Your comment; “My own opinions do not rest upon my own authority, but rest upon facts — as best as those are able to be determined, not only by myself, but others too (of Christian faith) seeing very much the same truths, agreeing — yes, that’s what the Bible reads as, and that’s how it was intended to mean, and this or that way how various notable persons in the early history of the Christian Church viewed things in their own era, etc.”
So to some extent your opinions are then based on the teachings of the Catholic Church (early fathers) except where you or your church disagreed with the teachings of the Catholic Church in the form of heresy. The protestant churches do not recognize the infallibility of the Pope and the Magisterium and accordingly everything is fallible and just personal opinion except the Bible which was written and approved by Catholic Councils with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
“Facts” seen subject to different interpretation depending if from the Catholic Church or one of 30000 different protestant churches. There is the distinction since Jesus formed His Church with Peter and delegated the responsibility to build the church and the authority to bind on earth and in Heaven.
8k And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,* and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19l I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.* Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
My understanding of the Bible is based on the teaching of Jesus as He delegated His oral traditions and the Sacraments to His Church, the Apostles and their successors (the Catholic Church) as stated in the Bible. The doctrine of the Catholic Church have been presented in the Catholic Catechism and agrees with the Bible.
Now for a few facts and stats from the actual source: World Christian Encyclopedia by Barrett, Kurian, Johnson (Oxford Univ Press, 2nd edition, 2001).
The source does refer to 33000+ total “Christian” denominations, but it defines the word “denomination” as an organized Christian group within a specific country:
“Denominations. A denomination is defined in this Encyclopedia as an organized aggregate of worship centers or congregations of similar ecclesiastical tradition within a specific country; i.e. as an organized Christian church or tradition or religious group or community of believers, within a specific country, whose component congregations and members are called by the same denominational name in different areas, regarding themselves as one autonomous Christian church distinct from other denominations, churches and traditions. As defined here, world Christianity consists of 6 major ecclesiastico-cultural blocs, divided into 300 major ecclesiastical traditions, composed of over 33,000 distinct denominations in 238 countries, these denominations themselves being composed of over 3,400,000 worship centers, churches or congregations.” (Barrett et al, volume 1, page 16, Table 1-5, emphasis added)
So we have, according to Barrett’s Encyclopedia:
a denomination is defined as existing within a specific country
there are 33,000+ total of these “Christian denominations” in 238 total countries
Whether it is 9000 or 33000 you have a lot of choices for man made churches with different doctrines that fell away from the Catholic church.
Source: http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm
Christ founded only 1 Catholic universal Church with the same doctrines with a Latin and Eastern rite under the leadership of the Pope with approximately 1 billion members.
I have never said that the Catholic Church is perfect and has certainly made mistakes and has many sinners as members.
The teachings of Jesus and His moral values have been constant with the Catholic Church over the years. Some of the protestant values have differed from the teachings of Jesus
“Whether it is 9000 or 33000 you have a lot of choices for man made churches with different doctrines that fell away from the Catholic church.”
Eh. You have rites, Protestants have rites.
All believers make up just one church, regardless of minor differences in rite.
Catholicism has far more differences in doctrine. Indeed, hundreds of millions of Catholics create their own doctrinal beliefs - backing and choosing what feels good to themselves alone as their standard. They simply ignore Rome and Rome is pleased to call them Catholics.
As to “falling from Rome”, sometimes cutting off the cancerous flesh is what it takes to survive. The errors of Rome had to be cut off so the Church could live and thrive.
Yes, except that it wasn't the same 'Catholic' Church then, as it is now, and as far as the Church at, and Of Rome (headquartered there) is concerned, was far worse near around time of the Protestant Reformers, theologically speaking.
The Reformers did not "invent a new man-made religion" (which is another dumb-dog that cannot find it's own tail much less hunt argument we've see here a lot) but instead searched for what was the more original charter of Christianity itself.
Tracing (taking notice of) development (and change) of doctrine through the centuries assists in noticing change nearer to today, even if that change be only in how various doctrines are spoken of, and appear to have been internalized by some Roman Catholics devout enough and educated enough to really count in regards to listening to those persons to see what it is that that they really and truly believe.
One thing that has come to my attention over the years here, is that there are many so-called 'Catholics' who held fairly orthodox, early mainline Protestant understanding of just what the Real Presence consists of, regardless of language used to describe such from within the RCC which had been pressed into service in fashion that can hardly avoid being understood to be asserting that there was argument made for 'corporeal' presence to be part of 'transubstantiation' along with considerations towards Christ's Spirit and Divinity.
This issue, like most any where the Western Church went a little wrong, then went further wrong on that same wrong road ---had been warned against doing that very thing from within the Church, but through sophistry, chicanery, psychological arm-twisting (some misrepresentation of ECF's) and a little false accusation innuendo thrown at opponents of theological error, the wrong-headed won the day. In this I am speaking of Ratramnus and Radbertus as one example (I could point to a couple of more)
Just because the early centuries Church got some things right (and even that the RCC still gets a great deal correct, or correct enough, today) does not mean that is true in every turn of the screws.
The rest of your reply (the likes of which I've seen possibly THOuSANDS OF TIMES on this forum) is for the most part just "argument by assertion" intermingled with absolute falsehood like;
that line of falsehood carrying with it STILL the argument you should not be making (about the alleged 30,000 different -- now it has changed to "protestant churches"(!))...while the facts I was speaking of were and are factual information, not needing be "interpreted" by much of anyone. I've not time nor patience to unpack the rest of your meandering, showing how things are not quite as you may believe (have been well programmed to believe?) other than to note you found Barretts Encyclopedia entries. I could have provided links to the pages, other links to additional discussion and so forth -- I've seen it all before) Big whoop. You do nothing with it, except follow that with false claims which flow from erroneous premises.
Yup.
This Prot goes right along with some of the stuff your ECFs put out; namely...
As regards the oft-quoted Mt. 16:18, note the following bishops promise in the profession of faith of Vatican 1:• Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25:
'You are Christ, Son of the living God.'...Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' To whom be glory and power forever. — Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297.
• Bede, Matthaei Evangelium Expositio, 3:
You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church...Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name. — 80Homily 23, M.P.L., Vol. 94, Col. 260. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen, Footnote #204, p. 156 [unable to verify by me].
• Cassiodorus, Psalm 45.5:
'It will not be moved' is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord. — Expositions in the Psalms, Volume 1; Volume 51, Psalm 45.5, p. 455
• Chrysostom (John) [who affirmed Peter was a rock, but here not the rock in Mt. 16:18]:
Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. — Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily LIIl; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LII.html)
• Cyril of Alexandria:
When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple.”. — Cyril Commentary on Isaiah 4.2.
• Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII):
“For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.'
“For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters.” — Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII), sect. 10,11 ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm)
• Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II): Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God. On it we can base an answer to every objection with which perverted ingenuity or embittered treachery may assail the truth."-- (Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II), para 23; Philip Schaff, editor, The Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers Series 2, Vol 9.
Too bad you Catholics do not!!
Well, since you want to go by Barrett's estimate of "Protestant" denominations, then you will have to accept his conclusion of there being 8000+ "Catholic" denominations, too. You want to do that or will you concede that you shouldn't be using him as a reference for that information anymore?