Are there really 30,000 Protestant denominations? Evangelicals say this Catholic apologetical claim is bogus.
A fellow who converted from Catholicism to one of the Anglican sects says he is an objective student of the Catholic faith, and that he has done his homework, gathered the facts, sorted it all out and decided that the one true faith is an Anglican sect called the Anglican Church of North America. (This should not be confused with the Anglican Catholic Church or the Anglican Orthodox Church or the Orthodox Anglican Church or the Traditional Anglican Communion--or any of the other 100 or so Anglican "churches" listed here. (BTW, I should point out that this webpage is not compiled by biased Catholic apologists, but is part of the bona fide Anglicans online information page.)
I have asked John why his particular Anglican church should be the right one and the others wrong, and he has come up with some sort of criteria, but then we have to ask, "Who decided on the criteria?" So the circular reasoning goes on.
Anyhow, for anyone who would like evidence--that would be hard, scholarly evidence not biased by some sort of Catholic apologetical viewpoint, I recommend that you check out this webpage. That is if you want the facts. If you want to continue trading in hyperbole, half truths and propaganda--well don't check it out. Among other sources you'll find that the numbers are gathered by a very scholarly gent named Barrett who is not a Catholic apologist and has no axe to grind, and in fact is a former Anglican missionary.
So what shall we do with the claim that there are many "Catholic" churches?--Liberal, Traditional, etc etc? There is but one Catholic Church united in faithfulness to the magisterium and the teaching of the Holy Father. There are, however, we must admit--many groups and individuals within that church who are disobedient to the Holy Father and rebellious against the full teaching of the Church. Their existence does not invalidate the full teaching of the Catholic faith. Instead it validates it as darkness validates light. The disobedience and unfaithfulness of some Catholics shows the unity of the church, and that unified teaching exists--otherwise there would be nothing for the disobedient Catholics to rebel against.
The existence of unfaithful Catholics simply proves the existence of the true faith--which is a rock over which some will stumble and a rock which, for others, will be a stepping stone.
If anyone wants to find what the teaching of this true church is it is easily found in the Catechism and the teaching documents of the church and the teaching documents of the Holy Father. This is a simple task for anyone who wishes to discover the truth.
A new Protestant denomination is born everytime some joker gets a notion to preach and opens a store front. It's probably more than 30,000.
ReplyDelete"Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
ReplyDeleteflyingvic,
ReplyDeleteOk. Now what do you think that passage of scripture means in the light of fathers post?
There will be one flock and one shepherd.
ReplyDeleteI pray, Father, that they may be one as you and I are one
Scripture (alone) itself absolutely shows that there is no justificattion (pun intended) for there ever being any more than ONE Church (Ecclesial communion). This is the real point in my mind. Even if there were only 2 or 3 Protestant denominations then something is very wrong. Many protestants use the argument that the 30,000 denominations number is wrong as a way of avoiding the point that there should not be any more than ONE-period.
ReplyDeleteThe simple and obvious interpretation is that the presence of Jesus is paramount to the Christian community. If Jesus is present among two or three according to promise, who is to say that that is not the Church? Do you seek that unity for which Jesus prayed in the name and presence of Christ? Or do you seek to exclude from your church of Christ those with whom you disagree?
ReplyDeleteThere were (quite clearly in Scripture) several different churches/'ecclesial communions' in New Testament times. Some grew wherever St Paul went to preach the Gospel. Seven were obviously well-known to the writer of Revelation, speaking to them long after the death of St Peter.
What is interesting to me is the degree to which the Christian variants claim to be returing to the Primitive Church. The claim is very explicit with new American religions like the Jehovah's Witnesses and LDS, but of course runs through every claim back to Luther and Henry VIII.
ReplyDeleteProblem is, the further back you go, the more the Primitive Church sounds Catholic. It is ironic that, even as a local Bible church claims to be simple and pure, they are easily seen to be part of a late innovation to Christian worship practice.
Flyingvic: You being a learned person, do not seem to know your church history.
ReplyDeleteUt unum sint!
ReplyDeletein my lifetime? I would NEVER have expected to see the ordinariate BEFORE more of the Orthodox coming home.
I have seen , been taken by, and repeated, but Im not sure about , as an intriguing notion
that many founders of ...whatever you want call them, are people who would IN the church have founded diverse spiritualies , such as , say, plain catholics, opus dei, carmelites, jesuits....... that immense variety that FR has often posted about,could-have-been-newmans, as twere, as opposed to the rather horrible (and rather Anglican?)and, Godsend, rather temporary idea of internal churches for relative degrees of ...Hmm heresy and apostasy?
(personally how owt other than a, ONE, church of sinners, elsehow where could I fit in ?
(not intending to confuse "He loves us as we are" with "He wants us to stay that way"))
Vic,
ReplyDeletePositing an either/or in this situation presents the false dilemma fallacy. It's one of presumption that questions the motivation behind the writer. You say...
"Do you seek that unity for which Jesus prayed in the name and presence of Christ? Or do you seek to exclude from your church of Christ those with whom you disagree?"
There are other options, the most obvious being one who seeks consistency in teaching and thought, and recognizing that a hierarchical, apostolic church provides the best safeguard to preserve what Christ taught.
TM, I think you miss my point. Many adherents of the Church of Rome - some of whom have been found commenting here from time to time - claim not only that they are part of the one true church but that non-catholics are not real christians. Thus they themselves illustrate the alternatives that I posited. Of course there are other possibilities; but put in its extreme form, as here, the tendency to exclude is revealed, that in spite of Jesus' promise he is not really with you unless you're Roman Catholic.
ReplyDeleteThe deeper question remains: what did Jesus mean by "that they may be one"?
Bernie, I freely admit my ignorance; but which bit of church history are you talking about?
ReplyDeleteWell if you want to use Barrett then you also agree with him that there are 243 or so Catholic Denominations. Also another study on Institutions, done by Oxford UNI on who are the worst and guiltiest as far as Crimes against humanity, Genocide, Persecution and mass murder, the Roman Catholic Church was 5th on that list. IF the Catholic Church was indeed what it claimed to be IT SHOULDN'T even BE on that list, BTW FR. Longenecker just Google "Jasenovac Concentration Camp" and "Vatican Ratlines".
ReplyDeleteI never said the Anglican Church is "the one true Church" I said that to me the Anglican Church, the orthodox one, is to me from what I have read is the closest we have to the early Church, Baptists, Evangelicals, Lutherans (LCMS) orthodox Presbyterians (opc, pca) are also Christians.
Why didn't state the criteria in your Blog post? It's the criteria the Anglican Reformers set and has been the historic criteria of what Anglicanism is, anyone who claims to be Anglican must follow that in order to be a valid authentic Anglican. I will state them again
1. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as the inspired written Word of God
2. The Historic Book of Common Prayer (1662) and local versions directly based on it with the Ordinal
3. The 39 Articles of Religion.
As long as anyone who says they are Anglican holds to these criteria then they are authentic Anglicans.
That second web link you gave was to something Dave Armstrong wrote, puleeze, no one in the Protestant Apologetics community takes him seriously.
On a serious note I really wish that Roman Catholic claims were true, but unfortunately they are not, nothing I have read or heard supports those claims, it really does break my heart.
John, the 234 'Catholic denominations' on closer inspection are actually different national churches which are all in communion with the Holy See. Which means they are not self determining.
ReplyDeleteIt is good to hear that you don't claim that your little Anglican Church is the one true church, but if it isn't, then why join it?
I think what you're saying is, "We're the one true ANGLICAN Church." Errr. That's what the other hundred or so Anglican sects claim too. Why should you be right and them wrong? You hold to certain historic documents? They do too--they just interpret them differently.
John, all that I have read supports the claims of the Roman Catholic Church. What on earth have you been reading?
ReplyDeleteVic, the early church fathers. Clement, Ignatius of Antioch, etc. Before the Catholic Church codified the New Testament.
ReplyDeleteOK, Bernie; so where, in talking about New Testament times, did I mention incorrectly, or fail to mention appropriately, Clement or Ignatius, for example? And what influence did they have when St Paul was preaching in different cities and founding churches there?
ReplyDeleteVic, please excuse my density, but you've lost me.
ReplyDeleteBernie: I made a comment about the history of the church in New Testament times; you said I didn't know my church history; I asked which bit it was that I didn't know; you mentioned the early church fathers, Clement and Ignatius; I enquired about the relevance of Clement and Ignatius to the history of the church in New Testament times. Your call!
ReplyDeleteVic, Ignatius of Antioch was a bishop after John the Apostle, Clement after Peter. Both knew apostles and were catechised by the Apostles or those who knew Apostles. They knew the efforts towards unity and ALLEGIANCE TO ROME. Both confirm what Jesus said, "that they may be one as You and I are One." I think your comments may be specious. You are definitely smarter than that.
ReplyDeleteAnneg, Pat said that there was no evidence in scripture for there being more than one 'ecclesial communion'. I said that there was plenty of evidence in scripture that there was: St Paul's letters address different problems in different churches reflecting different beliefs and interpretations - and his answers appear to be more 'ad hoc', off-the-cuff, replies rather than a mere trotting out of 'the party line; and St John clearly addresses himself to seven quite different churches without the slightest suggestion that 'this is what Rome (or anywhere else) says'. In that context it is the introduction of Clement and Ignatius into the argument that is irrelevant, not my answer that is specious.
ReplyDeleteflyingvic,
ReplyDeleteI think what it comes down to, as it often does, is that the proof-text you quote is true, but not the whole of the Truth. It is true that wherever 2 or 3 gather, Jesus will be there. However, Jesus also desires that we be one as He and the Father are one. These two truths - along with the multitude of other truths that make up Christianity - cannot be separated from each other.
So, God will be wherever we gather together. He promised as much. But He still desires us to be one. So if we are satisfied with division, then we are satisfied with denying God. Jesus does not just say that He desires us to be together, or kind of united. He desires us to be one as He and the Father are One. If our view of that unity accommodates the state of Christian theological unity as it now stands, that's a rather un-unified Trinitarian theology.
WitW, I don't honestly deal in proof texts in the way that some people seem to hurl them at each other; but I do try to give full value to words of scripture that appear to be particularly relevant to the case in point. If we're going to try and reconcile two passages drawn from Matthew and John, then we need to be especially careful!
ReplyDelete"It is not for these alone [the disciples] that I pray, but for those also who through their words put their faith in me. May they all be one; as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, so also may they be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. The glory which you gave me I have given to them, that they may be one, as we are one; I in them and you in me, may they be perfectly one."
The unity, then, is in Christ, and is not restricted to those gathered around him at the Last Supper. It seems to me, then, that this gives us direction: our first duty as Christians is to become more Christ-like, and the more Christ-like we all become, the closer to each other we will have grown. Certainly we should work to break down the barriers that we have erected between churches; but it would be artifial simply to seek to create a single mega-denomination without first growing closer to Christ.
If Christians everywhere were more Christ-like, who could deny that God was being glorified in him?