Why all the Fuss on the Reformation?

[PRmerger]

And I remain skeptical about whether anyone has actually become Catholic primarily because you or some other Catholic talked about thousands of denominations.

Oh, I never said “primarily”. I never argue “smoking gun” apologetics, Edwin.

That would be absurd.

Rather, it, like Pascal’s Wager for atheists, is either the catalyst that propels them towards investigating Belief, or is the final nail in the coffin for their past beliefs–one that pushes them through the door so that they can dine at the Wedding Feast.

So Pascal’s Wager as the primary argument for atheists? Not so much. But I do use it. And I find it useful indeed.

And the tens of thousands of denominations as the primary argument for Protestants? Not so much. But I do use it. And I find it useful indeed.

So, no, never one argument that is “primarily” anything.

 

[joe371]

Your question is a category mistake.

Protestant denominations do not claim to be “churches” in the sense the Catholic Church claims to be a Church. You’re setting up a false parallel.

For Protestants, all believers belong to the Church Christ founded.

And, of course, there’s no reason for Catholics to disagree with this. The question isn’t, then, which church to belong to, but how baptized Christians (who by virtue of their baptism belong to the Church Christ founded) may live out their faith fully in the unity Christ intended. And I believe firmly that union with Rome is necessary for that.

Edwin

So, all believers, regardless of church affiliation (including the Catholic Church) belong to the one church founded by God, circa AD 33? OK.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

A question, as a former non-Catholic, I had to ask myself: either the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Churches or the Catholic Church (including the 23 rites in full communion with the Petrine office) continues to be the church established by Jesus circa 33 AD in Jerusalem on Pentecost. Is there any chance that this is true, or have periodic schisms and Protestant break-away movements, obscured any chance of recognizing the one church founded by God, ineffably guided by the Holy Spirit?

Catholics say Lutherans “are church”

The difference in the theological and ecclesiological evaluation of the episcopal office in historic succession loses its sharpness when Lutherans attribute such a value to the episcopate that regaining full communion in this office seems important and desirable, and when Catholics recognize that "the ministry in the Lutheran churches exercises essential functions of the ministry that Jesus Christ instituted in his church"269 and does not contest the point that the Lutheran churches are church.
prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_church3.html#3.4

Highly recommend reading the findings of the Lutheran-Catholic Commission on Unity. The above is taken from 3.4. Ecclesial Communion � Communion of Churches : Common Witness
prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_church.html

 

[joe371]

Catholics say Lutherans “are church”

I know. Do Catholics or Lutherans say that Lutherans belong to the church established by Jesus, or by the movement started by Martin Luther, that gave way to the Lutheran Church?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I know. Do Catholics or Lutherans say that Lutherans belong to the church established by Jesus, or by the movement started by Martin Luther, that gave way to the Lutheran Church?

Emphatically the former, if one reads the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Yes, quite symbolic , this single loaf, discerning the Body of Christ (the “ecclesia”), rich and poor, hungry or well fed.

Yes, symbolic … and real.

And NOT the way protestants in general see it.

All persuasions of the definition of “church” believe this.

And all but the Catholics (and EO) have the little problem of historical continuity (i.e. reality).

 

[JonNC]

I know. Do Catholics or Lutherans say that Lutherans belong to the church established by Jesus, or by the movement started by Martin Luther, that gave way to the Lutheran Church?

Hi Joe,
While I am not a branch theorist, I don’t see these as distinctly different, other than institutionally. You were Lutheran. You know we define the Church as the congregation of believers where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. These two things happen in a Catholic Church, a Lutheran Church, and many others. Christ’s Church, established in circa 33 AD, is more than institutions.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

But simply repeating a figure (by your own admission, a** highly speculative **figure, and one that as I have pointed out isn’t based on an actual analysis of meaningful divisions) isn’t going to do anything.

You keep adding adjectives to my position that have no place in my arguments.

Firstly, my figure of “tens of thousands” is NOT highly speculative. I didn’t simply and arbitrarily decide one morning, “Hey! I’m going to pick a really obscenely high number and go with it. Hmmmm…how about ‘tens of thousands’? Yep. That sounds really neat! I’ll say that!”

Rather, it is an estimation based on observation, math, logic, reason, my experience. In fact, as I have already referenced, when one does the math, using only 17 different permutations of differing doctrines, the possibilities are in the hundreds of thousands. Over 131,000 differing possibilities.

And, in fact, the “tens of thousands” estimation is used by professional apologists:
here–Tim Staples
here–John Martignoni
as well as our own host, Catholic Answers here

So, no, not “highly speculative” at all. Rather, steeped in science, observable data, logic, reason and my own experience.

 

[PRmerger]

You keep adding adjectives to my position that have no place in my arguments.

Firstly, my figure of “tens of thousands” is NOT highly speculative. I didn’t simply and arbitrarily decide one morning, “Hey! I’m going to pick a really obscenely high number and go with it. Hmmmm…how about ‘tens of thousands’? Yep. That sounds really neat! I’ll say that!”

Rather, it is an estimation based on observation, math, logic, reason, my experience. In fact, as I have already referenced, when one does the math, using only 17 different permutations of differing doctrines, the possibilities are in the hundreds of thousands. Over 131,000 differing possibilities.

And, in fact, the “tens of thousands” estimation is used by professional apologists:
here–Tim Staples
here–John Martignoni
as well as our own host, Catholic Answers here

So, no, not “highly speculative” at all. Rather, steeped in science, observable data, logic, reason and my own experience.

Secondly, it is true that it is not an estimation worthy of publication in professional journals. However, this is an amateur forum with discussions by mainly amateur apologists, so, as such, my estimation is quite worthy of respect.

We are essentially sitting around someone’s patio, drinking our favorite cocktail, eating something deliciously unhealthy, while discussing religion. I am under no delusion that we are in the Oval Office making policy that affects the world.

NB: I am not saying that because this the equivalent of a patio discussion that we are not all bound by Truth and that we can just shoot off numbers, statistics, quotes and commentary that are false. Or, to put it in the positive: even friends discussing religion on someone’s patio have to speak the truth.

We just don’t need to have accountants and statisticians present to give a number authority. Not on someone’s patio.

 

[PRmerger]

Secondly, it is true that it is not an estimation worthy of publication in professional journals. However, this is an amateur forum with discussions by mainly amateur apologists, so, as such, my estimation is quite worthy of respect.

We are essentially sitting around someone’s patio, drinking our favorite cocktail, eating something deliciously unhealthy, while discussing religion. I am under no delusion that we are in the Oval Office making policy that affects the world.

NB: I am not saying that because this the equivalent of a patio discussion that we are not all bound by Truth and that we can just shoot off numbers, statistics, quotes and commentary that are false. Or, to put it in the positive: even friends discussing religion on someone’s patio have to speak the truth.

We just don’t need to have accountants and statisticians present to give a number authority. Not on someone’s patio.

Finally, there have been many insinuations here that I am simply arguing my own arguments, as if this “tens of thousands of different Christian denominations is an obscenity and ought to make Protestants pause and re-consider their divergence from the Catholic Faith” is made up by me simply for the sake of stating a statistic that really has no meaning at all.

Let me disabuse you of this. It is not MY argument–I am not saying anything new.

I am simply repeating one that has been made before.

To wit:
“The Protestant Reformation resulted in the continuous division of churches over the interpretation of Scripture, each new denomination insisting on its own as authentic. But of course, since they all contradict each other, they can’t all be correct. The divisions continue to this day—thousands of them. If this is reformation, I’d hate to see chaos!”–Fr. Vincent Serpa

So, again, offering the “tens of thousands” is a very, very good apologetics move indeed.

Saying “Stop proffering that argument because many bristle against it, or are bored by it, or are unmoved by it” is as inutile as saying, “The Ontological Argument makes atheists bristle, and some are bored with it, and some are unmoved by it, so stop presenting it!”

 

[JRKH]

As the Quaker said earlier, “They shall know you by your love for one another”. Quite visible.

Yes - but you did not answer any of the questions I raised in my post.

In fact - True Christian Love for each other should ALSO draw one to ever greater unity in belief and doctrine.
Is it true Christian Love to allow for opposing doctrines among local Christian communities on matters effecting salvation - such as baptism, efficacy of works, real presence, OSAS and others?
I don’t think so…True Love of God and each other should bring protestants together to resolve these matters using the instructions for resolving such issues contained in Scripture.

Peace
James

 

[steido01]

And I remain skeptical about whether anyone has actually become Catholic primarily because you or some other Catholic talked about thousands of denominations.

I often find myself musing whether to make the swim. When that happens, I just read some of the posts on CAF. I’m quickly reminded that the grass ain’t any greener on the other side of the Tiber.

There are real doctrinal differences that separate various groups from unity with each other. Certainly it’d be better if those individual differences were discussed one-by-one with individual communions, rather than lobbing the same tired polemics?

 

[Per_Crucem]

You keep adding adjectives to my position that have no place in my arguments.

Firstly, my figure of “tens of thousands” is NOT highly speculative. I didn’t simply and arbitrarily decide one morning, “Hey! I’m going to pick a really obscenely high number and go with it. Hmmmm…how about ‘tens of thousands’? Yep. That sounds really neat! I’ll say that!”

No one said that you invented it. However, repeating it, if it’s not factual, is not any improvement.

And, in fact, the “tens of thousands” estimation is used by professional apologists:
here–Tim Staples
here–John Martignoni
as well as our own host, Catholic Answers here

So, no, not “highly speculative” at all. Rather, steeped in science, observable data, logic, reason and my own experience.

Those professional “apologists” use a flawed source, with a flawed methodology. Despite repeated examinations of the source by other individuals, both within and without the Christian apologetic world, their use of it is misguided at best, deceptive at worst.

 

[PRmerger]

No one said that you invented it.

Great. And we understand that it is an argument made by professional Catholic apologists, right? Even ones on our own Catholic Answers.

However, repeating it, if it’s not factual, is not any improvement.

You have to prove that it’s not factual.

Firstly, what is the actual number, if it’s not “tens of thousands” of denominations?

And how do you know?

What is your source?

And I will consider using it if it is logical, mathematically valid, and takes into account every single storefront church on the corners of the world in every city.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Great. And we understand that it is an argument made by professional Catholic apologists, right? Even ones on our own Catholic Answers.

Yes. But if the argument is not based on an accurate statistic, of what value is it?

You have to prove that it’s not factual.

Firstly, what is the actual number, if it’s not “tens of thousands” of denominations?

And how do you know?

What is your source?

And I will consider using it if it is logical, mathematically valid, and takes into account every single storefront church on the corners of the world in every city.

I am not claiming to know. However, what I can tell you is that basing a denomination on geography is not an accurate way to figure out numbers. Considering the source used by professional apologists lists several hundred Catholic denominations, that should be apparent.

 

[PRmerger]

Considering the source used by professional apologists lists several hundred Catholic denominations, that should be apparent.

Can you cite where they use the Barrett’s?

 

[PRmerger]

Yes. But if the argument is not based on an accurate statistic, of what value is it?

I am not claiming to know.

LOL!

So you’re saying, “Your number is wrong. But I don’t know what the number is.”

BTW, here’s another professional Catholic apologist, John Salza, who also uses the statistic:

There are tens of thousands of different non-Catholic “Christian” denominations operating in our country, each claiming to be following Christ and yet each rejecting at least one or more dogmas of the Christian faith.

 

[Per_Crucem]

LOL!

So you’re saying, “Your number is wrong. But I don’t know what the number is.”

No. What I am saying is that if the methodology to arrive at any number is flawed, regardless of what the number is, then it is going to be inaccurate.

 

[PRmerger]

However, what I can tell you is that basing a denomination on geography is not an accurate way to figure out numbers.

I don’t base it on geography. I base it on authority.

Who does the Agape Church of Tagaytay City answer to? No one save for the pastor. Therefore: 1 denomination.

Who does the Alaph Divine Temple answer to? No one save for the pastor.
Therefore: 1 denomination.

Who does the Gospel Assembly Church of Nigeria answer to? No one save for their elders.
Therefore: 1 denomination.

 

[PRmerger]

No. What I am saying is that if the methodology to arrive at any number is flawed, regardless of what the number is, then it is going to be inaccurate.

Well, what is the flaw in the methodology that’s being used by me?