A Simple Yet Irrefutable Reason The Catholic church Is Not Rooted In Christ's Church

[BreadOfLife]

Could you list even 500 of the “tens of thousands” of Protestant factions?
(It will reveal the innate fallacy of the claim.)

Yes – but not on ONE post. The site won’t allow for that many characters.

By the way – the source for the “tens of thousands” is a a PROTESTANT source – The World Christian Encyclopedia, by David B. Barrett, was published in 1982 by Oxford University Press.

 

[Alfredthefifth]

Traditions of men are the biggest stumbling block that Jesus ever lectured the Jews about.

Although your post above doesn’t make much grammatical sense – I THINK I know what you’re trying to say.

Suffice it to say that Sola Scriptura – in ALL of its definitions and examples that you showed is a man-made invention and NOT a Biblical teaching.
To put it plainly – the idea that the Bible is our SOLE Authority simply isn’t taught by the Bible itself because it completely negates Sacred Tradition, which the Bible explicitly endorses (2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Thess. 3:6, 1 Cor. 11:2).

This false doctrine was promoted by your Protestant Fathers in an effort to further divorce themselves from the Catholic Church.
Of the “5 Solas” of the Protestant Revolt – the Catholic Church pretty much agrees with THREE of them:
Sola Gratia (Grace Alone)
Sola De Gloria (Glory of God Alone)
Sola Christus (Christ Alone)

However, Sole Scriptura (Scripture Alone) and Sola Fide (Faith Alone) which were invented during this time – are rejected by the Scriptures.

It is those holding on to traditions of men that contradict the WORD of God. That use singular scriptures the most. That way what isn't in scriptures can be twisted into being backed up by scripture.

You have your traditions of men, twist the scriptures and WORK your salvation that way.

All anyone can do is pray for yours or my souls.


Alfredthefifth

 

[Illuminator]

Could you list even 500 of the “tens of thousands” of Protestant factions?
(It will reveal the innate fallacy of the claim.)

According to the Dictionary of Christianity in America [Protestant] (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1990): “As of 1980 David B. Barrett identified 20,800 Christian denominations worldwide . . .” (42 years ago!)

(“Denominationalism,” p. 351). I have this book, so I have seen this with my own eyes. Barrett “classified them into seven major blocs and 156 ecclesiastical traditions.” This is from Oxford World Christian Encyclopedia, 1982, of which he is the editor.

Also, according to United Nations there were over 23,000 competing and often contradictory denominations world-wide (World Census of Religious Activities [U.N. Information Center, NY, 1989]). This was cited in Frank Schaeffer’s book Dancing Alone (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Press, 1994), p. 4. Schaeffer is Orthodox.

The 1999 Encyclopedia of Christianity has this to say: “In 1985 David Barrett could count 22,150 distinct denominations worldwide.” {edited by E. Fahlbusch, et al., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999, vol. 1, p. 800, s.v. “Denomination.” David B. Barrett is the statistical editor}

So, yes, I agree, Svendsen’s clarifications of Barrett’s meaning and his rebuke are worthwhile, and to be heeded accordingly; it does not follow, however, that the scandal of Protestant denominationalism is therefore alleviated. It is scandalous because it entails a false, unbiblical definition of what the Church is, no matter how many of these sects one arrives at, or by what calculation and criteria.

I, as a Catholic apologist, can easily admit that Svendsen is right about wrongheaded definitions concerning denominations, but that doesn’t have any ill effect whatever on the overall Catholic apologetic. On the other hand, Protestant apologists like Svendsen and White (even ecumenical Protestant apologists and other thinkers) have a huge problem trying to biblically justify denominationalism and sectarianism and in determining the internal causes of same (which we Catholics would identify as: sola Scriptura, private judgment, so-called “supremacy of conscience,” the sectarian and exclusivistic mindsets, anti-institutionalism, anti-sacerdotalism, rejection of a binding apostolic tradition and Church, and of apostolic succession, episcopacy, even American cultural individualism running rampant within American Protestantism, etc.) that they have by no means ever resolved or even squarely faced.

33,000 Protestant Denominations? No!

 

[atpollard]

To put it plainly – the idea that the Bible is our SOLE Authority simply isn’t taught by the Bible itself because it completely negates Sacred Tradition, which the Bible explicitly endorses (2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Thess. 3:6, 1 Cor. 11:2).

2 Thessalonians 2:13-15 [NASB95]

But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word [of mouth] or by letter from us.​

• What traditions were YOU, personally, taught by word of mouth from the Apostles?
• Then all you really have is their writings … Sola Scriptura.

2 Thessalonians 3:6-13 [NASB95]

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we [kept] working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you; not because we do not have the right [to this,] but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would follow our example. For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread. But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary of doing good.​

• The “tradition” spoken of is how they lived, not what they taught in secret but never wrote down.
• The context is a condemnation of much of the clergy (not just in the RCC), and a good many professing Christians … but has nothing to do with “Sacred Tradition”.

1 Corinthians 11:2-16 [NASB95]

Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who has [something] on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake. Therefore the woman ought to have [a symbol of] authority on her head, because of the angels. However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man [has his birth] through the woman; and all things originate from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God [with her head] uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.​

• Why do you pay such lip service to the first verse and spit on the rest of the paragraph?
• That was what the other poster objected to as “SOLO SCRIPTURA” … one verse plucked, and misused.
• What traditions did Paul deliver to you that are not found in Scripture?
• What traditions did Paul deliver to YOU PERSONALLY?
• Why has the RCC so often CHANGED traditions if you claim to place such great value on “holding on” to the traditions of the Apostles (who never prayed to Mary, they prayed to God)?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Getting the vatican to release documents is like pulling teeth isn't easy, there is a on going request for documents on the so called croatian plunder.

And UNTIL you have absolute proof of something – WHY would you spread a rumor??
You have NO idea if this is true – so why would you go around claiming it as fact?

Do you honestly believe that God approves of this kind of behavior??

 

[BreadOfLife]

Traditions of men are the biggest stumbling block that Jesus ever lectured the Jews about.




It is those holding on to traditions of men that contradict the WORD of God. That use singular scriptures the most. That way what isn't in scriptures can be twisted into being backed up by scripture.

You have your traditions of men, twist the scriptures and WORK your salvation that way.

All anyone can do is pray for yours or my souls.
Alfredthefifth

Traditions of men are the biggest stumbling block that Jesus ever lectured the Jews about.

It is those holding on to traditions of men that contradict the WORD of God. That use singular scriptures the most. That way what isn't in scriptures can be twisted into being backed up by scripture.
You have your traditions of men, twist the scriptures and WORK your salvation that way.
All anyone can do is pray for yours or my souls.
Alfredthefifth

You’re ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
Traditions of MEN include:
Sola Scriptura
Sola Fide
Accepting Jesus as “Personal Lord and Savior”
. . . to name a few.

The Sacred or Apostolic Traditions that are mentioned in Scripture are NOT mere “Traditions of Men” – but are as binding as Scripture (2 Thess. 2:15).
And your rejection of these Traditions hold the SAME consequences as rejecting Scripture.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The Lutheran Church incorporates in every country that it operates in. All Lutheran Churches follow the Book of Concord and believe the same thing (as much as all RC Churches believe the same thing), yet sources like “The World Christian Encyclopedia” will count each National Lutheran Church as a distinct Denomination … which is accurate for Tax Codes, but theologically misleading. The Lutheran Church is just one example of the BAD ACCOUNTING that arrives at the “tens of thousands” of Protestant denominations LIE. It is a fabrication and deliberately misleading false information.
Go ahead and LIST 500.
You will make my point for me.

And YOU are making MY point by using an ignorant term like “all the RC Churches”.
The World Christian Encyclopedia makes the mistake of labelling every single group as “denominations”.

There are sites that attempt to debunk the “33,000 denomination” number, but they ALL use different, methods to dissect and recount. And many of those sites don’t take the “Independent” or “Lone Ranger” sects very seriously, which doesn’t give an accurate count. In fact, the LARGEST number of groups is found in those Independent denominations – or “Non-denominational” factions.

ANOTHER mistake they make is that they label the “Catholic” denominations as “Roman Catholic” denominations, which is patently FALSE.
Except for the ONE Catholic Church, which includes the twenty or so Eastern Rites, along with the Roman/Latin Rite, I would include ALL of them in the “Protestant” section.
“Roman Catholic is NOT a denomination, but one of about twenty Liturgical Rites that comprise the ONE Catholic Church.

So - ANY list I give you will spark endless debates about the validity of whether or not these are different denominations.​

 

[atpollard]

On the other hand, Protestant apologists like Svendsen and White (even ecumenical Protestant apologists and other thinkers) have a huge problem trying to biblically justify denominationalism and sectarianism and in determining the internal causes of same (which we Catholics would identify as: sola Scriptura, private judgment, so-called “supremacy of conscience,” the sectarian and exclusivistic mindsets, anti-institutionalism, anti-sacerdotalism, rejection of a binding apostolic tradition and Church, and of apostolic succession, episcopacy, even American cultural individualism running rampant within American Protestantism, etc.) that they have by no means ever resolved or even squarely faced.

Some of what you criticize are “Baptist Distincives” (traits common to “Baptists” rather than “Protestants” in general). As such, most Lutherans and Presbyterians and many others would say “Amen” to your laments.

However the Baptists were not born out of the Reformation. We never attempted to “fix” the RCC. We were born out of Gutenberg and William Tyndale bringing the Word of God to the masses in vernacular English … allowing people to “hear” the apostles for themselves for the first time in over a thousand years. It was people rediscovering WHAT GOD’S WORD ACTUALLY SAID that transformed the lives of those people (just as those same words transformed lives in the First Century) that gave birth to the Baptist movement.

So the Baptist Distinctives reflect the drive of men to rediscover the God hidden behind funny hats and stained glass windows. It is a “denomination” of individuals all seeking to know the author of a personally transformative book. My RCC mother taught me to fear god. My atheist father taught me that religion was for the weak. The Gang that I ran with taught me that Bertrand Russel was correct (“The evidence of contemporary christian life is such, that God, if he ever existed, must surely be dead.”) It was the Holy Bible that introduced me to WHO God really was.

So the “Baptist Distinctives” make a lot of sense to me. I tried your church and it failed the test of TRUTH. What the RCC teaches is not what the Bible says. I chose the Bible over the Priest and I can live with that choice.

I know the God that has changed me.

 

[atpollard]

So - ANY list I give you will spark endless debates about the validity of whether or not these are different denominations.

Not by me … I deleted the post because Illuminator had already addressed the issue as far as anyone was going to.

For the record, I am a Particular Baptist … we believe that EVERY LOCAL CONGREGATION answers directly to Jesus Christ … so every local congregation is a “denomination” by some accounting (even if most agree about virtually everything).

 

[atpollard]

“Roman Catholic is NOT a denomination, but one of about twenty Liturgical Rites that comprise the ONE Catholic Church.

Is the EOC part of that “Catholic Church” … because Rome and the EOC are still not in agreement on sharing communion (making the claim of “one church” a bit of a stretch).

 

[BreadOfLife]

2 Thessalonians 2:13-15 [NASB95]
But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word [of mouth] or by letter from us.
What traditions were YOU, personally, taught by word of mouth from the Apostles?
Then all you really have is their writings … Sola Scriptura.
2 Thessalonians 3:6-13 [NASB95]
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we [kept] working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you; not because we do not have the right [to this,] but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would follow our example. For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread. But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary of doing good.
The “tradition” spoken of is how they lived, not what they taught in secret but never wrote down.

The context is a condemnation of much of the clergy (not just in the RCC), and a good many professing Christians … but has nothing to do with “Sacred Tradition”.

1 Corinthians 11:2-16 [NASB95]

Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who has [something] on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for

she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake. Therefore the woman ought to have [a symbol of] authority on her head, because of the angels. However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man [has his birth] through the woman; and all things originate fromGod. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God [with her head] uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.
Why do you pay such lip service to the first verse and spit on the rest of the paragraph?
That was what the other poster objected to as “SOLO SCRIPTURA” … one verse plucked, and misused.
What traditions did Paul deliver to you that are not found in Scripture?
What traditions did Paul deliver to YOU PERSONALLY?
Why has the RCC so often CHANGED traditions if you claim to place such great
value on “holding on” to the traditions of the Apostles (who never prayed to Mary, they prayed to God)?

It doesn’t appear that you even understand what Apostolic or Sacred Tradition even is.
It does NOT require that I heard it straight from an Apostle.

In the OT – the Word of God was conveyed by BOTH the written (Scripture) AND the Oral Tradition.
Here are a few examples of this in the NT:
Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is ORAL TRADITION. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.
Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the ORAL TRADITION of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.
1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exod. 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.
2 Timothy 3:8 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION when speaking of Pharoah’s magicians, Jannes and Jambres. Their names are not recorded in the Old Testament.

NONE of these things were spoken by the prophets DIRECTLY toward the NT writer.
YOUR insistence that WE must be instructed DIRECTLY from the lips of an Apostle is just as asinine.
The ORAL teachings Paul referred to ini 2 Thess. 2:15 are TRADITINS, which he explicitly describes them as.
He describes “Traditions” as “An oral teaching OR a letter from US” – and puts EQUAL gravitas ono BOTH.

Just as in the OT – the Word of God is conveyed in BOTH the Written AND the Oral.

 

[atpollard]

It doesn’t appear that you even understand what Apostolic or Sacred Tradition even is.
It does NOT require that I heard it straight from an Apostle.

No, Sacred Tradition does not … but those verses quoted to support it do. That that whole READ THE CONTEXT thing that we Sola Scriptura folk keep harping about and you RCC Apologists keep ignoring. You read scripture like a Mormon …

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
​

 

[BreadOfLife]

Is the EOC part of that “Catholic Church” … because Rome and the EOC are still not in agreement on sharing communion (making the claim of “one church” a bit of a stretch).

There is the Catholic Church and there are the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

There is ONE Catholic Church, which is comprised of some twenty Liturgical Rites - which are in full communion.
Similarly, the Eastern Orthodox Churches are not divided by different doctrines - but largely cultural practices, like the Catholic Liturgical Rites.

 

[atpollard]

NONE of these things were spoken by the prophets DIRECTLY toward the NT writer.

You (and your bishops) are not the NT Writers.
You do not get to add to the word of God as they did.
You have not been called to do so.

(Jesus would have mentioned something that important).
You imitate the Scribes and Pharisees adding the traditions of Men to the Laws of Moses to tie heavy yokes on the backs of your laity as you enjoy the seats of honor and being called with titles of respect.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, Sacred Tradition does not … but those verses quoted to support it do. That that whole READ THE CONTEXT thing that we Sola Scriptura folk keep harping about and you RCC Apologists keep ignoring. You read scripture like a Mormon …

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”​

​

WRONG.

Paul explicitly teaches that the ORAL traditions are as binding as Scripture, what is written.
2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a LETTER from us."

You can try to weasel your way around this unti verse the COWS come home and you’re Still be wrong.
What you WON’T find is a similar verse that teaches exclusively that Scripture is our ONLY Authority.

 

[atpollard]

​

WRONG.

Paul explicitly teaches that the ORAL traditions are as binding as Scripture, what is written.
2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a LETTER from us."

You can try to weasel your way around this unti verse the COWS come home and you’re Still be wrong.
What you WON’T find is a similar verse that teaches exclusively that Scripture is our ONLY Authority.

FROM US ….
Apostolic oral traditions were binding … but the “home movies” recording them were lost in a move in the 2nd century. We only have the Apostolic WRITINGS left for US to read.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a LETTER from us."

The oral statements have all been documented in the New Testament.

Oral statements are now corroborated by the written word in the Holy Bible.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You (and your bishops) are not the NT Writers.
You do not get to add to the word of God as they did.
You have not been called to do so.

(Jesus would have mentioned something that important).
You imitate the Scribes and Pharisees adding the traditions of Men to the Laws of Moses to tie heavy yolks on the backs of your laity as you enjoy the seats of honor and being called with titles of respect.

Where have YOU been for the last 2000 years??

It’s not ME or the existing Bishops who are pulling these Traditions out of thin air.
We have a PAPER TRAIL that foes ALL the way back to the beginning called the Apostolic Fathers.

These are men who were the first disciples of the Apostles. Men like Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp, who passed them onto THEIR successors.

Tell me something –
WHY was Oral Tradition okay for the Jews in the OT – but is forbidden for Christians in the NT?

I’ll wait here for your answer . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

The oral statements have all been documented in the New Testament.

Oral statements are now corroborated by the written word in the Holy Bible.

Really?
Show me the verse that makes this claim.

The onus is on YOU to do so as a Sola Scripturist.

 

[BreadOfLife]

FROM US ….
Apostolic oral traditions were binding … but the “home movies” recording them were lost in a move in the 2nd century. We only have the Apostolic WRITINGS left for US to read.

Would it be more appealing to you if they had said “From us and our successors”??

Just because YOU don’t understand what Tradition is or HOW it begins – doesn’t mean that those in the 1st century didn’t,

In MANY ways, they had MUCH more going for them than todays’ Protestants because not only did they UNDERSTAND what Paul was talking about – they had the FAITH to believe it.