Posted on 09/11/2012 7:21:36 PM PDT by Salvation
“Each of these 33,820 denomination was formed because people came to an irreconcilable difference over the interpretation of Scripture. If Truth is not relative then there can be only one Truth. Therefore, not everyone who honestly feels they are led by the Holy Spirit when reading Scripture is correct. It is sad but true. Ironically, the way that many Evangelical denominations have decided to have unity with each other is to agree not to look at Scriptural references that they are in disagreement about.
Not true. When are Catholics going to start being honest about the bogus 30k+ denominations? Seems like this gets tossed out as if everyone accepts it is a proven fact when it is NOT. However many denominations there are under the “Protestant” umbrella by no means implies that every one has a different interpretation of Scripture. There are central, main tenets that make up what is called Christianity. There cannot possibly be 30,000 DIFFERENT interpretations or beliefs about those tenets - that’s ridiculous! I’d like to hear why there are hundreds or thousands of Catholic denominations then. Does it really mean there are that many differences in beliefs among them all? When an author has to state such a blatantly false statistic, then it calls into doubt anything else he might say. Sounds like pure propaganda to me! “
The much bandied numerical denominations you and others herein have mentioned come from a protestant, that is to say non-Catholic book. The fact that Catholics mention this number is one thing. The fact that the number has been used repeatedly in the various editions of that book and other similar ones is of course a seperate matter, and one you should take up with the author, if it is such a bother.
Whether you care for or wish to dispute the number of the denominations, they are, without question, many. And unlike your statement, there are NO Catholic denominations. There is ONE Catholic Church. There are a number of rites within the Catholic Church. A rite represents an ecclesiastical tradition about how the sacraments are to be celebrated. The beliefs are the same. For clarity, I will repeat this:
Whatever the number of the denominations one wishes to use, they do not believe exactly the same thing. PERIOD.
ALL of the rites of the Catholic Church BELIEVE THE SAME THINGS. Unlike the denominations, they are ONE. This is because they are the Church founded by Our Lord, Jesus Christ Himself.
A bit from scriptureCatholic on that:
“Matt. 5:14 - Jesus says a city set on a hill cannot be hidden, and this is in reference to the Church. The Church is not an invisible, ethereal, atmospheric presence, but a single, visible and universal body through the Eucharist. The Church is an extension of the Incarnation.
Matt. 12:25; Mark 3:25; Luke 11:17 - Jesus says a kingdom divided against itself is laid waste and will not stand. This describes Protestantism and the many thousands of denominations that continue to multiply each year.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus says, “I will build my ‘Church’ (not churches).” There is only one Church built upon one Rock with one teaching authority, not many different denominations, built upon various pastoral opinions and suggestions.
Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - Jesus gave the apostles binding and loosing authority. But this authority requires a visible Church because “binding and loosing” are visible acts. The Church cannot be invisible, or it cannot bind and loose.
John 10:16 - Jesus says there must only be one flock and one shepherd. This cannot mean many denominations and many pastors, all teaching different doctrines. Those outside the fold must be brought into the Church.
John 17:11,21,23 - Jesus prays that His followers may be perfectly one as He is one with the Father. Jesus’ oneness with the Father is perfect. It can never be less. Thus, the oneness Jesus prays for cannot mean the varied divisions of Christianity that have resulted since the Protestant reformation. There is perfect oneness only in the Catholic Church.
John 17:9-26 - Jesus’ prayer, of course, is perfectly effective, as evidenced by the miraculous unity of the Catholic Church during her 2,000 year history.
John 17:21 - Jesus states that the visible unity of the Church would be a sign that He was sent by God. This is an extremely important verse. Jesus tells us that the unity of the Church is what bears witness to Him and the reality of who He is and what He came to do for us. There is only one Church that is universally united, and that is the Catholic Church. Only the unity of the Catholic Church truly bears witness to the reality that Jesus Christ was sent by the Father.
Rom. 15:5 - Paul says that we as Christians must live in harmony with one another. But this can only happen if there is one Church with one body of faith. This can only happen by the charity of the Holy Spirit who dwells within the Church.
Rom. 16:17 - Paul warns us to avoid those who create dissensions and difficulties. This includes those who break away from the Church and create one denomination after another. We need to avoid their teaching, and bring them back into the one fold of Christ.
1 Cor. 1:10- Paul prays for no dissensions and disagreements among Christians, being of the same mind and the same judgment. How can Protestant pastors say that they are all of the same mind and the same judgment on matters of faith and morals?
Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23-32; Col. 1:18,24 - again, the Church does not mean “invisible” unity, because Paul called it the body (not the soul) of Christ. Bodies are visible, and souls are invisible.
Eph. 4:11-14 - God gives members of the Church various gifts in order to attain to the unity of the faith. This unity is only found in the Catholic Church.
Eph. 4:3-5 - we are of one body, one Spirit, one faith and one baptism. This requires doctrinal unity, not 30,000 different denominations.
Eph. 5:25 - the Church is the Bride of Christ. Jesus has only one Bride, not many.
Eph. 5:30; Rom. 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 6:15 - we, as Christians, are one visible body in Christ, not many bodies, many denominations.
Phil. 1:27 - Paul commands that we stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the Gospel.
Phil. 2:2 - Paul prays that Christians be of the same mind, of one accord. Yet there are 30,000 different “Protest”ant denominations?
Col. 1:18 - Christ is the Head of the one body, the Church. He is not the Head of many bodies or many sects.
1 Tim. 6:4 - Paul warns about those who seek controversy and disputes about words. There must be a universal authority to appeal to who can trace its authority back to Christ.
2 Tim. 2:14 - do not dispute about words which only ruin the hearers. Two-thousand years of doctrinal unity is a sign of Christ’s Church.
2 Tim. 4:3 - this is a warning on following our own desires and not the teachings of God. It is not a cafeteria where we pick and choose. We must humble ourselves and accept all of Christ’s teachings which He gives us through His Church.
Rev. 7:9 - the heavenly kingdom is filled with those from every nation and from all tribes, peoples and tongues. This is “catholic,” which means universal.
1 Peter 3:8 - Peter charges us to have unity of spirit. This is impossible unless there is a central teaching authority given to us by God.
Gen. 12:2-3 - since Abram God said all the families of the earth shall be blessed. This family unity is fulfilled only in the Catholic Church.
Dan. 7:14 - Daniel prophesies that all peoples, nations and languages shall serve His kingdom. Again, this catholicity is only found in the Catholic Church.
1 Cor. 14:33 - God cannot be the author of the Protestant confusion. Only the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church claims and proves to be Christ’s Church.”
I will accept your sarcasm as an acknowledgment that you added to Revelation a sense it did not carry.
Moreover, you have no way of knowing what books do or do not belong in the Bible - you have no objective standard for assessing which texts are God's Word and which are man's.
You accept a canon given to you by men.
Finally, your post implies that no Catholic "walks the walk" 7 days a week. That's an indefensible proposition on many levels and only defensible on the ground that no Christian alive has not fallen in some way.
You do realize you are not being humble before God and are guilty of the sin of Pride, right?
I would point out that of the groups that hold to "the Bible alone" as their standard there is differentiation on many "main tenets": (1) simple predestination versus double predestination versus free will (2) Trinity versus Oneness (3) infant baptism versus believer's baptism (4) premillenialism versus postmillenialism versus preterism including pre tribulation and post tribulation varieties (5) signs and wonders continue versus signs and wonders ended with the apostolic age (6) dispensationalism versus covenant (7) the "prosperity Gospel" versus Christian simplicity (8) women in ministry versus women outside of ministry (9) substitutionary atonement versus "example of love" (10) Spiritual presence in Eucharist versus memorial, etc.
These are all main tenets to many, many Christians. There are more than 10,000 possible combinations of views right there.
Far from being "ridiculous" this kind of doctrinal pluralism is a stark reality.
You’re so cute!
Of course, there's a lot of change happening. Next week the North-Western Evangelical Bible-Reformed branch of PresbyMennonCongregationalutherAdventipentecostathism is due to split into the Central-North-Western Evangelical Bible-Reformed branch of PresbyMennonCongregationalutherAdventipentecostathism and the Central-Southern-North-Western Evangelical Bible-Reformed branch of PresbyMennonCongregationalutherAdventipentecostathism, but this is good driven as there as a dispute in the Congregation on matters of doctrine, Bobama thought that he should be Preach-pasto-Prophet Elder on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and alternate Sundays while Michelle thought that she should be that -- as she had yoga-pilates-kickboxing class on Thursdays.
They were calling for her to rephrase her statement to “As a protester against Catholic morals....”
The Bible is a collection of books, of which Revelation is just one
You wrote:
“Protestants actually read the bible themselves rather than depend on flawed Catholic translations.”
That’s your assumption. 1) Many Catholics also read the Bible outside of Church services. 2) No Catholic translation is any more flawed than any Protestant translation. Almost all Protestant translations, for instance, are missing 7 books. That’s a major flaw to say the least.
“I became a Christian several years ago after becoming friends with Evangelicals who motivated me to actually read the Book. I soon realized that true Christians actually walk the walk 7 days a week rather than simply show up on Sunday and then ignore everything preached as soon as stepping outside of Church. Not to mention that Christians actually follow ONLY God’s word. Not man’s.”
First of all, your personal story doesn’t interest me in the least. I have no reason to believe anything you say. Second, the Catholic Church always teaches that we must live out Christian faith in every aspect of life. Every single one. Hence, Opus Dei. Hence, Theology of the Body. Also, you have a problem. If you’re using a translation - and I seriously doubt you’re reading the Bible in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek - then you’re relying on MEN for your Bible.
The Addition of the Book of Revelation/Apocalypse shows how the Church under the grace of the Holy Spirit pulled together the Canon that is the Bible today. Church in scripture rejected the Shepherd of Hermas even though it was accepted as scripture by many Early Christians and put in Apocalypse even after objections by many
Syrian Christians in the 2nd century rejected it, Martin Luther initially considered it to be "neither apostolic nor prophetic" and stated that "Christ is neither taught nor known in it," and is not known of in the ancient church of the Georgians.
and that is interesting -- if someone tkes this to mean adding or removing from the collection of books that is the Bible, then perhaps one should also explain why one has not read Maccabees?
And the Pope is Catholic?
interesting - so do you read the original Aramaic, Hebrew and Koine Greek texts?
Or do you read in Shakespearean 17th century English or current Modern English?
Well now you did it - you made a point so perfect you can bet you’ll not hear back from that poster....
Your examples are all from specifically the Gospels, but the same answer applies.
Like any historical claim, we take the Gospel in some measure on faith. That is in fact the basis of Christian faith: that the belief of the Church in the Incarnation and the Resurrection of Christ, as told in the Gospels are true accounts of historical events.
If Christianity could be proven by an exacting scientific or juridical standard, we would not have the faith, we would have objective knowledge.
Ancient history is generally like that: an event is recorded by a chronicler long after it happened. This is considered historical evidence, not a legal evidence. Some people believe all ancient history as it is taught is wrong chronology, same persons are presented as different people, etc. It is possible to not believe the Christian Church just in the same sense as it is possible not to believe the modern historians of antiquity. Most believe the Gospels like they believe modern historians, because both groups present plausible, albeit not scientifically only possible, version of events. There is, of course that difference that the Gospels speak of miracles. But so far as the evidence of these miracles goes, we Christians are no worse off than the rest of the students of 1c AD.
This does not mean our knowledge of ancient history is unreliable, nor, specifically, that the events of the Gospels are told unreliably. For starters, it is not true that they are all hearsay: the Apostles all saw Christ arrested; St. John was present at the moment of His death, and all saw resurrected Christ on several occasions. St. Peter saw Christ transfigured on Mount Tabor. When they speak of these events, they speak as direct witnesses.
It is clear that when St. Luke records the events of Jesus's birth, he is interviewing Mary, the direct participant and witness. For example, Luke presents a lengthy poem, the Magnificat, as her direct speech. I don't know where it would be in a courtroom, but by journalistic standards that makes them proven fact.
Then there is a question of motivation. The New Testament is written precisely when Christians faced death penalty for their beliefs. The immediate aftermath of the death of Jesus had them all suspect as blasphemers and insurgents. If they knew the essence of Christianity, the Resurrection, was based on a lie, why would they so stubbornly propagate it?
Further, the manner in which the Gospels and the Letters are written show lack of coordination. They appear exactly what they say they are: not polished myths and fables but personal accounts based on individual's memory, and instructions to already existing believing churches, all written in individual styles and at times not agreeing on details.
Having watched three separate episodes of the American Bible Challenge, this Catholic is no longer afraid to put his Biblical knowledge up against an Evangelical’s. Granted they’re up on a stage in front of all those cameras so I’m sure they’re feeling pressure, but I thought they knew the Bible better than that.
Sadly, that information is incorrect. Have you ever read through the entire Bible for yourself (instead of having the priest read it to you)? Check out the reading charts on that Lectionary thread, and compare the list to the index in your own Bible. "The Entire Bible" that's read in Mass is really only about one-fourth.
....the average nondenominational/Evangelical hears less of the Bible at service than a Catholic hears at Sunday Mass....The percentage of non-Catholic pastors who systematically read the entire Bible from their pulpits to their congregation is approximately zero....
Have you ever been in a worship service with expository preaching?
If the Pope doesn’t take the religion seriously, then why should I? (You could fill a book with similar stories):
Against faith’s rules, Rudy Giuliani receives communion at Papal Mass
BY DAILY NEWS STAFF
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Rudy Giuliani received Holy Communion during Pope Benedict’s Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral Saturday, a move that upset some of the Catholic faithful.
With his third wife standing next to him, the twice-divorced, pro-abortion, former Mayor was given the Eucharist by a priest standing next to the Pope.
Outside the mass, actress Joanne Perry, said Giuliani was “notoriously pro-choice and I feel awful, just awful, about him getting Communion. He knows better.”
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.