Posted on 03/31/2004 10:31:28 AM PST by HarleyD
Thus, Barrett’s World Christian Encyclopedia, to be consistent with definitions, is correct to assume Catholic “denominations”.
Not really. While all of the various rights may appear different, some radically so, form the other rights, all are unified by their faith in Christ and His Church. Each right holds the same core beliefs about the sacraments, justification, sanctification and salvation. The same can not be said of all Protestant Churches.
Our self imposed divisions, Catholic and non-Catholic are just a sad fact of our unwillingness to fully cooperate with the will of God.
Well, you're not the target audience for these shenanigans.
SD
Maybe it's not cancer. Maybe it's a pathogen. Let it run its course and the body will recover. Treat it with strong antibiotics and you run the risk of creating more virulent strains.
As an aside I think that's what went wrong with our Republican Revolution, we bought into the incrementalism trap.
The biggest problem is that there are more Republicans than there are conservatives. And there is not a large enough consensus for radical change. So incrementalism is all we have. The people may say they want to cut gov't, but they really do like their programs.
SD
It's a very small "core" if you believe this.
SD
However, let's take a look at the "essential" unity in doctrinal beliefs among "Catholics.
Newsweek polls and surveys show that only 15% of Catholics believe they should always obey Church teaching, nearly as many Catholics think abortion is permissible as non-Catholics, and 75% of Catholics disagree with Church teaching forbidding divorce and contraception."
"Another study revealed that only 25% of Catholics now believe in the Real Presence and only 50% of the priests."
Catholic Belief In The Real Presence
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.
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.
SD
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.
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.
Of course there is.
For Protestants, those who do not accept core essential scriptural belief exclude themselves from scripturally-based Christianity.
For instance, an individual who concludes from his/her scriptural study that Jesus' only distinguishing quality was that he was a great moral teacher would not be considered to be Christian, let alone Protestant.
The question of whether Protestants are united in belief as to the Apostles' and Nicene creeds is, at this moment, being surveyed.
We're currently holding this discussion on another thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1108870/posts?page=42
Show me where each of these or any of these rites or churches differ with each other on dogma.
What are the "core, essential, scriptural beliefs"?
Probably. Can you tell me, in a few words, what the definition of "denomination" is meant to be in this study? That seems to be the sticking point.
The Catholic, correctly IMO, sees the question as one of both a shared doctrine and a shared leadership. All of the Catholic "denominations" you list share both the voluminous teachings of the Catholic Catechism and the leadership of the Pope.
Protestant denominations share neither a non-trivial core of teachings nor any leadership. Hence they are distinct.
SD
For Protestants, those who do not accept core essential scriptural belief exclude themselves from scripturally-based Christianity.
What are the "core, essential, scriptural beliefs"?
The Apostles'/Nicene creeds are a good representation of these beliefs.
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?
SD
Protestant denominations share neither a non-trivial core of teachings nor any leadership. Hence they are distinct.
The essential core of teachings shared by Protestants are indeed, non-trivial (they compose the beliefs of the Apostles' and Nicene creeds) and the head of our body of believers is Jesus Christ, Himself.Colossians 1:12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
,br>16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
For Protestants, those who do not accept core essential scriptural belief exclude themselves from scripturally-based Christianity. For instance, an individual who concludes from his/her scriptural study that Jesus' only distinguishing quality was that he was a great moral teacher would not be considered to be Christian, let alone Protestant.
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?
All other things being equal, I could believe them to be Christian, ... though not Protestant (they would likely reject Protestantism, themselves, as well).
SD
Yes but it's already been shown that there is not unity of belief on the nature or need of baptism, which is a part of both of these creeds. Your standard falls short.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.