Uh uh! Nope. I don't think so. These are rites. Rites means ritual not belief. They wear different vestments and have different practices but it's really not a denomination. Its not like they ever split off from Rome, they just developed organically as rites in their own cultures, with the Church of Rome as their head. But no these are not denominations IMHO. I am a Catholic of the Roman rite. Another may be a Catholic of the Coptic rite. We are both of the same Catholic Church that is based in Rome. Somebody correct me if I am wrong here.
As for the charismatics, or evanglical Catholics and the like, those are "movements" that are IN the Catholic Church. They just emphasize certain things. They are not spilt from the Catholic Church and not split from all other Catholics.
"But, supposing uniformity in essentials and in faith, the authority of the Church has never insisted on uniformity of rile; Rome has never resented the fact that other people have their own expressions of the same truths. The Roman Rite is the most, venerable, the most archaic, and immeasurably the most important of all, but our fellow Catholics in the East have the same right to their traditional liturgies as we have to ours. Nor can we doubt that other rites too have many beautiful prayers and ceremonies which add to the richness of Catholic liturgical inheritance.
A list of Catholic rites:
The liturgical languages used by Catholics are:
1. Latin in the Roman, Milanese, and Mozarabic Rites (except in parts of Dalmatia).
2. Greek in the Byzantine Rite (not exclusively).
3. Syriac in the Syrian, Maronite, Chaldean, and Malabar Rites.
4. Coptic in the Coptic Rite.
5. Armenian by all the Churches of that rite.
6. Arabic by the Melchites (Byzantine Rite).
7. Slavonic by Slavs of the Byzantine Rite and (in Glagolitic letters) in the Roman Rite in Dalmatia.
8. Georgian (Byzantine Rite).
9. Rumanian (Byzantine Rite).
All are Catholic!
Am a "cradle" Methodist whose parents left this church in the 50's when it became infiltrated with top communist clergy promoting a vacuous so-called social gospel.Five years of Southern Baptist "once saved--always saved" plus endoftheworld datesetting Rapture nonsense was enough.Church of Christ really tried to get it right with weekly communion,accapella singing,and acceptance of reality one can lose salvation ie works/behavior matters.However Christianity "started" in the 1700's with the Alexander Campbell.
Have been Eastern Orthodox for fifteen years.I am welcomed at any ethnic parish as we share doctrine and all utilize the stirring 1600 year old Liturgy of St.John Chrysostom.Eucharist is served at each liturgy.The overwhelming beauty and mystery of the ancient sacraments,feasts,iconography,fasts,scripture readings,services and music are but thinly sketched in Protestantism.The subtle yet strong emphasis upon the remembrance of death and judgement gives strength to bear life's cross with courage and to constantly temper one's behaviour.
Please come,visit and worship with us next years Pascha service typically 2-4 wks after Western Easter---or anytime for that matter.
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.So?
Who gives a rip?
(besides this guy?)
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
It's this way, no it's that way, Oh,have it your way:)
Oh goody...there are only 8,000 protestant "popes" instead of 25,000. Of course each has its own unique "take" on scripture interpretation...of course each one claims to be THE correct interpretation. What a totally weak argument this quack proposes in his article. |
It's not the same, RN.
#1. Members of the various denominations often cast each other out of communion--I know the Anglicans cast out the Puritans and George Fox and the Quakers. The denominations are as far as I understand, stem from deliberate breaks of communion and often doctrine. This is not the case with the Catholic rites--they grew out naturally side-by-side together and where there was no heresy, there was no break in communion.
#2. As Theresa so eloquently said, every rite in the Catholic Church believes the same thing. Any rite that accepted the teeniest tiniest heresy would by definition cease to be Catholic.
This quote caught my eye.
As one who follows their respective careers, I would point out that Matatics and Hahn were best friends at (protestant) Seminary, of course. Just for my personal benefit, has anyone yet figured out whether or not Gerry Matatics is a Communicant Conservative Roman Catholic, or a Schismatic Traditionalist Sedevacantist Catholic?
Which almost begs the (rhetorical) question: Are you a Sedevacantist schismatic when you say that you are, or when the rest of "Conservative Catholicism" says that you are??
I ask partly out of academic interest. I have read both Hahn and Matatics, and as a debater, Matatics is by far the superior Apologist (mind you, I speak only my own personal opinion, as a former scholastic and collegiate Debater of some minor accomplishment).
I have read plenty of the writings of both Matatics and Hahn, and transcripts of each; and I know the sort of preparation which goes into a formal Debate. If I were, for some unfathomable reason, compelled to debate Dr. Scott Hahn on a specific and pre-defined doctrinal proposition (anyone wanna offer me an extended paid vacation and clear it with my employer?), I think that I could adequately prepare myself given the space of about two weeks. I would certainly need to call upon the input of such professional Presbyterian apologists as Steve Wilkins, Brian Abshire, Steve Schlissel, and of course the indefatigable Tristan Emmanuel (sigh -- some Presbyterians are predestinated to get the COOLEST names); I'd be doing myself a dis-service if I did not call on Baptist Apologists James White and Richard Bennett.
And I am not so arrogant as to deny the real possibility that Hahn would wipe the floor with my amateur hide!!
But on the other hand, I've read Hahn's stuff. His arguments are too rote. His thinking is too hidebound. I'm reminded of some advice my collegiate Debate Coach once gave me in before a round with a (seeming) Debate Juggernaut team from another school -- "They don't know anything they're not prepped for. They can't think on their feet. Get them off their blocs (that's "debate lingo" for taking someone outside the box of their pre-formatted Arguments) and they will FOLD like a weak bluff."
That's the way that Scott Hahn's arguments read -- to me, anyway. Too rote. Too hidebound. Give me two weeks prep-time with the best minds in Protestant Apologia, and I am not the most incompetent Debater around. I think I could at least "go the distance".
But Matatics?? What, are you freakin' kidding me? I've read Matatics. The guy is not only knowledgeably erudite, he is intellectually sharp -- keen as a bloody straight-razor. He's both as thoughtful in his preparation, as he is innovative in his composition and presentation -- a ruthless combination. Two weeks? Gee, thanks but no thanks. Two weeks and I'm a lamb to the slaughter. Two months would be scarcely enough.
But of course, this (entirely-hypothetical) scenario is entirely MOOT if the best Mind in Roman Catholic apologetics alive today (Gerry Matatics, in only-my-own-personal-opinion) is NOT EVEN A ROMAN CATHOLIC but rather a schismatic Traditionalist Sedevacantist.
So, I know that the Roman Catholic Church has a LOT on its plate these days, but once you guys figure out whether or not so-called Roman Catholics like FReeper "Theresa" (who basically affirm that modern Jewish Pharisees can go to their graves blaspheming Jesus Christ and yet be saved) represent the "Truth of Rome", can somebody get back to me and tell me whether or not Gerry Matatics is still a communicant and faithful Roman Catholic?
I personally think that he's one of the best "Roman Catholic" apologists in the world (if not the best), but then Karl Keating tells me that Matatics is not even a Roman Catholic at all -- but rather an SSPX Sedevacantist Schismatic.
It's all very confusing.
All that said, I've another observation to make -- rather a funny one. Well, "funny" in the sense of black humor, at least.
When one reads the Roman Catholic Apologia-by-Testimonial book "Surprised by Truth", it's like reading a Codex of the Roman Front Line of public Apologetics in the World today.
And what does one find, when one studies the roster of modern Roman Apologists? Let us see...
What does one find when one studies the modern codex of Roman apologia? What "distinguishing characteristic" unites the vast bulk of Public Roman Apologists in the world today?
Every single one of 'em.
Granted, "Surprised" does throw in one well-known Apologist Roman ex-Baptist (Tim Staples), as well as one Ex-Jew (in Calvinist circles, we'd call him a completed Jew -- if he were Calvinist, that is) and one ex-Evangelical "Jesus Freak", but eight out of eleven testimonial cases are former Calvinist Continental Reformed and/or Calvinist Presbyterians. (You might add "cradle-Catholic" Karl Keating as a prominent modern public Catholic Apologist, but of course Keating has said he is not a good public debater and refuses public debates).
Some of these lapsed Presbyterians repudiate their Calvinism; others (such as James Akin, "Tiptoe through the TULIPS") seek to find a place for their Calvinism within the Roman Thomist-Augustinian tradition ("a double-minded man"??).
But nonetheless, essentially the Entire Front Line of Roman Apologetics in the Public Forum of the world today are basically a gaggle also-ran Presbyterians.
I'm pretty sure that one of us should be embarassed by this, Polycarp....
...but I'm honestly not sure which -- you or me!! (lol)
But, methinks it's an interesting tidbit.
Just grist for the mill.... best, OP.