The Reality of Romanism

The Riddleblog ^ | May 10, 2007 | Kim Riddlebarger

[George W. Bush]

The minute you take infallibility from the Church you end up putting it on yourself.

Ah, then you obviously believe that infallibility is not possessed by the pope but it is something conferred upon a bishop of Rome by the mere will of men, none of whom are themselves infallible and who often engage in political negotiations. In modern times the practice is not so obvious but there were once large fortunes and entire kingdoms exchanged in order to buy the power conferred upon popedom.

[Claud]

Did the Apostles teach infallibly?

[Risky-Riskerdo]

I’m trying to think who are you going to cite next in a race for less credible theologians, Howard Dean, Leon Trotsky, or Jim Jones?

Oh yes, in typical RC fashion, anyone and everyone who does not tow the RC line, including renowned RC historians such as Von Dollinger, Raymond Brown, or Michael Winter because they make honest statements of history that conflict with Rome's invented illusions, are demonized by trying to make a false association such as yours above.

Good job, that's how the marxists work.

[Risky-Riskerdo]

What Origin is condemning is praying to a pagan god, which Celsus has supposed may be angels, for fear such "angels" are, in fact, demons.

Yet, you cannot get past the fact that Origen, as Irenaeus and other church fathers explicitly condemned the practice of praying to any other than God, a practice that Rome embraced, in spite of "tradition".

What Rome does in reality is define "tradition", to be whatever it says it is at the time they want it to be, reserving the right to change it to suit other agendas as needed, regardless of the "new" tradition contradicting the old.

[Risky-Riskerdo]

Meant to ping you, too, and thank you for your very enlightening comments. I’ve learned a lot.

You may find the following comments as to the reality of Rome's most recent definition of "tradition", which is in conformity with the Gnostic view embraced by Mormonism as well.

Because it the lack of substantiation for many of Rome's dogmas and practices from Scripture and the early church fathers, Rome had to dispense with the pretense of the former definition of "tradition" stated at Trent, of the Vicentian Principle" or "unanimous consent of the fathers", to slowly develop it's latest 20th century re-definition, which we shall call: viva voce ecclesia romano, which translates to "whatever the Roman church says it is to suit the present agenda, but can change it at any time to suit a new agenda because the Roman church is the living voice of tradition".

Take for instance, the Assumption of Mary, a formal dogma, which Rome has declared belief in is an absolute necessity for salvation(which by the way, is a twisted, perversion of the Gospel preached by Christ, the Apostles, and the early Church), and is none other than a man-made "tradition" that would have made the Pharisees proud.

Rome sidesteps the absence of Biblical support, the absence of supporting evidence from the voice of the unanimous consent of the church fathers on the issue, by declaring the Roman church to be a "living voice" that can proclaim dogma regardless of those supports, just because it says it can.

Karl Keating states this new definition succinctly in saying it doesn't matter if there is no Biblical or patristic evidence, it's true because Rome says it is;
Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true---"Catholicism and Fundamentalism"; San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988, p. 275.

The LDS used the same irrational, "living voice of tradition"" to explain how the "perpetual doctrine of polygamy" as an absolute requirement for attaining the celesital kingdom, could be dispensed with just a few decades after it's institution by "divine revelation" by another "divine revelation" that commanded the ceasing of polygamy.

Roman Catholic historian, Joussard, dispenses with any support for the dogma of the Assumption of Mary from the patristics as being foolishness and not required, as cited from a Roman Catholic publication on Mariology;

In these conditions we shall not ask patristic thought-as some theologians still do today under one form or another-to transmit to us, with respect to the Assumption, a truth received as such in the beginning and faithfully communicated to subsequent ages. Such an attitude would not fit the facts...Patristic thought has not, in this instance, played the role of a sheer instrument of transmission.---Joussard, "L'Assomption coropelle", pp. 115-116. Cited by Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., Mariology, Vol. I; {Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955}

So goes the "new tradition", facts, Biblical and historic support from the early church fathers that Roman Catholic illusionists, on one hand, say Roman dogma and practice is supported by, are discarded when the "facts" stand in opposition to Rome's dogmas and practices, a classic case of sleight of hand rhetoric and doublespeak.

An interesting editorial note by the editors further reveals the historical and doctrinal sleight of hand being employed;

A word of caution is not impertinent here. The investigation of patristic documents might well lead the historian to the conclusion: In the first seven or eight centuries no trustworthy historical tradition on Mary's corporeal Assumption is extant, especially in the West. The conclusion is legitimate; if the historian stops there, few theological nerves will be touched. The historian's mistake would come in adding: therefore no proof from tradition can be adduced. The historical method is not the theological method, nor is historical tradition synonymous with dogmatic tradition.---Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., Mariology, Vol. I; [Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955], p. 154.

It is important to note that both Joussard and the editors, all Roman Catholics, correctly convey the new concept of viva voce ecclesia romano and candidly admit there is neither Apostolic or patristic support for the dogma of the Assumption of Mary, but dismisses it because:The historical method is not the theological method, nor is historical tradition synonymous with dogmatic tradition. This new concept is antithetical to the Vincentian Principle cited at Trent, and ultimately undermines the historicity of the Christian faith, by totally dismissing the important ingredient of history upon which the Apostolic Tradition recorded and preserved in Scripture is based on.

In conclusion, Rome has added a dogma for which their is no evidence for, and made it binding as absolutely necessary for salvation, on the basis of because Rome says so and none other, just the Pharisees who claimed to be the successors of Moses, used the same line of thinking when they accused Christ Jesus of using the power of Beelzebub to heal a paralytic man on the Sabbath which violated their "living voice of tradition".

[Frank Sheed]

What don’t you just PING the New York Phone book? It’s shorter!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

How Many Protestant Denominations Are There?
The 20,000 30,000 numbers and David Barrett’s statistics
How Many Protestant Denominations Are There?

by Dave1988 and others from the Catholic Answers boards

posted April 12, 2005 05:52 PM itsjustdave1988

Subject: Where does 36,000 denominations come from?

First, information from Catholic apologist and Evangelical convert Dave Armstrong —

There are indeed sources for these numbers and they are neither Catholic nor unscholarly. To summarize briefly:

According to the Dictionary of Christianity in America [Protestant] (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1990): “As of 1980 David B. Barrett identified 20,800 Christian denominations worldwide . . .” (”Denominationalism,” page 351). I have this book, so I have seen this with my own eyes. Barrett “classified them into seven major blocs and 156 ecclesiastical traditions.” This is from the Oxford World Christian Encyclopedia (1982) of which he is the editor. Also, according to the United Nations statistics there were over 23,000 competing and often contradictory denominations worldwide (World Census of Religious Activities [U.N. Information Center, NY, 1989]). This was cited in Frank Schaeffer’s book Dancing Alone (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Press, 1994), page 4. Schaeffer is Orthodox. The 1999 Encyclopedia of Christianity has this to say: “In 1985 David Barrett could count 22,150 distinct denominations worldwide.” (edited by E. Fahlbusch, et al., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999, vol. 1, p. 800, s.v. “Denomination”). Barrett is the statistical editor. Again citing the Oxford World Christian Encyclopedia (1982): “. . . a projected 22,190 by 1985 . . . The present net increase is 270 denominations each year (five new ones a week).” (pages 15-18)

The definition Barrett worked with was that a denomination was “an organized Christian Church or tradition or religious group or community of believers or aggregate of worship centers or congregations, usually within a specific country, whose component congregations and members are called by the same name in different areas, regarding themselves as an autonomous Christian church distinct from other denominations, churches and traditions.”

Now, this is where the figures ultimately come from. No doubt some Catholic apologists (even more well-known ones) use them as a kind of “folk truth” — having heard them bandied about, and we will examine some serious problems with them below. But that doesn’t mean the numbers were entirely made-up and arbitrary. As we see, this is untrue: they come from these sources.

From Dave1988 on the Catholic Answers boards —

33,000+ denominations of Protestantism and counting

I was at the library one day researching something, and I saw the much talked about Protestant reference, the World Christian Encyclopedia by David B. Barrett, George T. Kurian, and Todd M. Johnson (2001 edition). I thought I’d see for myself what it says. This is what I found....

David Barrett, et al, does indeed refer to “over 33,000 denominations in 238 countries.” (Table 1-5, vol 1, page 16). This refers to his unique definition of a “Christian denomination” but does not include small ones (congregations of a couple hundred or less), which would dramatically increase this number beyond all imagination. Barrett also states there are 242 total Roman Catholic denominations (year 2000 numbers). So I looked into what he believed these denominations were.

Barrett breaks down his encyclopedic reference by country. So I looked up how many Roman Catholic denominations are within the U.S. according to Barrett. Much to my surprise, Barrett shows ONLY ONE Roman Catholic denomination for the United States.

So I wondered where the heck are these 242 denominations? I looked in Barrett’s reference for Britain, and again he listed ONLY ONE Roman Catholic denomination. I thought surely that of the 238 countries within his encyclopedic reference there must be a country that had more than ONE Roman Catholic denomination. There wasn’t. I could not find one country listed by Barrett that had more than ONE Roman Catholic denomination.

So, what does Barrett mean when he states there are 242 Roman Catholic denominations? It seems Barrett is counting each country as it’s own denomination. So, for Barrett, the Roman Catholic Church of the USA is a different denomination than the Roman Catholic Church of Canada. I don’t know how he got 242 denominations from 238 countries listed, however. Some numbers from Barrett’s...

Denominations / Paradenominations:

1970: 26,350
1995: 33,820

Under U.S. Country Table 2, of the 6,222 US denominations, there’s only ONE Roman Catholic denomination listed, and there’s 60 Orthodox denominations. Barrett labels the rest of the denominations: Protestant, Anglican, Independent, and Marginal. The more commonly accepted classification of Christianity used even by Protestant scholars, such as Leslie Dunstan in his book Protestantism, Christianity consists of: (1) Catholic, (2) Orthodox, and (3) Protestant. So, using this more commonly understood classification....

Number of U.S. Denominations

Catholic 1
Orthodox 60
Protestant 6,161

Remember, the above numbers are derived using Protestant sources only. Barrett differs from other Protestants such as Dunstan as to what constitutes a Protestant denomination. What Dunstan would call Protestant, Barrett describes as:

Barrett’s classification:

Protestant 660
Anglican 1
Independent 5,100
Marginal 400

That’s just for the U.S. Yet, there’s but ONE Catholic denomination in the U.S., either by Dunstan or Barrett’s standard.

Another way of looking at it is not to use Barrett’s fuzzy understanding of denominations at all. What does Webster call a denomination? Let’s see... Webster calls a ‘denomination’ a “a religious organization uniting local congregations in a single legal and administrative body.” The category called “Protestantism,” since it does not actually “unite” any local congregation into a “single legal and administrative body,” is more accurately a grouping of denominations rather than a denomination, according to Webster’s definition. How does one know if their “denomination” is of the Protestant kind?

You might be a Protestant if....

(1) You believe the Bible consists of only 66 books
(2) You believe authority rests with Scripture Alone (Sola Scriptura)
(3) You believe justification is by Faith Alone (Sola Fide)

How many of the “denominations” listed by Barrett fall into this category? I’m betting over 33,000. Let’s look at it this way, of the 33,000 that Barrett classifies, which ones refute the pillars of Protestantism shown above? (a) Catholic Church, (b) Oriental Orthodox (5th century schism), (c) Eastern Orthodox (11th century schism). Any others? Perhaps I’ve missed a few. Even if you break apart the Orthodox Churches into separate Patriarchates (Bishops), that doesn’t reduce the BIG number of 33,820 by very much, does it? Some would say, “well that number is completely inflated” based upon Barrett’s fuzzy definition of “denomination.” On the contrary, I would say that it is a MUCH LARGER NUMBER of denominations using Webster’s definition of “denomination.”

Even within the Catholic Church, the most diverse forms of Catholicism, the Latin and Eastern Rite, share the same government, the same “religious organization uniting local congregations in a single legal and administrative body.” In other words, Canon Law for the Eastern Rite and Canon Law for the Latin Rite come from the same single government, chaired by the same Vicar.

In the U.S. the next largest so-called “denomination” after the Catholic Church is referred to as “Baptist” according to http://www.adherents.com/

Is this a single denomination by Webster’s use of the word? Can the Baptist denomination rightly be called a “religious organization uniting local congregations in a single legal and administrative body?” I don’t believe so.

I suspect the label ‘Baptist’ is yet another grouping of denominations like the word “Protestant,” since according to one Baptist scholar, every

“local Baptist parish church is a law unto itself. Its relations with other Baptists churches, its compliance with recommendations from national church headquarters, its acceptance of any resolutions formulated at regional , national, or international conventions — all these are entirely voluntary on the part of the parish church.” (Religions of America, Leo Rosten, ed.)

If it is true that every Baptist parish-church is a law unto itself, then isn’t every individual Baptist parish-church, according to Webster, its own legal and administrative body, its own denomination? I wonder how many Baptist parish-churches are in the world? I know there are too many to easily count here in Colorado Springs.

Are there any major denominations within Protestantism, for example Lutheranism, which can be correctly called a denomination by Webster’s usage? If so, I’m not familiar with them. Missouri-Synod Lutherans want nothing to do with the World-Lutheran-Federation Lutherans, for example.

Therefore, I believe 33,000 is a tragically conservative number of Protestant denominations IN THIS COUNTRY (U.S.) let alone in the world.

Anti-Catholic Evangelical apologist Eric Svendsen is quoting from an earlier edition of the same encyclopedic source. Unfortunately, if you’ve read Dave Armstrong’s article on the subject, you know that Eric Svendsen’s polemics fall flat upon its face (as usual). The beauty is, Svendsen still has not faced up to the fact that there is ONE Catholic Church listed for every country Barrett lists. Nor has he addressed the fact that all those “denominations” that use a 66-book Protestant Bible, and uphold the pillars of Protestantism (sola scriptura and sola fide) are PROTESTANT even if they claim otherwise. Calling themselves “non-denominational” may be a clever marketing technique, but the world (including Protestant authors) knows them as Protestants.

God bless,

Dave

“Lord, in my zeal for the love of truth, let me not forget the truth about love” — St. Thomas Aquinas

by Dave1988 and others from the Catholic Answers boards

[Frank Sheed]

Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church

[Risky-Riskerdo]

including one planet known to Romans as Lucifer

You are probably aware that is the planet Venus. I always thought it was interesting to read about Bishop Lucifer and his Luciferian heretics also. A fascinating little excursion into the ancient politics of the then-aborning Roman church.

In the development of the Roman Catholic religion, it cannot be overlooked that when Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire, replacing the religion of "Sol Invictus", Christians comprised roughly 10% of the Empire, but after Imperial decree commanded that all Roman citizens, under penalty of law, become Christian, there was a massive influx of pagans, including into the clergy which were then employees of the Empire, who were not truly born again Christians, but converts by mandate and of convenience because of the social and economic advantages that came along with conversion, especially within the ranks of the clergy.

[Risky-Riskerdo]

Wow Frank, impressive avoiding of the facts.

How long will it be before Roman Catholics are asserting that there are 85,000 Protestant denominations like I've seen so many times?

[Risky-Riskerdo]

And I suppose Risky-Riskerdo here in 2007 has the authority to make such a determination?

Yes, I do, as granted by God in the Scriptures.

The minute you take infallibility from the Church you end up putting it on yourself.

Oh, but I don't. You see the Church has to be in conformity with the Infallible Apostolic Tradition recored in the Scriptures on the essential elements of faith, which Rome is not.

Scripture, Christ Jesus and the Apostolic Tradition commands that Christians obey God rather than men claiming to represent God but imposes false doctrines and false teachings on the flock, demanding that they be believed and obeyed, blindly, less one forfeit all hope of attaining eternal life.

[Risky-Riskerdo]

rrelevant. George Washington never claimed to be the one, true, only church or the supreme leader of not only the church but the temporal world too.

Not irrelevant at all. It was claimed that devotion to St. Christopher showed the falsity of the Roman Church because of the dubious legends that grew around him.

In reality, what was put forth was that the cult of St. Christopher is but ONE of MANY reasons the Roman Catholic religion is false. Try to keep the facts straight.

The same exact argument could be made of any historical personage, Washington or anyone else.

Wrong, genetic fallacy by false association of facts.

[Risky-Riskerdo]

Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church

Which Rome has redefined and re-invented time after time to suits it's present agendas.

[Frank Sheed]

#367 is waiting, dude. Here is more.

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/07/reflections-on-tradition-sola.html

I could care less how many denominations you segment into. According to a post following this one, YOU claim you have the right to interpret Scripture “sole.” So, take the number of Protestants, multiply by the number of personal interpretations and you get a large number, huh?

Cheers!

[Frank Sheed]

You read all that in 15 minutes, huh! Guess you gave it the standard devotion to detail!

[Alex Murphy]

How long will it be before Roman Catholics are asserting that there are 85,000 Protestant denominations like I've seen so many times?

Only 85,000? You're behind the times, friend. We hit the one million mark just two scant months ago!

[Risky-Riskerdo]

Subject: Where does 36,000 denominations come from?

First, information from Catholic apologist and Evangelical convert Dave Armstrong —

LOL, from a well known illusionist who suffers from mental obsession, as well as a few other mental maladies.

“Lord, in my zeal for the love of truth, let me not forget the truth about love” — St. Thomas Aquinas

It's a shame that Aquinas didn't know the truth that he had been duped by deliberate fraudulent forgeries that invented "facts" and invented "history" and invented "citations" from church fathers and councils to create the illusion of Roman authority and supremacy from antiquity, before writing, Against the Errors of the Greeks., and defenses of the papacy, or he never would have written them.

[Risky-Riskerdo]

#367 is waiting, dude.

And there is a number waiting for you to stop avoiding.

Cherrio, laddie.

[Alex Murphy]

Subject: Where does 36,000 denominations come from?

Are you actually claiming that we added 3,000 new denominations just since last Thursday, Frank? Three days ago, you were reporting that we had only 33,000...

[Risky-Riskerdo]

Only 85,000? You're behind the times, friend. We hit the one million mark just two scant months ago!

Thanks for the update, with the ever changing tradition of Rome one must stay on constant alert for the next, new divinely appointed tradition that supplants and contradicts the older.

[adiaireton8]

Still waiting on your answer to the question in #345.

-A8