Why with 35,000 other options would someone wish to be a Catholic?

[Della]

Reply:
Yep you pertty much nailed it. BUT, I’m a skeptic, how does one prove your well thought out points?

Thanks,
God continued Blessings,
PJM m.c.

Because the points are historically verifiable, not merely my opinion or beliefs. Read the Church Fathers. Look at other denominations losing their way as they embrace “the spirit of the age”. What other church can make the same claims? None. It simply is true–just that plain.

 

[Syele]

Nor am I convinced that that figure is NOT accurate although in future I will simply use the adjective MANY or THOUSANDS in future.Will this satisfy you?Just because YOU say it’s false does not necessarily make it so.Get off your high horse, I’ll decide if I was misled.This issue is NOT fait accompli.

Fine you say its 35,000 and I will remember to use only info from that study when talking to you about it. I say, If I cant beat them then join them.

With that in mind, Barrett says that there are 2,942 Catholic denominations! Why is Catholicism so divided? I thought you guys were all one? If Catholics are so divided then how can protestants ever stand a chance at Unity!?!

If I decide to become Catholic which of the 2,942 choices is right? How could I ever possibly choose which Catholic church to attend? I don’t think Jesus intended there to be so much Division in His Church.

Barretts first figure was 20,780 denominations with some figure about how many there would be in the future coming from a different source. the other source (Which I don’t currently have access to) did not use the same definition of Denomination.
All the 20,780 denominations listed were 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 ecclesiastical tradition.

 

[pismopal]

Was the church that Christ founded Roman Catholic?

The answer is the same as the last time you asked.
Since you will not be told the answer…please tell us…what was the church founded by Christ? Can I give you a hint…there was only one according to Christ.

 

[PJM]

It wasn’t Martin Luthers intention to begin a new denomination. And I really doubt he wanted the others to sprout from it once it did. He actually Tried to work with the Church before leaving it, otherwise there would never have been any theses nailed to any door. Reply: ML’s 95 thesis all delt with the topics of indulgences, paying for forgiveness and the like. These WERE all “church practice” NOT Doctrine or Dogma. When ML made his break the orginal 95 thesis issues were abated, and he moved on to Dogma and Doctrine issues. Thus his “new” bible.

Since I have been convinced Scripture is Truth and is God Breathed anything that does not agree with it must be incorrect.
Reply: could you supply a few examples please?

This is simple logic based on what I know to be true, not on a hatred for any one or any authority. If A is 100% true and B does not agree with A then B is false. If B agrees with A and A is 100% true than we can believe both. One needs no bias for or against B for this to have the same answer.

So I can “assume”, gosh I hate that word, that you agree with Pope JPII, and Pope Benedict, that as a statement of fact: "there can be only ONE truth for any specific issue. If you agree, and I take you at your word that the bible is inspiried by God and therefore MUST Be true, I can prove to you with Your bible (KJV) that you should be a Roman Catholic. Care to take me up on it?

The Truth we strive to understand came from God first. Period. If the Catholic Church recognized and accepted that truth then awesome, but it did not come form the Catholic Church first. Gods plans were set in motion not only before the Catholic Church existed but before time began.

Reply: are we speaking of the bible as being THE source of truth? Again if we are, you might acknowledge The TRUTH: The bible is a CATHOLIC book. Amen? Actually and factually the truth orginates with God, but it passed on to us (that is ALL of us) through the Catholic Bible and the ONLY Church actually founded by Christ. Amen?

The Catholic Church is part of Protestant History, in that you will get no argument from me, but the Catholic Church was not “First” God is the First and the Last. Rely: Again we are in 100% agreement. Amen! My faith in Christ is not Dependant on the Catholic Church any more than it is Dependant on the Jews. relpy: Mine isn’t either, However my Understanding of what we believe and why we believe it is. Amen?

Question: As the bible is a Catholic book, how do you gain your knowledge of God. How do you know what God wants and doesnot want?

The Bible cannot contain everything there is to know about Christ, and definitely not everything there is to know about everything.
A BIG Amen on that point:

That does not make it less true in what it covers and does not mean things contradicting it can be true. I was not asking you to cover everything thing in a single post. I was questioning the credibility of anyone willing to use false information to make a true point.

Here I think your speaking of me, as I started the string. I know that I read the stat, but it’s my fault that I can’t find it. But the number really was not the issue, was it? On page 5 I think you will find a copy of my Google search which claims (I cut and pasted it) 34,000. So I was, and I am wrong on the stat. I’m truly sorry. But I was not being disengenious:blush:

Besides that most people in these threads when called on using bad info say “it doesn’t matter cause more than one is bad.”

Actually I agree 100% with your true and well articulated point. It is bad and I was wrong, which I have now publically stated for the forth (I think) time? I AM SORRY!

Thanks for the justified rebuke:blush:

God’s continued Blessings,
PJM m.c.

 

[PJM]

Because the points are historically verifiable, not merely my opinion or beliefs. Read the Church Fathers. Look at other denominations losing their way as they embrace “the spirit of the age”. What other church can make the same claims? None. It simply is true–just that plain.

Reply, I sure have enjoyed and learned from this discussion with you. Thanks.

But if I may answer my own question?

I would suggest reading Mt. 16: 13-19. It’s clear, easy to read, and concise. It’s also the truth that anyone can find.

If need be I would offer a clear explaination that cannot be refutted on the text.

God bless,
PJM m.c.

 

[Soutane]

Fine you say its 35,000 and I will remember to use only info from that study when talking to you about it. I say, If I cant beat them then join them.

With that in mind, Barrett says that there are 2,942 Catholic denominations! Why is Catholicism so divided? I thought you guys were all one? If Catholics are so divided then how can protestants ever stand a chance at Unity!?!

If I decide to become Catholic which of the 2,942 choices is right? How could I ever possibly choose which Catholic church to attend? I don’t think Jesus intended there to be so much Division in His Church.

Stop putting words in my mouth.If I’m wrong on the figure then I’m…well wrong or at the very least mistaken but,I will decide if I’m wrong,NOT you.I realise that this apparently is your PET PEEVE and you’re rather sensitive about it as would I be,if I were in your shoes.Please remember that you ARE NOT the final arbeiter of what is true or false.Remember it was YOU who accused Catholics of using the 35,000+ figure of deliberately lying or being duplicitous and that I admonished you.As for what you choose to believe,THAT I believe is YOUR business.

 

[Soutane]

Shudder not, my friend, as I believe the quote is from Lao-tzu, though Mao, not surprisingly, could have stolen it. It is a conundrum for me, as someone who has truly considered the invitation you made.

Jon

Thanks for the correction.Now I won’t have to preface the quote with a mea culpa. Whatever you decide I’m certain that you will decide out of the love of our Lord.Peace Brother.

 

[PJM]

Here is the answer to the question: Why would one choose to be a Catholic, with so many other, seemingly easier choices?

Papal Infallibility

“But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, * and on this rock, I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

1. Jesus chooses Caesarea Philippi for the following reasons. It was the Site of a huge and very active pagan population. Caesarea Philippi is located on a large hill, and had the areas largest Pagan Temple.
2. First we note in verse 14, that Jesus asked the question: ”who do people say that I am?” In verse 15 He asked His twelve deciples, “but who do YOU say that I am?” And we find that they are speechless. Then Simon Peter replies: “You are the Christ.” Jesus replies in verse 17: "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
3. Notice the name change: In the bible, whenever God changes a name, that person is called to a particular and prominent role. For example: Abram to Abraham,
4. In verse 18, Jesus specifies that I (singular) Jesus will build My (singular) Church (singular) upon this rock (singular). And warrants with His own merits (too soon come in His Crucifixion) that it is and will be THE TRUTH.
5. Next in verse 19 Jesus says: I (singular) will give to you Simon Bar-Jona (singular), the key (singular) to the gate of Heaven (singular).
6. In the Old Testament times it was common practice for the major cities to be “walled in.” They actually were surrounded by a wall that had GATES, and the “Main gate” actually had a KEY.
7. Also it was common to have a KING of the City (Jesus is in this role.) And a Prime Minister who actually had COMPLETE Power and Authority to rule and administer the city. The key carrier, had sole possession of the “key to the city (the city is a symbol of the Kingdom of God) and ran independently the city, day-in and day-out. The carrier of “the Key,” answered to NOONE except the KING. Simon Peter was given the “Key to the KINGDOM of Heaven,” With complete and total authority to Rule and Administer “the Kingdom.”
8. To be sure that everyone CLEARLY understood His message, Jesus in verse 19 goes on to say as further proof “and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
9. Why did Jesus use the words “to bind,” and “to Loose,” they are Rabbinical Terms, Binding in Jewish Law. At the time of their pronouncement they were spoken by a Jew, to Jews who would clearly have understood the significance of the words, and their Binding authority. That is why we never read about any attempts to usurp the Power of Simon Peter by any other Apostle!
10. " 17: “And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. This verse gives assent by God the Father to the decision Jesus Proclaimed, and also of the Presence and assent of the Holy Spirit who make know “the Will of The Father.”
11. Old testament Typology: Is. 22: 19-22
    19 I (Reference to a dishonest Prime Minister) will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. 20 In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, 21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22* And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. 23 And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.
12. There are “not many things that God claims as “MINE”. Two of GREAT significance are “MY PEOPLE” and God Claims “My Church!”
13. 2 Chronicles 19: 10-11 “whenever a case comes to you from your brethren who live in their cities, concerning bloodshed, law or commandment, statutes or ordinances, then you shall instruct them, that they may not incur guilt before the LORD and wrath may not come upon you and your brethren. Thus you shall do, and you will not incur guilt. 11 And behold, Amariah the chief priest is over you in all matters of the LORD; and Zebadiah the son of Ishmael, the governor of the house of Judah, in all the king’s matters; and the Levites will serve you as officers. Deal courageously, and may the LORD be with the upright!"
14. FYI… The Old testament does not speak of “the chair of Moses” as an authority.
15. Common Sense Defense.
16. Jesus knew of King David and his Walled Cities
17. Jesus knew King David used “Prime Ministers.”
18. Jesus appointed Simon Peter as ‘Prime Minister of His Kingdom
19. Jesus admitted in front of Pilate: John chapter 18: 33 Pilate entered the praetorium again and called Jesus, and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” 34 Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?” 35 Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me; what have you done?” 36* Jesus answered, “My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world.” 37* Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king.

God’s Blessings,
PJM m.c.

 

[Syele]

Reply: ML’s 95 thesis all delt with the topics of indulgences, paying for forgiveness and the like. These WERE all “church practice” NOT Doctrine or Dogma. When ML made his break the orginal 95 thesis issues were abated, and he moved on to Dogma and Doctrine issues. Thus his “new” bible.

to be perfectly frank I’m not at all sure why we are talking on about Martin Luther in the first place. I’m not Lutheran, Nor do I use the KJV of the Bible except on rare occasions. Is he somehow supposed to be elevated to some pope-like figure or something? If you convince me ML is wrong about some particular topic, where does that get us that we are not at already?

Since I have been convinced Scripture is Truth and is God Breathed anything that does not agree with it must be incorrect.
Reply: could you supply a few examples please?

I meant that in a general sort of way didn’t have anything in particular in mind really. If you are hoping for a list of things I find Catholics to be in error on I would have to think on it for some time how to go about wording it. I have posted such lists before on CAF but always found them to cause surface discussions that never touched on the real heart of the matter. I can only assume that means Im not the best at wording such lists.

So I can “assume”, gosh I hate that word, that you agree with Pope JPII, and Pope Benedict, that as a statement of fact: "there can be only ONE truth for any specific issue. If you agree, and I take you at your word that the bible is inspiried by God and therefore MUST Be true, I can prove to you with Your bible (KJV) that you should be a Roman Catholic. Care to take me up on it?

umm Im not sure of the context of that comment by the pope… but there are not contradicting truths. There can be multiple truths but they will not conflict with one another. If you want to show me something by all means go ahead but do you have to use the KJV? Id prefer a version with more accuracy in translation and perhaps some modern day English.

Reply: are we speaking of the bible as being THE source of truth? Again if we are, you might acknowledge The TRUTH: The bible is a CATHOLIC book. Amen?

No, we are speaking of the Bible being A source of Truth. And as far as it being a Catholic book, that depends on your defintion of Catholic and/or what you mean by that in general.

relpy: Mine isn’t either, However my Understanding of what we believe and why we believe it is. Amen?

our Heritage in Jewish and Catholic things can have some influence on it.

Question: As the bible is a Catholic book, how do you gain your knowledge of God. How do you know what God wants and doesnot want?

Well I havent agreed that the Bible is a Catholic Book. However I know what God wants by paying attention to those things God reveals to me. That can happen in a variety of ways, including reading of scriptures and prayer.

The Bible cannot contain everything there is to know about Christ, and definitely not everything there is to know about everything.
A BIG Amen on that

Here I think your speaking of me, as I started the string. I know that I read the stat, but it’s my fault that I can’t find it. But the number really was not the issue, was it? On page 5 I think you will find a copy of my Google search which claims (I cut and pasted it) 34,000. So I was, and I am wrong on the stat. I’m truly sorry. But I was not being disengenious:blush:

I was no longer speaking of you as you had already apologized, Im sorry you still took it that way, I didnt mean it. As I said, I jsut get frustrated as it is a common thing to come up. I do not want to beat a dead horse so to speak so are we all settled on that?

 

[Syele]

Stop putting words in my mouth.If I’m wrong on the figure then I’m…well wrong or at the very least mistaken but,I will decide if I’m wrong,NOT you.I realise that this apparently is your PET PEEVE and you’re rather sensitive about it as would I be,if I were in your shoes.Please remember that you ARE NOT the final arbeiter of what is true or false.Remember it was YOU who accused Catholics of using the 35,000+ figure of deliberately lying or being duplicitous and that I admonished you.As for what you choose to believe,THAT I believe is YOUR business.

Oh good grief I never said to only believe me that its wrong I said to go look it up in one of the other 80 threads about it. Or you can look it up anywhere else too. You dont really think Im the only one who has info on this? Or you could ask where I got the info. You are the one saying Im expecting everyone to believe me cause I said so. I never said I was the final arbitrator of what is true or false I suggested you LOOK IT UP. You said maybe you jsut had wrong info. I said fine, then I dont think you are a liar, so you get mad cause I think you made a mistake, and say you insist the study is true so I agree to only talk to you as if its true and you are STILL mad at me.

So lets sum up:

1. You dont want me to think you are a liar.
   2, You dont want me to think you are misled.
2. You dont want me to think you think its true.
3. You dont want me to think you think its NOT true.
4. You refuse to look it up to find out if its true or not.

as far as I can tell there is NO WAY to have any conversation with you about it in ANY fashion.

 

[Della]

Reply, I sure have enjoyed and learned from this discussion with you. Thanks.

But if I may answer my own question?

I would suggest reading Mt. 16: 13-19. It’s clear, easy to read, and concise. It’s also the truth that anyone can find.

If need be I would offer a clear explaination that cannot be refutted on the text.

God bless,
PJM m.c.

I have enjoyed it too, thank you. :tiphat:

I assume you mean that we should point people to Mt. 16:13-19 and leave things at that? Been tried and doesn’t work. Believe me, those who do not want to believe in Peter’s commission as the first “pope” and the founding of the Church on the Apostles have all sorts of arguments against it, mostly dealing with the Greek translation of the words “petros” and “petra”. There have been lots of threads on this topic on CAF.

I try to answer people in language I believe they will understand/relate to. So, not everyone gets the very same phrases and explanations. What is most important is the openness of the person’s heart and mind. Without an open heart/mind no amount of words will convince anyone of anything no matter how plainly true it might be to those who have no ax to grind, no agenda to maintain.

 

[Soutane]

5.You refuse to look it up to see if it’s true or not.
I didn’t say that so don’t mischaracterise or misquote me.I said that I would not accept your “authority” for the veracity of the figure pro or con.When arguing or trying to make a point the strawman arguement is pretty desperate.Want the last word?

 

[Syele]

1. You refuse to look it up to find out if it’s true or not.

if you wanted to look it up, you could have looked it up hours ago instead of ranting at me that YOU will decide if you are wrong or not.

                 Originally Posted by **Soutane**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4350279#post4350279)                 
             If I'm wrong on the figure then I'm...well wrong or at the very least mistaken but,I will decide if I'm wrong,NOT you

I didn’t say that so don’t mischaracterise or misquote me.I said that I would not accept your “authority” for the veracity of the figure pro or con.When arguing or trying to make a point the strawman arguement is pretty desperate.Want the last word?

I DO NOT WANT YOU TO ACCEPT IT ON MY AUTHORITY I WANT YOU TO LOOK IT UP. I really dunno how to be more clear than that.

 

[hannitycatholic]

Because the Catholic Church was founed by Jesus Christ himself as shown by the incense and general intersessions in the mass and it has a more solemn feeling instead of that preachy Evangelical Protestantism. Do not get me wrong because i used to be Baptist, Episcopalian, and Presbyterian before I became Catholic.

 

[Soutane]

if you wanted to look it up, you could have looked it up hours ago instead of ranting at me that YOU will decide if you are wrong or not.

                 Originally Posted by **Soutane**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4350279#post4350279)                 
             If I'm wrong on the figure then I'm...well wrong or at the very least mistaken but,I will decide if I'm wrong,NOT you

I DO NOT WANT YOU TO ACCEPT IT ON MY AUTHORITY I WANT YOU TO LOOK IT UP. I really dunno how to be more clear than that.

How do you know I haven’t?What you really want is for me to agree with you.I’m certainly going to more than one source,but I’ll be sure to report back to you as soon as I can,Ma’am.(TUGS FORELOCK)

 

[Syele]

How do you know I haven’t?What you really want is for me to agree with you.I’m certainly going to more than one source,but I’ll be sure to report back to you as soon as I can,Ma’am.(TUGS FORELOCK)

I really don’t care if you agree with me or not. Your agreement or disagreement won’t change anything at all. I read the definition of Denominations and the denominations listed in Barretts study myself. I know I didn’t make it up Barrett did. You can believe I did if you like, no skin off my back I don’t even know you. If you want to talk about the study as though it were true then Im up for that too.

If Barrett is correct then I have some serious questions about the Catholic Denominations. If he is wrong then Im MORE agreement with Catholics than if he is right. But you have said nothing that makes it possible to discuss it with you.

If there are 35,000 denominations as per Barretts study then Catholicism is more screwed up than I ever imagined. And if that is the case then using the number as a way to prove Catholicism is the one true Faith really will never work because he has Catholics pretty divided too, that OR he has Catholics as one AND Protestants as ONE which causes as many troubles.

I’m only going by what I read. read it yourself. Its pointless to go on with you saying I’m claiming to be the arbitrator of what is true. Im only talking about what I read not making you believe anything. Either talk to me about the study or drop it. Im done with silly back and forth over nothing at all.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

All Protestants that believe in Sola Scriptura believe:
1- Christ is God
2- He died for our sins and rose again
3- the Trinity
4- salvation is found in Christ alone
5- man is fallen

How do you count the many non catholic christian denominations that dont?

 

[PJM]

I have enjoyed it too, thank you. :tiphat:

I assume you mean that we should point people to Mt. 16:13-19 and leave things at that? Been tried and doesn’t work. Believe me, those who do not want to believe in Peter’s commission as the first “pope” and the founding of the Church on the Apostles have all sorts of arguments against it, mostly dealing with the Greek translation of the words “petros” and “petra”. There have been lots of threads on this topic on CAF.

reply: In Aramaic , the language actually used by Jesus, Petra means “ROCK.”

I try to answer people in language I believe they will understand/relate to. So, not everyone gets the very same phrases and explanations. What is most important is the openness of the person’s heart and mind. Without an open heart/mind no amount of words will convince anyone of anything no matter how plainly true it might be to those who have no ax to grind, no agenda to maintain.

I agree completely with your summation. Thanks.

I feel that what I quoted is the “most solid base” from which to launch our truth, so I suggest it as a very prudent starting point. I would also explain what it say’s and not assume a proper Catholic truthful understanding of these passages, which make it’s truth even more evident and more difficult to deny. What you quoted was also extremely good. Again I thank you

God’s continued Blessings,
PJM m.c.

 

[Contarini]

If there are 35,000 denominations as per Barretts study then Catholicism is more screwed up than I ever imagined. And if that is the case then using the number as a way to prove Catholicism is the one true Faith really will never work because he has Catholics pretty divided too, that OR he has Catholics as one AND Protestants as ONE which causes as many troubles.

Apart from the sheer silliness of using a reference source to argue ecclesiology, your last statement makes no sense. Let’s say roughly that he has 33,000 denominations by counting one in each country, even if these “denominations” see one another as part of the same church. Thus, you have (again, speaking very roughly) 300 Catholic denominations. For the sake of argument, let’s say that there are also 300 Orthodox denominations, and that there may be several thousand other “denominations” that aren’t really Protestant. We still have 30,000 Protestant “denominations” divided by 300, which gives 100 Protestant denominations. One hundred different Christian groups stemming from the Reformation with significant theological, liturgical, or organizational differences, enough to keep them apart.

Now I think anyone familiar with the diversity of Protestantism will agree that this is actually a very low figure. It assumes that all the Protestant denominations are present in every country in the world, for one thing, which is clearly false. I could probably list more than 100 clearly separate Protestant denominations off the top of my head without trying very hard.

But Catholics would have a stronger case if they based their argument on the lowest possible number, which it’s safe to say is *at least *100. And that’s more than enough to make the point Catholics want to make.

So can we stop squabbling about numbers and talk about the very real problem of Protestant disunity?

Edwin

 

[Syele]

Apart from the sheer silliness of using a reference source

Im jsut tired of people using that stupid study that makes no sense.

to argue ecclesiology, your last statement makes no sense. Let’s say roughly that he has 33,000 denominations by counting one in each country, even if these “denominations” see one another as part of the same church. Thus, you have (again, speaking very roughly) 300 Catholic denominations. For the sake of argument, let’s say that there are also 300 Orthodox denominations, and that there may be several thousand other “denominations” that aren’t really Protestant. We still have 30,000 Protestant “denominations” divided by 300, which gives 100 Protestant denominations. One hundred different Christian groups stemming from the Reformation with significant theological, liturgical, or organizational differences, enough to keep them apart.

That isn’t how Barrett counted them. The whole thing makes no sense. I don’t see why people wont just use the 5,0000 Protestant denominations figure. That list at least makes some sort of sense.

Now I think anyone familiar with the diversity of Protestantism will agree that this is actually a very low figure. It assumes that all the Protestant denominations are present in every country in the world, for one thing, which is clearly false. I could probably list more than 100 clearly separate Protestant denominations off the top of my head without trying very hard.

Just use the 5,000 figure that makes sense? Or if you must use Barretts study take his largets PROTESTANT figure at over 8,000. Or jsut say there are TOO MANY. I dont care.

But Catholics would have a stronger case if they based their argument on the lowest possible number, which it’s safe to say is *at least *100. And that’s more than enough to make the point Catholics want to make.

That could easily work too.

So can we stop squabbling about numbers and talk about the very real problem of Protestant disunity?

Edwin

I was fine with pointing out the error and moving on, it was Soutane that said I was trying to be teh arbitrator of what is right and wrong.