadership of each church wants to maintain financial and administrative independence, as well as autonomy in making spiritual decisions.

So whilst it is not all terrible strife on the Protestant side and rosy love-ins on the Catholic, the situations of the churches are different, and it is true to say that Catholics have unity whilst Protestants don’t.

 

[drforjc]

Infant-baptizing protestant denominations such as Lutherans, Methodists, and Episcopalians get flak from Baptists and others RE: infant baptism all the time. That alone for me would indicate there is considerable disunity in doctrine and practice in Protestantism.

 

[Liberian]

Exiled,

Ask the writer whether or not we have free will (some Protestants say yes, others say no); whether Jesus died for everybody or only for the elect (ditto); whether or not we should abstain from alcohol (ditto ditto); whether or not a person can lose his salvation (ditto ditto ditto); and when the Rapture will occur relative to the Great Tribulation (some say before, some say during, some say after, and some say the whole thing is symbolic).

The unity of doctrine in the Catholic Church comes from the fact that there is a single official Catholic teaching. Lots of Catholics disagree with various of the teachings, but you can point to the Catechism and say “This is what the Catholic Church teaches.” There is no corresponding unified compendium of Protestant doctrine; they may want to point to the Bible and say the same thing, but different Sola Scriptura believers get contradictory doctrines from the Bible.

• Liberian