30,000 Protestant Denominations?

Calvary Press ^ | 2002 | Eric Svendsen

[broadsword]

Protestants are united in belief on the essentials of the gospel message.

What about homosexuality? What about gay "marriage"? What about living in carnal sin (shaking up)? What about dancing, drinking, card playing? What about abortion? You all have disagreements about these things. I have heard Various Protestant ministers bless these very things which are anathema to others. Do YOU bless any of these things? Do you think they are contrary to the essentials of the Gospel message?

We have anathematized no other believers.

I have heard so many Protestants anathematize ALL the others or pick certain groups of Protestants and say they are going to hell and that others are not Christian. Heck, there are protestants here on this forum who say that all who go and see the Passion are apostate idol-worshipers and at risk of going to hell just for seeing it.

We consider all believers to be part of the body of Christ.

Tell that to a typical Baptist (God bless them). Perhaps YOU believe that all Baptized Christians are a part of the body of Christ. But, in that, you certainly do not speak for all Protestants. You do, however, come closer to official Catholic belief on that matter.

... no Protestant alive today envies anything Catholic.

And how do you know what is in the mind and heart of EVERY Protestant, my friend? That's a pretty big and diverse group. One might safely say that there are Catholics who envy some things Protestant (I have heard them), and some Protestants who envy some things Catholic (I have heard them also).

The world is not as neat and clean as we would want. That would make it easier to understand, but it simply is not true. Protestants are extremely diverse in their views. So are Catholics, but there is an authority to tell us (Catholics) when we are wrong. You, my Protestant brother, have no such authority, because you can just interpret your authority however you want to according to your own personal wants and whims and weaknesses and strengths and moods and conveniences and momentary arguments. And if some pastor in your church says you are wrong, you can just go down the street to another pastor who says you are right. We Catholics cannot shop for our own "tolerable" version of Jesus. We are stuck with the version He gave us.

Whatever mistakes we all make, and we ALL make them, He is in charge, and He is infinitely loving, just and merciful. Together, you and I have hope in that.

God bless you, brother, and may we, by His mercy, embrace each other in heaven.

[Quester]

Whatever mistakes we all make, and we ALL make them, He is in charge, and He is infinitely loving, just and merciful. Together, you and I have hope in that.

God bless you, brother, and may we, by His mercy, embrace each other in heaven.

Whatever our disagreements, ... here we are agreed.

We may be more united (in heart) than either you or I imagine.

God's best to you also, my brother.

[broadsword]

The day is coming, my friend, when Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant and Jew will stand together with a wall at our backs and a bloodthirsty mob of Mohammedans in front of us. On that day, we will forget our petty differences.

When Islam takes the last city, you will be given the choice of a prayer rug or a coffin.

[Quester]

The day is coming, my friend, when Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant and Jew will stand together with a wall at our backs and a bloodthirsty mob of Mohammedans in front of us. On that day, we will forget our petty differences.

Amen, ... my friend.

[Quester]

See the other thread ... posts #59-66.

[conservonator]

I still don't see a reconciliation between those that believe in a merely symbolic baptism and those that believe in an efficacious baptism.

[HarleyD]

Stepping back and TRYING to look at this objectively and analytically (I’m an analyst by training) I would say Mr. Barrett classified Catholics and Protestants major heading through its dogma. Hence there are some (non-Roman) Catholics not included under the “Catholic” category probably because their dogma didn’t match that of Roman Catholics. Once the dogma was established and the major classifications defined, I believe Mr. Barrett defined denominations based upon the rites of the church.

The Catholic Church seems to have a much larger and defined set of dogma and a limited set of rites. IMO you see yourselves as not having denominations because everyone follows the large set of dogma and only deviates in minor places through the rites. These are trivial to you and do not affect your core dogma which is substantial. Consequently you see yourselves as one church.

Meanwhile, you Catholics level charges at us Protestants as saying we have no dogma and think we have 400,000 independent denominations floating around in the cosmos. Protestants just have a very limited set of dogmas and a much broader set of rites. The careful analysis presented in this report shows that Mr. Barrett was able to classify only 21 denominations as Protestant (verses 12 for the Catholic Church).

The argument as I see it is that Catholics bristle at the thought of having denominations since all the churches follow the core dogma which is substantial. On the other hand, we Protestants have found a teensy-weensy technicality and, of course, we’re exploiting it. :O)

From an analytical standpoint this to me is interesting. When the Catholics put down something like sola scriptura this riles us Protestants because you’re treading on a Protestant dogma. Hence, we go bonkers and put aside our different rites and go into combat mode. Since you Catholics have many dogmas there are lots of things us Protestants can do to drive you crazy. Baptism seems to be one of these issues since it is viewed in the Catholic Church as a dogma but in the Protestant church as a rite.

[Codie]

You have absolutely no one in charge either.If your in error,who reigns you in?

[OLD REGGIE]

In other words, they acknowledge their dissent and disobedience from Church teaching. This is different from claiming, as you do, that there is no Church teaching that is knowable.

This is a lie. Why do you persist?

Contrast that with the Protestant, who lives and dies by his own reading of Scripture. Barring insanity, there is no possiblity of dissent from your own internal authority. There is also no acknowledged doctrinal unity, beyond bromides.

Names?

[biblewonk]

The Catholic church is the only place to learn the truth about Mary.

[biblewonk]

The Catholic Church is the Rock on which Jesus build His church.

[OLD REGGIE]

REG, as soon as Newsweek polls and the disobedience of individuals become sources of infallible doctrine, you may have a point.

Allow me to quote Quester once again.

"Protestants are united in belief on the essentials of the gospel message."

Do you see anything there which would indicate "infallible" or "required" doctrine? While I may not have worded it exactly the same as Quester it is clear he used the qualifier "essentials of the gospel message". In your haste to find a "gotcha" you took a leap beyond logic.

I pinged nate on the other thread to find out what non-Catholic definition he prefers to use. And one exception does indeed disprove the rule.

An exception to what? A generalization?

[conservonator]

You, Quester and every other non-Catholic Christian can sing your unity song until your voice gives out. But you can not change the reality that there is no unity on the essentials of the Gospel message.

Is baptism symbolic or efficacious? That is an essential. Is Christ present in communion? That is essential. Did Christ die for all men or some preordained men. That is essential.

Or have you redefined the word "essential"? Talk about a leap beyond logic to arrive at a "gotcha" conclusion.

[OLD REGGIE]

What if one's reading of Scripture causes him to question whether Jesus was divine or not? Would such a person not be a "Christian" or "Protestant" in your estimation?

What if one were baptized as a Catholic, and was for a period of time a practicing Catholic, and his reading of Scripture caused him to abandon Catholicism, to deny the Real Presence, Immaculate Conception. Bodily Assumption, Papal Infallibility, etc. Would this person be a "Catholic" in your estimation?

[SoothingDave]

This is different from claiming, as you do, that there is no Church teaching that is knowable.

This is a lie. Why do you persist?

Why don't you read your own posts? You continually trot out your platitude that all Catholic dogma is written in a way that it is ultimately deniable. This means that it is unknowable, if it has no definite meaning.

Stand up for your own words.

SD

[SoothingDave]

What if one were baptized as a Catholic, and was for a period of time a practicing Catholic, and his reading of Scripture caused him to abandon Catholicism, to deny the Real Presence, Immaculate Conception. Bodily Assumption, Papal Infallibility, etc. Would this person be a "Catholic" in your estimation?

Everybody who is baptised Catholic is irrevocably marked as a Catholic. But such a person, to say the least, would not be a member in good standing. A first generation protester against the faith is the most culpable of those caught up in the Protestant revolt.

SD

[Quester]

You, Quester and every other non-Catholic Christian can sing your unity song until your voice gives out. But you can not change the reality that there is no unity on the essentials of the Gospel message.

Is baptism symbolic or efficacious? That is an essential. Is Christ present in communion? That is essential. Did Christ die for all men or some preordained men. That is essential.

Or have you redefined the word "essential"? Talk about a leap beyond logic to arrive at a "gotcha" conclusion.

We are aware that Protestants and Catholics disagree as to what is essential belief.

If we agreed with you, we would, likely, be Catholics.

Protestants regard none of the differing opinions on the points you have mentioned as violations of our unity.

Catholicism does not decide what we hold to be essential ... we base that on the scriptures.

So, while you may disagree ... we agree ... and enjoy the unity borne of that agreement.

God bless.

[RnMomof7]

I have read this article before.

But you know what ? Those that hate protestants do not care...they will just sit in their error and gloat.

[MEGoody]

LOL. So in other words, in order to 'boost' their 'apologetics,' Catholics will define the term 'Protestant' to best suit their purposes.

By the way. . .

"Mainstream protestant clergy that refuse to vote against abortion??? Ordain openly Homosexual ministers???"

A member of a church that has covered up pedophilia for years should be a bit more careful throwing stones.

[MEGoody]

"What about homosexuality? What about gay "marriage"? What about living in carnal sin (shaking up)? What about dancing, drinking, card playing? What about abortion? You all have disagreements about these things."

So do the priests/bishops in the RC. What's your point? Just because the pope has one belief on these issues doesn't mean that is what is being taught by priests/bishops throughout the RC.

As an example, I would point you to the RC parishes in San Francisco who openly welcome homosexuals and have even performed 'blessing of the union' ceremonies for them.