30,000+ protastant denominations

[DHK]

Originally posted by thessalonian:

More ridcule of something you have never had any clue about. Why bother with an answer.

More double-speak Thessalonian, or just a straight denial of what the Catholic Church actually believes. Actually gb93433 gives a fair assessment of what the Catholic Church has taught down throughout the ages. Read again his quote:

You asked for supporting evidence for those positions. It is written in many history books od the RCC. I am sure you could findit out as well. The seminary I attended had the largest theological library in the US.

I find that your denials are amazing, and just that--denials without any foundation in truth or fact.
DHK

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by thessalonian:

More ridcule of something you have never had any clue about. Why bother with an answer.

More double-speak Thessalonian, or just a straight denial of what the Catholic Church actually believes. Actually gb93433 gives a fair assessment of what the Catholic Church has taught down throughout the ages. Read again his quote:

You asked for supporting evidence for those positions. It is written in many history books od the RCC. I am sure you could findit out as well. The seminary I attended had the largest theological library in the US.

I find that your denials are amazing, and just that--denials without any foundation in truth or fact.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]DHK,

Typical Protestant tactics. Taking a snippet and making an issue out of it. My post includes many refutations of his nonsense such as his claim that the Catholic Church didn't allow Bible reading before Vatican II when I showed that quite clearly they encouraged it at least since the time of Leo XIII whom granted an indulgence for a minimum of 15 minutes Bible reading a day. This is history but you and G2B2 will put your head in the sand and not deal with it. I posted clear and convincing evidence that celibacy in the priesthood is a practice not a doctrine. Mr. G2B2 refused to listen to any distinction that does exist in fact because it does not fit his agenda or yours. He will not deal with the Eastern Rites having a married priesthood because it doesn't fit what he wants to think about the Catholic Church. He will see himself as infallibly correct regardless of what history says. I have explained till I am blue in the face with people like you who refuse to listen. That is my point of saying it is pointless. Hatred consumes you as you must come here daily to justify your decision to leave the Catholic Church when deep inside you know you are wrong. Now I have a debate on papal infallibilty to get ready for in another three weeks so if you will excuse me for not answering all your nonsense....

Blessings.

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by rlvaughn:
...the World Christian Encyclopedia...divides Christianity into 7 major blocs...subdivided into 156 ecclesiastical traditions...1.8 million "worship centres"...and "1018 million active, practising church members"...

I should have noted in the post above that this information comes from the 1982 edition. There is now a two volume 2nd edition (World Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Survey of Churches and Religions In the Modern World, New York: Oxford University Press, 2001). I cannot comment on it because I have not seen a copy.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by thessalonian:

I posted clear and convincing evidence that celibacy in the priesthood is a practice not a doctrine. Mr. G2B2 refused to listen to any distinction that does exist in fact because it does not fit his agenda or yours. He will not deal with the Eastern Rites having a married priesthood because it doesn't fit what he wants to think about the Catholic Church.

So basically, you do not want us to refer to the Catholics generically as "RCC." You would prefer us to be accurate and designate out of the hundreds of thousands of Catholic sects (or is it just 30,000), when referring to "Catholic" doctrine. Celibacy of the priesthood is no longer a Catholic doctrine because of the Eastern rite. It must be specified to perhaps the other 29,998 sects of Catholics give or take a couple. Do I understand you correctly now?
DHK

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by DHK:
Celibacy of the priesthood is no longer a Catholic doctrine because of the Eastern rite. It must be specified to perhaps the other 29,998 sects of Catholics give or take a couple. Do I understand you correctly now?
DHK

No, you do not. But I am sure that you already know that.

Celibacy of the priesthood is a discipline (how we practice our beliefs) not a doctrine.

For a guy who claims to be able to understand Scripture with its multitude of writing styles, written in ancient languages, in far off times, by people in a vastly different culture, you sure do have problems with simple contemporary English (your first language).

That really doesn't give me much confidence in your ability to understand and interpret Scripture.

If you wish to be viewed as credible, perhaps you should avoid the silly stuff; such as your last post.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by trying2understand:


Celibacy of the priesthood is a discipline (how we practice our beliefs) not a doctrine.

For a guy who claims to be able to understand Scripture with its multitude of writing styles, written in ancient languages, in far off times, by people in a vastly different culture, you sure do have problems with simple contemporary English (your first language).

That really doesn't give me much confidence in your ability to understand and interpret Scripture.

If you wish to be viewed as credible, perhaps you should avoid the silly stuff; such as your last post.

T2U,
Quite frankly, unlike your moniker suggests, you don't want to understand, neither is your post even credible.

What is a discipline. Let's use some examples in defining the word.
I have a friend who determined to "tithe" his time. So, for 2.4 hours. So, for almost two and a half hours every morning he spends time with God in prayer. That is a discipline. It is not a requirement of the church, the Baptist faith, or of any other believer. He personally disciplines himself to get up in the morning so to allow himself two and a half hours in prayer. It is a discipline.
At one time in my life I disciplined myself (as some other Catholics do) to go to mass every day. Again, this is not a requirement, but a discipline. It is optional and personal. It is a decision that one makes of his own volition.
Those are two examples of disciplines. A third example might be how many times a day a Catholic may decide to say the rosary. It is his decision, no?

But when a Catholic enters into the priesthood it is the doctrine of the Catholic church that he MUST be celibate. There is no compromise in the RCC on that issue. To bring up the lame excuse that the Latin rite permits it is plain silly, and has nothing to with the discussion at hand. You are just looking for a way out.

Here is an example of what you are doing. I don't believe in homosexuality. I don't believe that the Bible teaches it. I stand firmly against it. Some time ago there was a Baptist on this board, Joshua Villinues (sp?), by name, who saw nothing wrong with being a homosexual and a Christian/baptist at the same time. I think he was one, even a pastor at that. So are you going to run with that and say that all Baptists believe in homosexuality?? Yet you say that Catholics believe that priests can be married. It is the same logic--plain foolishness.
The Celibacy of the priesthood is a requirement of the Catholic Church, something that they adamantly adhere to and believe. It is a doctrine.
DHK

 

[Stephen III]

Not to butt in but let me see if I can add some light. Because you both have good points and seem at times somewhat bogged down in semantics.

Catholics refer to the celibacy requirement of their priests as a discipline, because it is a requirement the Church believes is founded on Christ's example and St. Pauls admonitions. But not all beliefs are dogmatically defined as binding on the good Catholics conscience.

A doctrine is a much stronger word to us. A doctrine is something dogmatically defined by the church that has moral implications on those who are held responsible for believing or not believing and adhering to the defined doctrine and/or its applications. While the church believes it is better served by celibate and unmarried priests it is in no way a doctrine to be held under pain of excommunication if one does not agree with the Church's requirement. No one is in grave danger for not believing that priests should not be celibate or single. It then becomes a discipline the Church requires of its shepherds.

Yes DHK, the RCC does believe it is better for its' shepherds to be unmarried and celibate. But it is imposed on those that CHOOSE to be priests or nuns etc.as a discipline.

When a person is discerning their calling to the priesthood they obviously know of the Church's discipline or requirement and must take this into consideration on whether or not they CHOOSE to become a priest. In this way it becomes a discipline of choice to the priest as he upholds his vows of celibacy etc. out of obedience.
That is somewhat a key, as obedience requires discipline. A priest chooses to be obedient to the Church as a submission of his will and an aknowledgement of God's will; manifest through His Church.

DHK, you gave good examples of disciplines but came up with a different conclusion I think because of the mis-understanding of what we as Catholics would call a "doctrine of the Church".

Let me put the line of your reasoning by examples in a bit more applicable sense:

Dhk, I'm assuming your church has its individual autonomy and church discipline is decided at the local level. When your Pastor asks you and the congregation to "bow your heads and pray", do you and the others bow your head and shut your eyes?

If so why? Granted the Church (Pastor)asked it of you, but also most likely because you (and the Pastor) believe it is the reverent way to aknowledge God in prayer.

Yet it is still a discipline of yours and not a doctrine of your church; brought on by good and proper intentions.

If you chose not to bow your head you would not be going against a church doctrine. Your sin if any would be irreverence. (And that to Jews for example is debatable!)

It is in much the same way that the Roman Catholic Church asks those that would consider the priesthood to do so with the discipline requirement of a vow of celibacy. In deciding to become a priest then the pontential priest and the Church agree on the belief that a celibate and unmarried priest makes for a better shepherd, one in the tradition of Christ Himself. It is a dicipline brought on by obedience to Christ through His church. There would be no sin in not accepting to be unmarried, one would simply discern that the priesthood wasn't for him. Hopefully this would be done before taking ones vows!
By the By: the Church has changed the requirement of celibacy as a discipline of those who would be priests at least 7 times in its history. It has been as it is now since the 12th century.

God Bless
Stephen

[ September 25, 2003, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: Stephen III ]

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by thessalonian:

I posted clear and convincing evidence that celibacy in the priesthood is a practice not a doctrine. Mr. G2B2 refused to listen to any distinction that does exist in fact because it does not fit his agenda or yours. He will not deal with the Eastern Rites having a married priesthood because it doesn't fit what he wants to think about the Catholic Church.

So basically, you do not want us to refer to the Catholics generically as "RCC." You would prefer us to be accurate and designate out of the hundreds of thousands of Catholic sects (or is it just 30,000), when referring to "Catholic" doctrine. Celibacy of the priesthood is no longer a Catholic doctrine because of the Eastern rite. It must be specified to perhaps the other 29,998 sects of Catholics give or take a couple. Do I understand you correctly now?
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]You understand nothing. Find me one Church document that says that celibate priesthood is a doctrine. One paragraph out of any Catechism. One Papal Encyclical. There available at the Vatican website and you can even do a search. Scour the Decrees of councils. There all available too. It's history as your good buddy gb says. One infallible statement. One writing from a Church Father or Bishop who uses celibate priesthood and doctrine in the same sentence. Go to Catholic Information Resources (do a search and you can find the website or I'll give you a link) and download the complete 37 volume Church Fathers from that site in searchable html or winhelp format. Read Ludwig Ott's "dogma of the Catholic Church" a classic in Catholic theology or Thomos Aquinas's Summa Theologica. Celibacy is doctrine. A celibate priesthood is practice. Read Mr. Stephen III's post. I bet you still don't get it because you know what I believe far better than me. I've only studied it for 37 years is all. Your a first grade Math teacher trying to teach Calculus. 2000 years of Church history and I will wager that you will not find anyone speaking of an all celibate priesthood as a doctrine. NOT ONE CATHOLIC SOURCE. Only biggots and haters of truth. Do you accept my challenge.

God bless DHK.

PS. While your at it check out all of these historical documents readily available on the internet for the doctrines of wax candles and the sign of the cross for laughs.

[ September 25, 2003, 11:58 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

[Ray Berrian]

Stephen III,

You said, 'Catholics refer to the celibacy requirement of their priests as a discipline, because it is a requirement the Church believes is founded on Christ's example and St. Pauls admonitions.'

First, Christ did not marry but this was not an example for all clergy not to marry, as you infer. Secondly, your statement ' . . . and St. Paul's admonition' . . .

St. Paul did not say that pastors could not marry; quite the opposite. In fact the Apostle Paul in writing to Timothy says, 'A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, give to hospitality and able to teach.' [I Timothy 3:2]

Here again your traditions, and in this case, an apparent solemn rule, forbids priests to marry except for the Eastern rite.

Before the Catholic Church came into the mix even some of the apostles were married. The Bible says, that your first pope was married. Peter had a mother-in-law and up here in the northeastern part of the USA we get a wife thrown in 'to boot.' {obsolete word}

Brush off your Bible or is it under your Catholic Catechism.

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Stephen III,

You said, 'Catholics refer to the celibacy requirement of their priests as a discipline, because it is a requirement the Church believes is founded on Christ's example and St. Pauls admonitions.'

First, Christ did not marry but this was not an example for all clergy not to marry, as you infer. Secondly, your statement ' . . . and St. Paul's admonition' . . .

St. Paul did not say that pastors could not marry; quite the opposite. In fact the Apostle Paul in writing to Timothy says, 'A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, give to hospitality and able to teach.' [I Timothy 3:2]

Here again your traditions, and in this case, an apparent solemn rule, forbids priests to marry except for the Eastern rite.

Before the Catholic Church came into the mix even some of the apostles were married. The Bible says, that your first pope was married. Peter had a mother-in-law and up here in the northeastern part of the USA we get a wife thrown in 'to boot.' {obsolete word}

Brush off your Bible or is it under your Catholic Catechism.

Ray,

What do you suppose the "husband of one wife" means? Why wouldn't he say "he must have a wife" or he must be married. I have seen two non-contradictory interprutatoins of this phrase in the writings of the fathers. One is that he must not be divorce which is quite in context with the spirit of thise verse. The other is with regard to polygamy. The phrase makes no sense in saying that a man must be married to be a bishop (which the United Church of Christ has none so you have a problem in your Church anyway). If Church leadership excluded the non-married then Paul was out. Further you being an elderly retired pastor would know what a Grandfather clause is I am sure. Another point, yes Peter was married at one time. Prove from scripture that he was married at the time he walked with Christ. (I know about the Corinthians verse, it is no proof). You see it is quite odd that his Mother in Law was cured in the home of Peter AND HIS BROTHER ANDREW. Why were Peter and Andrew living together if Peter had a wife there? Find me the name of a wife of another Apostle. Why is there no mention of anyone's living wife anywhere in scripture? Have wives ever died before the husband? So once again scripture only supports the traditions you have in your head as you force them upon scripture. It is you that has traditions added.

Blessings

 

[DHK]

Stephen,
I appreciate your explanation of how the Catholics view discipline and doctrine differently. It does make more sense now. However, the Catholic “discipline” of celibacy is still based on their doctrine. I come to that conclusion by reading the documents of Vatican II. One can hardly read the following from Vatican II, without the admission that it is doctrine that is being discussed—the doctrine or the teaching of the Church on celibacy in the priesthood. This is not merely a choice that a priest makes as he takes his vow, even if you would liken it to a choice a groom makes as he takes his marriage vows. It is legislated religious law binding on all who take the sacrament of holy orders. That is quite a bit stronger than choice. In fact it leaves no choice at all. When asked to bow my head in prayer, I still have the choice (irreverent to some as it may seem), not to bow my head. That is not the case in the Catholic Church concerning the “doctrine” of celibacy in the priesthood.

Celibacy accords with the priesthood on many scores. For the whole priestly mission is dedicated to that new humanity which Christ, the conqueror of death, raises up in the world through His Spirit. This humanity takes its origin “not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (Jn. 1:13). Through virginity or celibacy observed for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, priests are consecrated to Christ in a new and distinguished way. They more easily hold fast to Him with undivided heart. They more freely devote themselves in Him and through Him to the service of God and men. They more readily minister to His kingdom and to the work of heavenly regeneration, and thus become more apt to exercise paternity in Christ, and do so to a greater extent.

Hence in this way they profess before men that they desire to dedicate themselves in an undivided way to the task assigned to them namely, to betroth the faithful to one man, and present them as a pure virgin to Christ. They thereby evoke that mysterious marriage which was established by God and will be fully manifested in the future, and by which the Church has Christ as her only spouse. Moreover, they become a vivid sign of that future world which is already present through faith and charity, and in which the children of the resurrection will neither marry or take wives.

For these reasons, which are based on the mystery of the Church and her mission, celibacy was at first recommended to priests. Then, in the Latin Church, it was imposed by law on all who were to be promoted to sacred orders. This legislation, to the extent that it concerns those who are destined for the priesthood, this most holy Synod again approves and confirms. It trusts in the Spirit that the gift of celibacy, which so befits the priesthood of the New Testament, will be generously bestowed by the Father, as long as those who share in Christ’s priesthood through the sacrament of orders, and indeed the whole Church, humbly and earnestly pray for it.

This holy Synod likewise exhorts all priests who, trusting in God’s grace, have freely undertaken sacred celibacy imitation of Christ to hold fast to it magnanimously and wholeheartedly. May they persevere faithfully in this state, and recognize this surpassing gift which the Father has given them, and which the Lord praised so openly. Let them keep in mind the great mysteries which are signified and fulfilled in it.

Many men today call perfect continence impossible. The more they do so, the more humbly and perseveringly priests should join with the Church in praying for the grace of fidelity. It is never denied to those who ask. At the same time let priests make use of all the supernatural and natural helps which are available to all. Let them not neglect to follow the norms, especially the ascetical ones, which have been tested by the experience of the Church and which are by no means less necessary in today’s world. And so this most holy Synod beseeches not only priests, but all the faithful to have at heart this precious gift of priestly celibacy. Let all beg of God that He may always lavish this gift on His church abundantly.

(Taken from “The Documents of Vatican II” Priests, Paragraph 17)
DHK

 

[trying2understand]

DHK, your point as to "imposed by law" was pointless.

Of course, disciplines are imposed by law. Otherwise they would merely be suggestions.

That they are imposed doesn't make them doctrine.

The same thing goes in your church. For example, your pastor probably wants everyone to wear shoes and a shirt to service.

If he put up a sign that said, "no shoes, no shirt, no service", would that make it a doctrine?

Or merely an imposed discipline?

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
DHK, your point as to "imposed by law" was pointless.

Of course, disciplines are imposed by law. Otherwise they would merely be suggestions.

That they are imposed doesn't make them doctrine.

The same thing goes in your church. For example, your pastor probably wants everyone to wear shoes and a shirt to service.

If he put up a sign that said, "no shoes, no shirt, no service", would that make it a doctrine?

Or merely an imposed discipline?

Excellent point Trying2. And perhaps the Baptists allow kilts in Ireland and turban's in India. So does that mean they teach a different doctrine over there? More nonsense from those who don't care about truth.

 

[neal4christ]

More nonsense from those who don't care about truth.

That's funny. This coming from the guy who tossed around this 30,000+ number without having a clue as to whether it is true or not.

Neal

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by neal4christ:
That's funny. This coming from the guy who tossed around this 30,000+ number without having a clue as to whether it is true or not.

Neal

I provided an address to the source of the 30,000+ number.

That you do not care to verify it does not make it invalid.

 

[neal4christ]

I provided an address to the source of the 30,000+ number.

That you do not care to verify it does not make it invalid.

If I understand it correctly, this source does not list these 30,000+ denominations, does it? If not, it is not valid. Anyone can throw out a number. To make you happy, I will go to campus a few minutes early and verify the number in our library. However, if it does not list all these denominations, I would like to see a list from you since you believe the number. Okay? Fair enough?

In Christ,
Neal

 

[neal4christ]

By the way, whoever started this thread, it is protestant, not protastant. I just noticed that.

In Christ,
Neal

 

[neal4christ]

I gave the address of the source of the 30,000 plus figure.

Why not write them and ask them?

Ah, I went back and looked. Here is what you wrote. Why do I have to write and get the list? You guys are the ones throwing the number around. I would expect that you would have verified the number by seeing this list before you used it. Why does that burden fall on me? You make the claim, you support it. It is that simple.

In Christ,
Neal

 

[neal4christ]

By the way, guys, your are using information wrong. He does not say 34,000 Protestant denominations, as you love to claim. Here is what this gentleman says:

Within Christianity, he counts 33,830 denominations.

Like it or not, the RCC is one of these denominations. This number makes no distinction between Protestant and any other Christian denomination. Good job at being less than honest, though. However, I am still going to try to give this WCE a look because I would like to see his criteria for what is a denomination.

In Christ,
Neal

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by neal4christ:
If I understand it correctly, this source does not list these 30,000+ denominations, does it? If not, it is not valid. Anyone can throw out a number. To make you happy, I will go to campus a few minutes early and verify the number in our library. However, if it does not list all these denominations, I would like to see a list from you since you believe the number. Okay? Fair enough?

In Christ,
Neal

No, actually it is not.

Your library is not the source of the 34,000 number.

These guys are:

Global Evangelization Movement
1301 N. Hamilton
Suite 209
Richmond, VA


"On top of this, we have built the World Christian Database, itemizing... 34,000 denominations..."

Database... itemizing... 34,000 denominations

Instead of arguing in a vaccuum, if you would like to know the names of the 34,000 denominations, write these guys at the address I gave.