[RnMomof7]

It seems every time we have a discussion on Doctrine this number or a similar one pops up.

[RnMomof7]

BUMP

[Notwithstanding]

1. All "Catholics" accept the pope as the authritative leader and teacher for all Christians. Thus there are no denominations within Catholicism. There are various ways to follow Christ under the leadership of the pope - but there is a unity of leadership, belief, morality, doctrine and the essentials of worship (sacraments). These are not denominations at all.

2. All other groups claiming to follow Christ rejected papal leadership at some point. These groups have all splintered continuously as differences of opinion and belief occured, such that denominations do in fact come into existance ad inifnitum - all claiming to believe whatever they wish while also claiming to follow Christ and the Bible with no need for any visible unity with the others. There is clearly no unity of leadership, belief, morality, doctrine or worship (there can't be as there are endless possible interpretations of every scripture passage). The essence of Protestantism is that one is free to reject what one personally feels is not compatible with scripture - and that one's personal feelings on any given matter trump any Church doctrine.

3. The only unity among Protestants denominations is that they reject Catholicism as the way to follow Christ. Beyond that, the doctrinal differences among the thousands of Protestant congregations are endless to the point of absurdity. There is no way to list all of the varying manifestations of Protestantism as the act of the original "protesting" legitimized any future "protest" - and we all know the "protesting" continues as new congregations open every week all over the USA (and elsewhere), formed by people who rejected the teaching of their former congregation.

[Theresa]

"and for (7) Roman Catholic, there are sixteen traditions, including Latin-rite local, Latin-rite catholic, Latin/Eastern-rite local, Latin/Eastern-rite catholic, Syro-Malabarese, Ukrainian, Romanian, Maronite, Melkite, Chaldean, Ruthenian, Hungarian, plural Oriental rites, Syro-Malankarese, Slovak, and Coptic. It is important to note here that Barrett places these sixteen Roman Catholic traditions (i.e., true denominations) on the very same level as the twenty-one Protestant traditions (i.e., true denominations). "

Uh uh! Nope. I don't think so. These are rites. Rites means ritual not belief. They wear different vestments and have different practices but it's really not a denomination. Its not like they ever split off from Rome, they just developed organically as rites in their own cultures, with the Church of Rome as their head. But no these are not denominations IMHO. I am a Catholic of the Roman rite. Another may be a Catholic of the Coptic rite. We are both of the same Catholic Church that is based in Rome. Somebody correct me if I am wrong here.

As for the charismatics, or evanglical Catholics and the like, those are "movements" that are IN the Catholic Church. They just emphasize certain things. They are not spilt from the Catholic Church and not split from all other Catholics.

[Theresa]

I think I am right about rites: From the Catholic Encyclopedia

"But, supposing uniformity in essentials and in faith, the authority of the Church has never insisted on uniformity of rile; Rome has never resented the fact that other people have their own expressions of the same truths. The Roman Rite is the most, venerable, the most archaic, and immeasurably the most important of all, but our fellow Catholics in the East have the same right to their traditional liturgies as we have to ours. Nor can we doubt that other rites too have many beautiful prayers and ceremonies which add to the richness of Catholic liturgical inheritance.

A list of Catholic rites:

The liturgical languages used by Catholics are:

1. Latin in the Roman, Milanese, and Mozarabic Rites (except in parts of Dalmatia).

2. Greek in the Byzantine Rite (not exclusively).

3. Syriac in the Syrian, Maronite, Chaldean, and Malabar Rites.

4. Coptic in the Coptic Rite.

5. Armenian by all the Churches of that rite.

6. Arabic by the Melchites (Byzantine Rite).

7. Slavonic by Slavs of the Byzantine Rite and (in Glagolitic letters) in the Roman Rite in Dalmatia.

8. Georgian (Byzantine Rite).

9. Rumanian (Byzantine Rite).

All are Catholic!

[Theresa]

Let's just put it this way. If a census was taken and one of the questions was: Are you a Christian? the Christians answer would be YES. Then if asked what denomination the Catholic would answer, Catholic. The Protestant would say, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, Seventh Day Adventist, Bible Christian, Church of Christ, Baptist, Nazerine, Episcopal and any number of denominations starting with the word REFORMED.

[IGNATIUS]

The differences separating major Protestant denominations are not trivial.

Am a "cradle" Methodist whose parents left this church in the 50's when it became infiltrated with top communist clergy promoting a vacuous so-called social gospel.Five years of Southern Baptist "once saved--always saved" plus endoftheworld datesetting Rapture nonsense was enough.Church of Christ really tried to get it right with weekly communion,accapella singing,and acceptance of reality one can lose salvation ie works/behavior matters.However Christianity "started" in the 1700's with the Alexander Campbell.

Have been Eastern Orthodox for fifteen years.I am welcomed at any ethnic parish as we share doctrine and all utilize the stirring 1600 year old Liturgy of St.John Chrysostom.Eucharist is served at each liturgy.The overwhelming beauty and mystery of the ancient sacraments,feasts,iconography,fasts,scripture readings,services and music are but thinly sketched in Protestantism.The subtle yet strong emphasis upon the remembrance of death and judgement gives strength to bear life's cross with courage and to constantly temper one's behaviour.

Please come,visit and worship with us next years Pascha service typically 2-4 wks after Western Easter---or anytime for that matter.

[ppaul]

When this figure first surfaced among Roman Catholic apologists, it started at 20,000 Protestant denominations, grew to 23,000 Protestant denominations, then to 25,000 Protestant denominations. More recently, that figure has been inflated to 28,000, to over 32,000.

So?
Who gives a rip?
(besides this guy?)

[restornu]

Wow! 30,000 protestant denonminations on different paths

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

It's this way, no it's that way, Oh,have it your way:)

[Notwithstanding]

It is really quite simple:

The pope has final authority for all matters of discipline and doctrine for ALL Catholic communities worldwide. Does he use it to the extent that could? Not always. But that does not mean that it does not exist.

Amongst the other myriad non-Catholic versions of following Christ, there is no pretense (not even a desire) for a real unity of belief and discipline and doctrine (such unity is neither practical nor attempted). It is something "you" don't even care about, so I do not understand why you even chose to make this an issue.

[Iowegian]

Great post Mom. The RC's who posted here seem to have either:
1) Not read the entire article.
2) Missed the point of it completely.
3) Are in a total state of denial.

Take your pick.

[big'ol_freeper]

Oh goody...there are only 8,000 protestant "popes" instead of 25,000. Of course each has its own unique "take" on scripture interpretation...of course each one claims to be THE correct interpretation. What a totally weak argument this quack proposes in his article.

[Claud]

What you call a rite we would call a denomation :>)

It's not the same, RN.

#1. Members of the various denominations often cast each other out of communion--I know the Anglicans cast out the Puritans and George Fox and the Quakers. The denominations are as far as I understand, stem from deliberate breaks of communion and often doctrine. This is not the case with the Catholic rites--they grew out naturally side-by-side together and where there was no heresy, there was no break in communion.

#2. As Theresa so eloquently said, every rite in the Catholic Church believes the same thing. Any rite that accepted the teeniest tiniest heresy would by definition cease to be Catholic.

[Celtman]

Back to the original thrust of this thread ...

      I believe the article does a good job of debunking the idea that there are 25,000 Protestant denomination. 

      However, even taking the "8,196-denominations" figure - so what?  (As the article suggests.)
      Many evangelical and fundamentalist churches, including some of the largest congregations, are truly independent and non-denominational.  That is, they do not belong to any denomination, convention, or association of churches.  This does not mean that they believe that they are the only "true" church, or that they do not have fellowship and cooperation with other churches.  It does not mean that they have devised their own unique doctrine.  It does mean that they accept no earthly authority on doctrine, although they do consider and study the teachings and expositions of others. 
      Should these churches be considered as there own separate denominations? 
      There are many other churches which are "denominational", but independent.  They have formally (and voluntarily) joined in a group under a common name - but they, as well, accept no earthly authority on doctrine.  The individual congregations are not subject to any denominational authority, and are free to withdraw from the denomination at any time. 

      I believe that the remarkable thing is that these churches, while having some doctrinal differences (sometimes with heated disputes), generally agree on core issues.  This is not ararchy - it is the result of the recognition of the same King by all. 

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

And of course, we all know that this list can be supplemented by distinctions between moderate Roman Catholics (represented by almost all Roman Catholic scholars), Conservative Roman Catholics (represented by Scott Hahn and most Roman Catholic apologists), Traditionalist Roman Catholics (represented by apologist Gerry Matatics), and Sedevacantist Roman Catholics (those who believe the chair of Peter is currently vacant).

This quote caught my eye.

As one who follows their respective careers, I would point out that Matatics and Hahn were best friends at (protestant) Seminary, of course. Just for my personal benefit, has anyone yet figured out whether or not Gerry Matatics is a Communicant Conservative Roman Catholic, or a Schismatic Traditionalist Sedevacantist Catholic?

• Matatics himself says that he is not a Sedevacantist, and that his numerous associations and speaking engagements with Traditionalists are NOT schismatic in any material sense (and certainly not formally schismatic).
• Meanwhile, Karl Keating and the gang over at Catholic Answers, having studied Matatics' associations and writings in depth, insist that Matatics is a Traditionalist, a materially-schismatic Sedevacantist in essence, and is formally schismatic in all but name (did you catch all that? grin...)

Which almost begs the (rhetorical) question: Are you a Sedevacantist schismatic when you say that you are, or when the rest of "Conservative Catholicism" says that you are??

I ask partly out of academic interest. I have read both Hahn and Matatics, and as a debater, Matatics is by far the superior Apologist (mind you, I speak only my own personal opinion, as a former scholastic and collegiate Debater of some minor accomplishment).

I have read plenty of the writings of both Matatics and Hahn, and transcripts of each; and I know the sort of preparation which goes into a formal Debate. If I were, for some unfathomable reason, compelled to debate Dr. Scott Hahn on a specific and pre-defined doctrinal proposition (anyone wanna offer me an extended paid vacation and clear it with my employer?), I think that I could adequately prepare myself given the space of about two weeks. I would certainly need to call upon the input of such professional Presbyterian apologists as Steve Wilkins, Brian Abshire, Steve Schlissel, and of course the indefatigable Tristan Emmanuel (sigh -- some Presbyterians are predestinated to get the COOLEST names); I'd be doing myself a dis-service if I did not call on Baptist Apologists James White and Richard Bennett.

And I am not so arrogant as to deny the real possibility that Hahn would wipe the floor with my amateur hide!!

"It really don't matter if I lose this fight. It really don't matter if this guy opens my head, either. 'Cause all I wanna do is go the distance. No one's ever gone the distance with Creed, and if I can go that distance, you see, and that bell rings and I'm still standing, I'm gonna know for the first time in my life, see, that I weren't just another bum from the neighborhood."

But on the other hand, I've read Hahn's stuff. His arguments are too rote. His thinking is too hidebound. I'm reminded of some advice my collegiate Debate Coach once gave me in before a round with a (seeming) Debate Juggernaut team from another school -- "They don't know anything they're not prepped for. They can't think on their feet. Get them off their blocs (that's "debate lingo" for taking someone outside the box of their pre-formatted Arguments) and they will FOLD like a weak bluff."

That's the way that Scott Hahn's arguments read -- to me, anyway. Too rote. Too hidebound. Give me two weeks prep-time with the best minds in Protestant Apologia, and I am not the most incompetent Debater around. I think I could at least "go the distance".

But Matatics?? What, are you freakin' kidding me? I've read Matatics. The guy is not only knowledgeably erudite, he is intellectually sharp -- keen as a bloody straight-razor. He's both as thoughtful in his preparation, as he is innovative in his composition and presentation -- a ruthless combination. Two weeks? Gee, thanks but no thanks. Two weeks and I'm a lamb to the slaughter. Two months would be scarcely enough.

But of course, this (entirely-hypothetical) scenario is entirely MOOT if the best Mind in Roman Catholic apologetics alive today (Gerry Matatics, in only-my-own-personal-opinion) is NOT EVEN A ROMAN CATHOLIC but rather a schismatic Traditionalist Sedevacantist.

So, I know that the Roman Catholic Church has a LOT on its plate these days, but once you guys figure out whether or not so-called Roman Catholics like FReeper "Theresa" (who basically affirm that modern Jewish Pharisees can go to their graves blaspheming Jesus Christ and yet be saved) represent the "Truth of Rome", can somebody get back to me and tell me whether or not Gerry Matatics is still a communicant and faithful Roman Catholic?

I personally think that he's one of the best "Roman Catholic" apologists in the world (if not the best), but then Karl Keating tells me that Matatics is not even a Roman Catholic at all -- but rather an SSPX Sedevacantist Schismatic.

It's all very confusing.

---

All that said, I've another observation to make -- rather a funny one. Well, "funny" in the sense of black humor, at least.

When one reads the Roman Catholic Apologia-by-Testimonial book "Surprised by Truth", it's like reading a Codex of the Roman Front Line of public Apologetics in the World today.

And what does one find, when one studies the roster of modern Roman Apologists? Let us see...

Gerry Matatics
Scott Hahn
James Akin
Marcus Grodi
Robert Sungenis
Paul Thigpen
Steve Wood
TL Frazier

What does one find when one studies the modern codex of Roman apologia? What "distinguishing characteristic" unites the vast bulk of Public Roman Apologists in the world today?

To a man they are all Lapsed Presbyterians.

Every single one of 'em.

Granted, "Surprised" does throw in one well-known Apologist Roman ex-Baptist (Tim Staples), as well as one Ex-Jew (in Calvinist circles, we'd call him a completed Jew -- if he were Calvinist, that is) and one ex-Evangelical "Jesus Freak", but eight out of eleven testimonial cases are former Calvinist Continental Reformed and/or Calvinist Presbyterians. (You might add "cradle-Catholic" Karl Keating as a prominent modern public Catholic Apologist, but of course Keating has said he is not a good public debater and refuses public debates).

Some of these lapsed Presbyterians repudiate their Calvinism; others (such as James Akin, "Tiptoe through the TULIPS") seek to find a place for their Calvinism within the Roman Thomist-Augustinian tradition ("a double-minded man"??).

But nonetheless, essentially the Entire Front Line of Roman Apologetics in the Public Forum of the world today are basically a gaggle also-ran Presbyterians.

I'm pretty sure that one of us should be embarassed by this, Polycarp....
...but I'm honestly not sure which -- you or me!! (lol)

But, methinks it's an interesting tidbit.

Question: Whaddya call a second-rate Presbyterian Apologist who lapses from his faith?
Answer: A first-rate Roman Catholic Apologist!!

Just grist for the mill.... best, OP.