Due to popular request and to the ongoing distortion of figures from uninformed Roman Catholic apologists writing on this issue, I am posting the following excerpt from my forthcoming book, Upon This Slippery Rock (Calvary Press, 2002). ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Throughout this book we have examined the Roman Catholic apologist’s primary argument against sola Scriptura and Protestantism; namely, that sola Scriptura produces doctrinal anarchy as is witnessed in the 25,000 Protestant denominations extant today. We have all along assumed the soundness of the premise that in fact there are 25,000 Protestant denominations; and we have shown that—even if this figure is correct—the Roman Catholic argument falls to the ground since it compares apples to oranges. We have just one more little detail to address before we can close; namely, the correctness of the infamous 25,000-Protestant-denominations figure itself.

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. These days, many Roman Catholic apologists feel content simply to calculate a daily rate of growth (based on their previous adherence to the original benchmark figure of 20,000) that they can then use as a basis for projecting just how many Protestant denominations there were, or will be, in any given year. But just where does this figure originate?

I have posed this question over and over again to many different Roman Catholic apologists, none of whom were able to verify the source with certainty. In most cases, one Roman Catholic apologist would claim he obtained the figure from another Roman Catholic apologist. When I would ask the latter Roman Catholic apologist about the figure, it was not uncommon for that apologist to point to the former apologist as his source for the figure, creating a circle with no actual beginning. I have long suspected that, whatever the source might be, the words “denomination” and “Protestant” were being defined in a way that most of us would reject.

I have only recently been able to locate the source of this figure. I say the source because in fact there is only one source that mentions this figure independently. All other secondary sources (to which Roman Catholics sometimes make appeal) ultimately cite the same original source. That source is David A. Barrett’s World Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Survey of Churches and Religions in the Modern World A.D. 1900—2000 (ed. David A. Barrett; New York: Oxford University Press, 1982). This work is both comprehensive and painstakingly detailed; and its contents are quite enlightening. However, the reader who turns to this work for validation of the Roman Catholic 25,000-Protestant-denomination argument will be sadly disappointed. What follows is a synopsis of what Barrett’s work in this area really says.

First, Barrett, writing in 1982, does indeed cite a figure of 20,780 denominations in 1980, and projects that there would be as many as 22,190 denominations by 1985. This represents an increase of approximately 270 new denominations each year (Barrett, 17). What the Roman Catholic who cites this figure does not tell us (most likely because he does not know) is that most of these denominations are non-Protestant.

Barrett identifies seven major ecclesiastical “blocs” under which these 22,190 distinct denominations fall (Barrett, 14-15): (1) Roman Catholicism, which accounts for 223 denominations; (2) Protestant, which accounts for 8,196 denominations; (3) Orthodox, which accounts for 580 denominations; (4) Non-White Indigenous, which accounts for 10,956 denominations; (5) Anglican, which accounts for 240 denominations; (6) Marginal Protestant, which includes Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, New Age groups, and all cults (Barrett, 14), and which accounts for 1,490 denominations; and (7) Catholic (Non-Roman), which accounts for 504 denominations.

According to Barrett’s calculations, there are 8,196 denominations within Protestantism—not 25,000 as Roman Catholic apologists so cavalierly and carelessly claim. Barrett is also quick to point out that one cannot simply assume that this number will continue to grow each year; hence, the typical Roman Catholic projection of an annual increase in this number is simply not a given. Yet even this figure is misleading; for it is clear that Barrett defines “distinct denominations” as any group that might have a slightly different emphasis than another group (such as the difference between a Baptist church that emphasizes hymns, and another Baptist church that emphasizes praise music).

No doubt the same Roman Catholic apologists who so gleefully cite the erroneous 25,000-denominations figure, and who might with just as much glee cite the revised 8,196-denominations figure, would reel at the notion that there might actually be 223 distinct denominations within Roman Catholicism! Yet that is precisely the number that Barrett cites for Roman Catholicism. Moreover, Barrett indicates in the case of Roman Catholicism that even this number can be broken down further to produce 2,942 separate “denominations”—and that was only in 1970! In that same year there were only 3,294 Protestant denominations; a difference of only 352 denominations. If we were to use the Roman Catholic apologist’s method to “project” a figure for the current day, we could no doubt postulate a number upwards of 8,000 Roman Catholic denominations today! Hence, if Roman Catholic apologists want to argue that Protestantism is splintered into 8,196 “bickering” denominations, then they must just as readily admit that their own ecclesial system is splintered into at least 2,942 bickering denominations (possibly as many as 8,000). If, on the other hand, they would rather claim that among those 2,942+ (perhaps 8,000?) Roman Catholic denominations there is “unity,” then they can have no objection to the notion that among the 8,196 Protestant denominations there is also unity.

In reality, Barrett indicates that what he means by “denomination” is any ecclesial body that retains a “jurisdiction” (i.e., semi-autonomy). As an example, Baptist denominations comprise approximately 321 of the total Protestant figure. Yet the lion’s share of Baptist denominations are independent, making them (in Barrett’s calculation) separate denominations. In other words, if there are ten Independent Baptist churches in a given city, even though all of them are identical in belief and practice, each one is counted as a separate denomination due to its autonomy in jurisdiction. This same principle applies to all independent or semi-independent denominations. And even beyond this, all Independent Baptist denominations are counted separately from all other Baptist denominations, even though there might not be a dime’s worth of difference among them. The same principle is operative in Barrett’s count of Roman Catholic denominations. He cites 194 Latin-rite denominations in 1970, by which Barrett means separate jurisdictions (or diocese). Again, a distinction is made on the basis of jurisdiction, rather than differing beliefs and practices.

However Barrett has defined “denomination,” it is clear that he does not think of these as major distinctions; for that is something he reserves for another category. In addition to the seven major ecclesiastical “blocs” (mentioned above), Barrett breaks down each of these traditions into smaller units that might have significant differences (what he calls “major ecclesiastical traditions,” and what we might normally call a true denomination) (Barrett, 14). Referring again to our seven major ecclesiastical “blocs” (mentioned above, but this time in reverse order): For (1) Catholic (Non-Roman), there are four traditions, including Catholic Apostolic, Reformed Catholic, Old Catholic, and Conservative Catholic; for (2) Marginal Protestants, there are six traditions; for (3) Anglican, there are six traditions; for (4) Non-White Indigenous, which encompasses third-world peoples (among whom can be found traces of Christianity mixed with the major tenets of their indigenous pagan religions), there are twenty traditions, including a branch of Reformed Catholic and a branch of Conservative Catholic; for (5) Orthodox, there are nineteen traditions; for (6) Protestant, there are twenty-one traditions; 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). In other words, the true count of real denominations within Protestantism is twenty-one, whereas the true count of real denominations within Roman Catholic is sixteen. Combined with the other major ecclesiastical blocs, that puts the total number of actual denominations in the world at ninety-two—obviously nowhere near the 23,000 or 25,000 figure that Roman Catholic apologists constantly assert—and that figure of ninety-two denominations includes the sixteen denominations of Roman Catholicism (Barrett, 15)! Barrett goes on to note that this figure includes all denominations with a membership of over 100,000. There are an additional sixty-four denominations worldwide, distributed among the seven major ecclesiastical blocs.

As we have shown, the larger figures mentioned earlier (8,196 Protestant denominations and perhaps as many as 8,000 Roman Catholic denominations) are based on jurisdiction rather than differing beliefs and practice. Obviously, neither of those figures represents a true denominational distinction. Hence, Barrett’s broader category (which we have labeled true denominations) of twenty-one Protestant denominations and sixteen Roman Catholic denominations represents a much more realistic calculation.

Moreover, Barrett later compares Roman Catholicism to Evangelicalism, which is a considerably smaller subset of Protestantism (so far as the number of denominations is concerned), and which is really the true category for those who hold to sola Scriptura (most Protestant denominations today, being liberal denominations and thereby dismissing the authority of the Bible, do not hold to sola Scriptura, except perhaps as a formality). Any comparison that the Roman Catholic apologist would like to make between sola Scriptura as the guiding principle of authority, and Rome as the guiding principle of authority (which we have demonstrated earlier is a false comparison in any case), needs to compare true sola Scriptura churches (i.e., Evangelicals) to Rome, rather than all Protestant churches to Rome. An Evangelical, as defined by Barrett, is someone who is characterized by (1) a personal conversion experience, (2) a reliance upon the Bible as the sole basis for faith and living, (3) an emphasis on evangelism, and (4) a conservative theology (Barrett, 71). Interestingly, when discussing Evangelicals Barrett provides no breakdown, but rather treats them as one homogeneous group. However, when he addresses Roman Catholics on the very same page, he breaks them down into four major groups: (1) Catholic Pentecostals (Roman Catholics involved in the organized Catholic Charismatic Renewal); (2) Christo-Pagans (Latin American Roman Catholics who combine folk-Catholicism with traditional Amerindian paganism); (3) Evangelical Catholics (Roman Catholics who also regard themselves as Evangelicals); and (4) Spiritist Catholics (Roman Catholics who are active in organized high or low spiritism, including syncretistic spirit-possession cults). 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).

In any case, once we inquire into the source of the infamous 25,000-Protestant-denomination figure one point becomes crystal clear. Whenever and at whatever point Barrett compares true denominations and differences among either Protestants or Evangelicals to those of Roman Catholicism, Roman Catholicism emerges almost as splintered as Protestantism, and even more splintered than Evangelicalism. That levels the playing field significantly. Whatever charge of “doctrinal chaos” Roman Catholic apologists wish to level against Protestantism may be leveled with equal force—and perhaps even greater force—against the doctrinal chaos of Roman Catholicism. Obviously, the Roman Catholic apologist can take little comfort in the fact that he has only sixteen denominations while Protestantism has twenty-one; and he can take even less comfort in the fact that while Evangelicalism has no divisional breakdown, Roman Catholicism has at least four major divisions.

If the Roman Catholic apologist wants instead to cite 8,196 idiosyncrasies within Protestantism, then he must be willing to compare that figure to at least 2,942 (perhaps upwards of 8,000 these days) idiosyncrasies within Roman Catholicism. In any case, he cannot compare the one ecclesial tradition of Roman Catholicism to 25,000, 8,196, or even twenty-one Protestant denominations; for Barrett places Roman Catholicism (as a single ecclesial tradition) on the same level as Protestantism (as a single ecclesial tradition). In short, Roman Catholic apologists have hurriedly, carelessly—and, as a result, irresponsibly—glanced at Barrett’s work, found a large number (22,189), and arrived at all sorts of absurdities that Barrett never concluded. One can only hope that, upon reading this critique, Roman Catholic apologists will finally put this argument to bed. The more likely scenario, however, is that the death of this argument will come about only when Evangelicals consistently point out this error—and correct it—each time it is raised by a Roman Catholic apologist. Sooner or later they will grow weary of the embarrassment that accompanies citing erroneous figures in a public forum.

Wrong. In an earlier post I cited the Bonds of Unity one must maintain to remain Catholic. That itself is a teaching of the catholic Church conatined in vatican Two, Canon Law and The Catechism.

Well then, why is he still permitted to take communion? Do the priests need instruction from "Catholicguy"?

Sorry....Check back a few posts and you'll see that Old Reggie gave me permission to use any numer I desired. Do you have more authority than Ol' Reggie? If you think you do, prove it using the Bible.

What he said was: "Make up any stupid number you wish. A redicululous number is just that. Make yourself happy." Hey, I agree with that. You can lie all you want. It makes my job easier. If you want to count tiny CATHOLIC variations as Protestant denominations, knock yourself out.

I suppose you're trying to turn it around. But we never said we were unified. You did. But you aren't.

Sure we are. We are unified by our profession of One Faith, personified in one Pope. There are just fewer of us than one would think.

Surely you do not imagine those, as mentioned in the article, that deny that the pope even is the pope are a "denomination" of "Catholic?" Those who deny the Pope, or what he teaches are not Catholic. Period.

The unity is in the doctrine. Pro-abortion "Catholic" politicians are fooling themselves.

Anyone can walk into a Church and take communion. That does not mean they are actually "in communion," truly, with the Pope. Rather they "eat and drink a judgment upon themselves."

Interesting point of view, for one who is following Jesus. I guess He was just joking in Matt16:18
Matthew 16:18 ... ?
Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, ... Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, ... Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, ... But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, ... Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, ... Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

Interestingly, it appears the point of the passage is the identity of JESUS, rather than Peter. Perhaps JESUS, himself, is the ROCK upon which the church is built.
Peter, himself, testified to this ...
1 Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

Oh, ... and, by the way, we're rocks too. (verse 5)

Now answer my question. If I give you power of attorney and you sell me house, did "you" sell my house or did "I?"

If I claim to have power of attorney that you never gave me and sell your house for my own benefit, I commit fraud.

That is true as well, but highly irrelevant. I am trying to make you see exactly what Catholics believe; and why the "contradiction" or "denial" you highlight between what Catholics, "everyday Catholics" say and what the Catechism says is absolutely nothing.

I don't expect you to believe what we believe. Just to intellectually accept it, understand it, and see why your "aha!" is nothing.

You wish to paint me into a corner with me admitting that God gave Catholic priests "power of attorney." I disagree with the premis that He did such a thing.

Yes, I know that. I was under the impression that you were interested in knowing why the "contradiction" you thought you found in the Catechism is not so. I see you have no such curiosity.

Claiming "power of attorney" when it has not been given to you is fraud.

Of course it is. But that is neither here nor there.

Had God given Catholic priests "power of attorney" to act in His place, I would agree that priests could forgive sins for Him (by Him, through Him, with Him, under Him, whatever preposition you choose).

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. You have to accept the premise in order to see why the "contradiction" you point out, one of "hundreds" I believe you said, is nothing other than your own misunderstanding.

Now, will you accept that a Catholic does consider a priest to act with the "power of attorney" of God? And that asking if the "priest" or "God" does the forgiving is the exact same question as the one I have asked you 3 or 4 times?

You don't have to agree with something to think about it.

You would rather be ignorant, it seems, than listen to an explanation. It is no wonder you can find "hundreds" of contradictions in the Catechism, if you are immune to learning.

You would rather be ignorant, it seems, than listen to an explanation.

Why is it that a Catholic cannot have a discussion without resorting to these kinds of attacks?

You have misread my posts, but I have not called you ignorant.

If you will reread my posts you will notice that I made two points: 1)There are contradictions in the catachism and 2) there are many things in the catachism that everyday catholics disagree with. I specifically stated that this thread (priests forgive sins) was of the type #2. (Things everyday catholics disagree with.)

When it was stated that this was not a contradiction, I stated that I was not giving an example of a contradiction.

The RCC has ONE Catechism, it is the NORM for of all Catholic beliefs about the Bible and Tradition.

And the greatest challenge for "christians" would be to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It begins as follows:

I. The life of man - to know and love God

1 God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Saviour. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life.

2 So that this call should resound throughout the world, Christ sent forth the apostles he had chosen, commissioning them to proclaim the gospel: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."[4] Strengthened by this mission, the apostles "went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it."[5]

3 Those who with God's help have welcomed Christ's call and freely responded to it are urged on by love of Christ to proclaim the Good News everywhere in the world. This treasure, received from the apostles, has been faithfully guarded by their successors. All Christ's faithful are called to hand it on from generation to generation, by professing the faith, by living it in fraternal sharing, and by celebrating it in liturgy and prayer.[6]

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

You would rather be ignorant, it seems, than listen to an explanation.

Why is it that a Catholic cannot have a discussion without resorting to these kinds of attacks?

What attack? I was using "ignorant" in the dictionary sense, that it seems you would rather be without an understanding than you would listen to, and think about, an explanation. I don't see where you have given any indication of learning.

You have misread my posts, but I have not called you ignorant.

I asked you a simple question, showing a comparison of how a Catholic thinks about priests, God and forgiveness. I compared it to the power of attorney. You refused to answer the question, instead went about assuring me that you disagree with the Catholics.

Yes, we know that.

But you must be able to think as a Catholic does if you wish to have any hope of understanding why the things you say are false. You show no ability or desire to do this.

If you will reread my posts you will notice that I made two points: 1)There are contradictions in the catachism

Yes, and you were asked to give an example. None have been presented. Do you still stand by your assertion?

and 2) there are many things in the catachism that everyday catholics disagree with. I specifically stated that this thread (priests forgive sins) was of the type #2. (Things everyday catholics disagree with.)

And I have been trying, in vain, to get you to understand that this is NOT something that everyday Catholics disagree with. But you will not even attempt to hear me out or to answer my questions. Why do you figure that is?

You created, in your original post on the subject, a false dichotomy. You say that "everyday" Catholics will tell you it is God who forgives. And you point to the Catechism saying it is the priest with the power to forgive "in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit" as if this proves that the everyday Catholic disagrees with the Catechism.

But this is not the case. First I show how "in the name" means that it really is "God" doing the forgiving, making the everyday Catholic's answer ultimately right.

But you ignored that.

Then I draw a comparison about giving the power of attorney and asked you 4 or 5 times who the "seller" is in the situation. You do not answer.

Instead you argue that you do not agree that priest's have power from God. We knew that. The point you were making is that everyday Catholic's answer is in conflict with the Catechism. I have shown how and why it is not. I have invited you to think about it by using an anlogy.

If you don't wish to think about it, that is your perogative. But don't expect to make blanket statements founded upon ignorance and expect them to pass by without being questioned. That ain't gonna happen.

When it was stated that this was not a contradiction, I stated that I was not giving an example of a contradiction.

Um, if you were trying to show how everyday Catholics "disagree" with the Catechism, then there must be some amount of "contradiction" involved, no?

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

Well you guys are just using the wrong nomenclature.

Theresa there is actually little difference in what Protestants believe.

Mom this cannot be true. I doubt my lifelong Baptist neighbor can be convinced that it won't make a bit of difference if she converts to an Episcopal and goes to the lovely church down the street where the female priest preaches and communion services are every Sunday. If there is little difference WHY split up in the first place? Theoreticaly almost all Protestants should be Lutherans since Luther was the first to formally break away. But even Lutherans are split into Evangelicals and Missouri-Synod. If there is little difference why the split?

You need to know (and probably already do know) that when certain people tell you that you are "immune to learning" it means you won't accept their spin on the facts. So it's really a compliment.

There remains a difference between saying that you don't agree with something and saying that others do not. When you are speaking for others you must present a logical case to the world and accept the premises the others would accept as a basis for your argument.

Onelifetogive's argument is based upon his not accepting priests as agents of God. Which is fine if he was arguing that he doesn't agree with the Catechism. But the moment he decided to speak for everyday Catholics, he had the obligation to find out what they mean when they speak and to accept the premise about priests that he rejected.

He has failed at this, and you have failed in encouraging this illogical nonsense.

All this is the roundabout way of inviting you, as his cheerleader, to answer the question du jour: If I give you my power of attorney and you sell my house, did "you" sell the house or did "I?"

Corollaries for additional credit. If I say that "you" sold my house am I wrong? If I say "I" sold my house am I wrong? If you say you sold it, and I say I sold it, am I disagreeing with you, or speaking to a different aspect of the same thing?

Any and all out there are welcome to engage this oh-so-difficult question.

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.