| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 10/27/2009 12:40:43 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Childish behavior. |
Posted on 07/25/2009 2:40:04 AM PDT by Quix
>>We’re talking about the actual building where you attend church, not the denomination.<<
Our church is not about a building. Our African mission’s Priest says Holy Mass under a tree.
The Latin Catholic Church is our church.
From the source you listed:
“From these western and smaller eastern rites the encyclopedia gets 242 “Roman Catholic denominations” (year 2000 numbers). The largest is by far the Latin-rite (commonly called “Roman Catholics” by non-Catholic Christians) with 976 million members of the 994 million total members (or 98% of the total, year 1995 numbers). However, since virtually all of these western and smaller eastern rites are in union with the Pope (I am not sure of some of them), there is actually one
Catholic Church, not 242 churches or denominations. Based on the encyclopedia’s own definition of “denomination” the editors appear to be separating and counting by country which is how you get to 242 (or 238 countries plus 4) “denominations” of Roman Catholics. The Catholic Church in Canada is not a different “denomination” from the Catholic Church in the U.S., which is not a different Catholic Church from the one in England, etc. If you search the available “World Christian Database” online, there is indeed one Catholic Church in the U.S.A., (see also Barrett, Encyclopedia, volume 1, page 783 for the U.S.A.) and in the world there are indeed 238 “Roman Catholic” denominations (for exactly 238 countries), i.e. one Catholic Church for each country. The same “counting by country” seems to be the case with some of the denominations in the other mega-blocs.
When dividing these “denominations” by country as they do, there are definitely some problems in figuring out the true total
“denominations” since many of them are being counted more than once — and in fact 241 times too much in the case of “Roman Catholic” denominations. Barrett’s Encyclopedia states this explicitly:
“As a statistical unit in this Encyclopedia, a ‘denomination’ always refers to one single country. Thus the Roman Catholic Church, although a single organization, is described here as consisting of 236 denominations in the world’s 238 countries”
Whoa! That’s gonna leave a mark!
....you're just reinforcing my original post on the matter....
What results is hundred of pages of utterly confusing statistics, some highly suspect, culturally biased, and anthropologically useless (such as categorizing people by using moribund race-defining terms as Australoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid and further subdividing those into "stylized colors" such as black, grey, brown, red, tan, white, and yellow). There is a need for a comparative survey of world Christian churches and other religions. This is not it. Not recommended.
And if you look up the work Denomination in the Etymology Dictionary, it says this.
“a naming,” from L. denominationem (nom. denominatio) “a calling by anything other than the proper name, metonymy,” from denominare “to name,” from de- “completely” + nominare “to name.” Monetary sense is 1660;
meaning “religious sect” is 1716.”
Understanding that the word in usage for “religious sect” started in 1716, it’s only understandable the we use the word “rite” and “denomination” is not correct for Catholics.
And several of them even have their own Popes.
>>And several of them even have their own Popes. <<
Actually, any “Catholic” group that has their own Pope are “Protest”ants.
Those are rites, not "contradictory denominations."
The anti-Catholic fetish just gets more and more idiotic.
While the basis of the original remark is true, it is quite reasonable to say that among Pentecostal structures (as much as such can be measured), the great majority of modalist doctrines spring from the Oneness branch, or are forks thereof.
Modalism is common amongst all Protestant denominations, and not just the Pentecostals. That is why I said that either a large minority or a small majority do not hold the Christian beliefs on the Trinity. Ask around and you may be surprised even amongst your peers.
It was my impression, from your comments, that the observation was being settled against Pentecostals specifically, or at least by insinuation. If that is not the case, then I am glad you have reiterated your position.
However, I still believe that the case cannot be made. Far and away, all of Protestantism (as it is loosely defined) is trinitarian.
Christianity is a belief set, not knowledge. Therefore there is no PROOF. There is the definition of Christianity set by the Church. If you deviate from that, it is by definition, non Christian.
What a pompous, ill-conceived idea.
The individual does not have the authority to do so and still call it Christian.
It is not an "individual". It is not even a single chapel. It is a whole fork... some 24 million adherents, and that is just in the Pentecostal Oneness movement.
No, to not define Christianity is what breeds confusion.
I will agree, but only partially. Christianity is best defined by what we all agree upon... If one thoughtfully considers our factional arguments, one will find they never center on the Gospel... We ALL know the truth... It is the doctrines of men, on ALL sides, which keep us apart... What we DON'T KNOW, but think we know, is what we argue over.
That is the opposite of both my experience and the testimonials of many Pentecostals. It has been explained to me thusly: the Holy Spirit comes upon one and leads one down the individual road and the Pentecostal will go this way or that depending upon how they perceive the Holy Spirit leading them.
That is true, in the personal sense. But that does not mean that one is not without foundations. Especially the Pentecostals, who grow up in it, and are defined by it.
Charismatics, OTOH, who are more likely to stay where they were planted, are often fighting against the doctrines they were raised in, as the Spirit leads them to be different from what the narrow confines of man-made doctrines allow.
I am one of these. In some ways, since I have no defined means of dealing with the Holy Spirit through my formal Christian education, I am far more of a loose cannon that any Pentecostal, because I have no training from my youth.
In my case, I have fallen away from the Lord twice, very far away - far enough that I felt the Spirit leave me. In those cases, God has placed men of God in my path, Pentecostals, each time, to lead me back.
Catholicism is not a denomination. It is Christianity; everything else is a man made copy or imitation. And the Catechism of the Church is very explicit. There is no deviation permitted in the doctrine of the Faith.
Nonsense.
That is not my experience. I have not encountered preachers dressed like Elvis.
LOL! Well, perhaps I did exaggerate a touch. :D
Well, which is it? Quiet? Or rock da’ house? I have been to a handful of Pentecostal services which got quite out of hand and were less worship than mob emotion.
It is BOTH. And emotion does play a part. I cannot imagine being plugged into the Great Creator of all things without it being an emotional experience! But that is not to say that there are not a great many impersonators, as there are in any aspect of the Body. To determine the authentic experience, one must first understand the Spirit in one's self, I think.
Are you contending that there are not many Protestant denominations?
Wow, more false information about the Catholic Church from Gamecock.
Shocker...
It's mostly an effort to change the subject from a lost argument.
Just like the church ladies in The Music Man:
***I just am amazed that a non Christian bothers to read John at all.
The YOPIOS crowd prefer to go straight to the epistles of Saint Paul.***
Some of them, anyway. There is much redacted from the YOPIOS rendition of Paul, not as much as they redact the Gospels, but there is still significant elimination of verse.
***Saint Peter explicitely warned that this would happen:***
Since there is only an empty space in the YOPIOS Bibles between Hebrews and Revelation, this cannot be considered Scripture.
It has been my understanding that there are essentially three different rites, each more or less distinguished by their Pope, with some minor variances in beliefs and traditions, many of which are superficial. All share the belief in certain fundamental truths, however.
Don’t the Russian and Eastern Orthodox have their own “Pope”?
“Brazen!”
I think that they did “Protest” the Latin Pope.
Otherwise they would be with us under B16.
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.