Roman Catholic..anything wrong with it?

[Albion]

It could be a bit inflated. However, would you be interested in doing a little experiment? If so, pick up a copy of the Yellow Pages that covers your area, and go to the "Churches" section. Count how many Protestant, non-Denominational, non-Catholic churches there are.... multiply that by all the Cities, Towns, Villages throughout the world. What kind of number do you think you'd come up with? A hundred? thousand? tens of thousands? That's not even including all the churches that meet in School gymnasiums, Homes, Garages, ect. that are not even listed.

That exercise really doesn't accomplish anything. We all know that there are more churches that are classified as Protestant than are classified as Catholic or Catholic/Orthodox. The point is that both terms are loose classifications that take in a number of different church bodies.

As a result, taking one church from either side and comparing it with all those on the other side, simultaneously, in order to claim that "you're divided; we are not" is something of a shell game.

 

[Fidelibus]

That exercise really doesn't accomplish anything.

Did you even try? Give me the name of your city and I'll do it for you.

We all know that there are more churches that are classified as Protestant than are classified as Catholic or Catholic/Orthodox.

That's the point. The question remains..... what is the number of these churches that are "classified" as Protestant/ Non-Denominational/ non-Catholic worldwide?

The point is that both terms are loose classifications that take in a number of different church bodies.

In the Protestant, non-Denominational, Evangelical, Fundamental churches I would agree, in the tens of thousands would be my guess. However, not so in the Catholic Church. (don't know about the Orthodox) The list you provided (which remains an unknown source) claims there are 400 plus Catholic denominations within the Catholic Church is an outright fallacy. It may surprise you to know that there are many different rites within the Catholic Church, not denominations.

The Catechism lists seven rites. These rites so listed: Latin, Byzantine, Alexandrian, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, and Chaldean,2 are actually families of liturgical expression, not that crazy number of 400 plus. Lol! These rites are the descendants of the liturgical practices that originated in centers of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. The Catholic Encyclopedia describes the situation this way: "Within the Catholic Church ... Canonical rites, which are of equal dignity, enjoy the same rights, and are under the same obligations. Although the particular churches possess their own hierarchy, differ in liturgical and ecclesiastical discipline, and possess their own spiritual heritage, they are all entrusted to the pastoral government of the Roman pontiff, the divinely appointed successor of St. Peter in the Primacy.

All the rites of the Catholic Church are of equal dignity and equally valid. Attendance at a different rite fulfills the Sunday obligation. The Catholic Church is truly universal since it unites so many diverse rites, whose members share a common faith. A claim the Protestant, non-Denominational, Evangelical, Fundamental churches cannot make.

As a result, taking one church from either side and comparing it with all those on the other side, simultaneously, in order to claim that "you're divided; we are not" is something of a shell game.

That's funny, (Its really not funny at all, it's actually very sad) because there seems to be disunity within your own Anglican Communion. For example, the struggles with the controversy regarding homosexuality in the church. In 2002, the Diocese of New Westminster, in the Anglican Church of Canada, permitted the blessing of same-sex unions In the Episcopal Church in the United States, Gene Robinson was elected and consecrated Bishop of New Hampshire, becoming the first openly gay bishop in the Anglican Communion. This was highly controversial and led several hundred bishops to boycott the 2008 Lambeth Conference. Many members of the Angilican communion stated their opposition to what they consider un-scriptural actions by the churches in England, Canada, Australia, and the United States and left. This one example alone does not ring of unity. Of those that left, guess which Church most of them coverted too?? You got it... The Holy Catholic Church which includes many married Anglican priests that are now Catholic Priests! Thanks..... they are great!


Then we have a slew of non-Catholic churches that believe in infant baptisim and those that do not! There are non-Catholic churches that believe abortion is okay and those that do not! The list of differing practices and beliefs among Protestant, non-Denominational, Evangelical, Fundamental churches is to long to list, and you say "we are not divided?? Okay!!!

 

[Albion]

Did you even try? Give me the name of your city and I'll do it for you.



That's the point. The question remains..... what is the number of these churches that are "classified" as Protestant/ Non-Denominational/ non-Catholic worldwide?

I don't know what your point is supposed to be. We all know that there are more Protestant denominations than Catholic ones and more Protestant congregations than Catholic ones. No one has been disputing that, although it doesn't have anything to do with the point I have been making.

In the Protestant, non-Denominational, Evangelical, Fundamental churches I would agree, in the tens of thousands would be my guess. However, not so in the Catholic Church. (don't know about the Orthodox) The list you provided (which remains an unknown source) claims there are 400 plus Catholic denominations within the Catholic Church is an outright fallacy. It may surprise you to know that there are many different rites within the Catholic Church, not denominations.

Good grief. Not that mistake again. The fact of there being a number of Catholic-classified churches just as there are many Protestant-classified ones has been covered again and again, and we're NOT talking about rites within the church headed by the Pope in Rome.

Catch up and then we might be able to discuss whatever might need discussing.

 

[kepha31]

Catholic apologists no longer use exaggerated numbers.

I think we can safely refer to “hundreds” of Protestant denominations, using a cogent doctrinal definition, not merely jurisdictional or superficial (though institutional unity is not an unbiblical characteristic, either, if we want to get technical about it). Biblically speaking, any more than one “denomination” or “Church” is a scandal. The Catholic continues to assert that there is one Church and that the Catholic Church is the fullest institutional expression of that one Church, with other Christians implicitly connected with it to more or less degrees. This (agree or disagree) at least lines up with the biblical witness as to the nature and definition of the Christian Church, rather than being blatantly contrary to the Bible, as the very notion of denominationalism (wholly apart from later disputes about numbers) is.

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, (Dave Armstrong) 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!

 

[Erose]

The survey comes to its bloated figures because it considers each denomination IN EACH COUNTRY where it is represented to be another denomination, plus a number of groups of opinions within any of them (like "High Church Anglicans" which term refers to Anglicans who favor a lot of ceremony, vestments, etc. but are not separate ), and agencies of denominations (like sodalities, religious orders, and so on). To make matters worse, that isn't done consistently (as I recall).

I agree with you that the number of Protestant churches is a bit bloated no doubt. The issue I see here is with definitions. What is a Protestant church? Me? I would say a Protestant church is one that has its roots in the Protestant revolt, or at least a direct link to one of these churches. For example I would consider the Methodist denominations as Protestant as they have a direct link to Anglican. I'm not sure if I would consider most Baptist denominations (and similar groups) as Protestant as their history is a little bit murky. I definitely wouldn't consider most of the Pentecostal and non-denominational groups as Protestant in the traditional sense, either. But then how would you categorize these groups? That is a question for scholars and historians, I would imagine.

But bear in mind that if you classify some thousands of churches that have almost nothing in common with each other as Protestant, you have also to count the Old Catholics, Liberal Catholics, SSPX, SSPV, and others as Catholic, too. That can't be winked away by pointing to different rites within the Church of Rome.

Considering that I don't, but the argument can be made for groups such as the SSPX and some of the sedevacantist groups as being Catholic like, but then the argument could also be made against them being Catholic in that they no longer hold communion with the Catholic Church as a whole. Perhaps another title that would cover these groups would be liturgical churches. Then you would have an argument. But when it comes to true Catholicism, there is really only one Church.

 

[Albion]

I agree with you that the number of Protestant churches is a bit bloated no doubt. The issue I see here is with definitions. What is a Protestant church? Me? I would say a Protestant church is one that has its roots in the Protestant revolt, or at least a direct link to one of these churches. For example I would consider the Methodist denominations as Protestant as they have a direct link to Anglican. I'm not sure if I would consider most Baptist denominations (and similar groups) as Protestant as their history is a little bit murky. I definitely wouldn't consider most of the Pentecostal and non-denominational groups as Protestant in the traditional sense, either. But then how would you categorize these groups? That is a question for scholars and historians, I would imagine.

I agree, it is a matter of definition; and the historians and scholars you refer to classify just about any Christian church that is not Catholic but also not classified as a cult as being Protestant, just as they classify a range of churches as Catholic (a much smaller range, to be sure). A cult is a cult, by the modern use of the word, if it goes beyond the basics that Catholics and Protestants share--the Bible, Christ as God in the flesh, etc.

 

[bbbbbbb]

But when it comes to true Catholicism, there is really only one Church.

That is ironically true. However, the catholic (universal) church is not a bloated religious bureaucracy with its headquarters in Rome.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Getting back to the original question, “Roman Catholic…anything wrong with it?” I went to a RC mass this weekend and noticed (and in some cases, was reminded of) a few things.

1) A total lack of Bibles in the pew backs. There were only hymnals and a card telling you how to respond at different points of the liturgy.

2) None of the readers identified which chapters and verses were being read, only from which books. I suppose since no one had a Bible no one was going to be following along anyway.

3) In two of the three readings, verses were omitted. The result was a change in both context and meaning. I only caught this because I was familiar with the readings, didn’t think they sounded right, and checked them on my phone.

4) The entire sermon was about five minutes at best, and didn’t really relate well to any of the readings. The rest of the service was about 55 minutes of scripted ceremony.

 

[Albion]

Considering that I don't, but the argument can be made for groups such as the SSPX and some of the sedevacantist groups as being Catholic like, but then the argument could also be made against them being Catholic in that they no longer hold communion with the Catholic Church as a whole.

Not, it cannot. Churches have whatever doctrinal profile and organization they have, and this is what results in the classification. This isn't negated if one of them pretends that it is the only church that should be counted.

We are all aware that the Roman Church does this, even refusing to call other churches by the word, instead choosing to say "ecclesial communities." But so do other of the Catholic churches make similar claims and, also, certain Protestant churches do, too.

Obviously, no objective classification system could exist if it were necessary to let every denomination that has the view that it alone is genuine be accommodated.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Getting back to the original question, “Roman Catholic…anything wrong with it?” I went to a RC mass this weekend and noticed (and in some cases, was reminded of) a few things.

1) A total lack of Bibles in the pew backs. There were only hymnals and a card telling you how to respond at different points of the liturgy.

2) None of the readers identified which chapters and verses were being read, only from which books. I suppose since no one had a Bible no one was going to be following along anyway.

3) In two of the three readings, verses were omitted. The result was a change in both context and meaning. I only caught this because I was familiar with the readings, didn’t think they sounded right, and checked them on my phone.

4) The entire sermon was about five minutes at best, and didn’t really relate well to any of the readings. The rest of the service was about 55 minutes of scripted ceremony.

That has been my experience at the various Roman Catholic masses I have attended.

 

[Albion]

"Following along" with one's own copy of the Bible is a Protestant practice, but I'm not sure that it makes the reading any less meaningful if it is only heard. But it is true that Catholic and Orthodox churches are not famous for their sermons. They are often short (not 5 minutes though!) and convey an uncomplicated thought for the day that is not necessarily a take-off from the Gospel appointed for the day (although usually they are).

However, the briefer sermon can partly be explained by the fact that the Mass itself is the focus of the hour. In Protestant churches, the sermon is the thing, and aside from the singing, there isn't much to the rest of the worship service. It would take some doing to carefully review all that the Mass means and contains, but it is not just ceremony. It incorporates the observance and distribution of the Lord's Supper, which is missing from most Protestant worship services, and includes a number of readings from Scripture.

 

[Phil 1:21]

I'm not sure that it makes the reading any less meaningful if it is only heard.

If the reading was accurate, then no. But when verses are intentionally removed, and no one knows because they aren't following along, different story.

 

[Albion]

I don't know what to think about that "verses removed" idea. I've never witnessed anything like that in a Catholic church, not that I can think of.

 

[Erose]

That is ironically true. However, the catholic (universal) church is not a bloated religious bureaucracy with its headquarters in Rome.

On this you agree with the Catholic Church. Making progress.

 

[Erose]

Not, it cannot. Churches have whatever doctrinal profile and organization they have, and this is what results in the classification. This isn't negated if one of them pretends that it is the only church that should be counted.

The classification is defined by whoever is doing the classification is it not? And I also agree with you that those groups who want to pretend to be The Catholic Church should not be considered as Catholic. Like I said, the classification should be Liturgical Churches and not Catholic Churches.

We are all aware that the Roman Church does this, even refusing to call other churches by the word, instead choosing to say "ecclesial communities." But so do other of the Catholic churches make similar claims and, also, certain Protestant churches do, too.

It comes again to definitions here. In view of classical understanding of what a Church is that body of believers must possess the Sacrifice given to the Church by Christ, and that body of believers can only have the Sacrifice IF there is a legitimate bishop over that body of believers. Not just a priest, but a bishop, as no priest has the authority by themselves to offer the sacrifice without the authority of his bishop. Those body of believers without a legitimate bishop and thus no legitimate Sacrifice, cannot by definition be a Church. Thus they are ecclesial communities or groups. No insult is found here, if one truly understands the proper definition of Church.

Obviously, no objective classification system could exist if it were necessary to let every denomination that has the view that it alone is genuine be accommodated.

I think it is obvious that no classification system is going to be fully accepted by all parties in this matter. The fact still remains that no evidence has been provided that there are 500 plus "Catholic" denominations.

 

[Erose]

Getting back to the original question, “Roman Catholic…anything wrong with it?” I went to a RC mass this weekend and noticed (and in some cases, was reminded of) a few things.

1) A total lack of Bibles in the pew backs. There were only hymnals and a card telling you how to respond at different points of the liturgy.

In those parishes with just the hard back Missal/Hymnal, the readings are found in the Hymnal.

2) None of the readers identified which chapters and verses were being read, only from which books. I suppose since no one had a Bible no one was going to be following along anyway.

Because those who are interested will be following the readings in the Missal.

3) In two of the three readings, verses were omitted. The result was a change in both context and meaning. I only caught this because I was familiar with the readings, didn’t think they sounded right, and checked them on my phone.

In some cases this is done, to keep focus on what part of the reading is being emphasized. I've been in quite a few non-Catholic Churches where the preacher will skip verses because they don't apply to the message he is teaching. I'm not sure why you would have an issue with this?

4) The entire sermon was about five minutes at best, and didn’t really relate well to any of the readings. The rest of the service was about 55 minutes of scripted ceremony.

This is an issue no doubt in some parishes, not all priests are good orators, but some are. In my parish this weekend, the sermon was about 20 minutes long, and was very informative.

Concerning the rest of the ceremony, it is called liturgical prayer, in which the whole community prays together to our Lord God. Very similar when in other churches a deacon or the pastor leads the community in prayer. Just longer.

 

[Goatee]

"Following along" with one's own copy of the Bible is a Protestant practice, but I'm not sure that it makes the reading any less meaningful if it is only heard. But it is true that Catholic and Orthodox churches are not famous for their sermons. They are often short (not 5 minutes though!) and convey an uncomplicated thought for the day that is not necessarily a take-off from the Gospel appointed for the day (although usually they are).

However, the briefer sermon can partly be explained by the fact that the Mass itself is the focus of the hour. In Protestant churches, the sermon is the thing, and aside from the singing, there isn't much to the rest of the worship service. It would take some doing to carefully review all that the Mass means and contains, but it is not just ceremony. It incorporates the observance and distribution of the Lord's Supper, which is missing from most Protestant worship services, and includes a number of readings from Scripture.

In our parish the sermons are never short. Lol

 

[Phil 1:21]

In those parishes with just the hard back Missal/Hymnal, the readings are found in the Hymnal.

These were straight hymnals, not missals. Nothing but songs. They opened with a song I remember from grade school. That was actually pretty cool for me.

In some cases this is done, to keep focus on what part of the reading is being emphasized. I've been in quite a few non-Catholic Churches where the preacher will skip verses because they don't apply to the message he is teaching. I'm not sure why you would have an issue with this?

I would think every Christian would have an issue with deleting verses out of scripture to make it say something it does not. In our church, that wouldn't fly.

 

[Albion]

The classification is defined by whoever is doing the classification is it not? And I also agree with you that those groups who want to pretend to be The Catholic Church should not be considered as Catholic. Like I said, the classification should be Liturgical Churches and not Catholic Churches.

For one thing, the idea that "groups who want to pretend to be The Catholic Church" is in error. The Old Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox Catholics, the Church of the East, and others certainly do not pretend to be the church of Rome. I know that you want to confine the others to the SSPX, etc. and I did make mention of them as separate groups, and some of them do claim to be the real Catholic church, but for the most part the other churches classed as Catholic do not pretend to be your church.

In addition, the Catholic-Protestant or Catholic-Protestant-Orthodox-Anglican models are widely used, even by governments, so this is not some obscure or imprecise system.

The fact still remains that no evidence has been provided that there are 500 plus "Catholic" denominations.

The various surveys and reports that Catholics on CF self-righteously use to criticize the supposed divisions among Protestants also count hundreds of different Catholic ones and, in fact, hundreds of different Roman Catholic churches.

So you may say that what one person thinks is the right classification system is not what the next one uses, but you cannot make use of the same one when it suits your puposes, dismissing it as bunk when it does not. If you want thousands of Protestant churches, then you get lots of Catholic ones, too.

 

[Erose]

These were straight hymnals, not missals. Nothing but songs. They opened with a song I remember from grade school. That was actually pretty cool for me.

Well it must be something specific to that parish. I've been in some where you have to pick up a missal in the back before going in, and there are quite a few hard back books that have both the hymns and the readings in them. My parish used the paper back missals and we also have a hymnal books as well.

I would think every Christian would have an issue with deleting verses out of scripture to make it say something it does not. In our church, that wouldn't fly.

I think you are referring to the passage out of Romans 8: 9-13, where verse 10 is removed from the reading. I personally don't think that the meaning changed at all, but only the emphasis. Anyway I get it that this is a pet peeve of yours, and I'm not a big fan of it either, even when I was Evangelical, I didn't like the preacher just skipping around pulling one verse out here and then another here, for it is easy to get out of context. But it is something that occurs in every denomination, I would assume.

That being said, I can guarantee you that this verse is read in context somewhere on the liturgical calendar, and if I would have to guess, you probably heard more Scripture read in that hour that probably you will hear in a couple of Sundays in most evangelical churches.