‍ 

Dialogue on Bad Protestant Arguments

 

Are there really 8,000 Denominations 

in Catholicism? 

 

Gary Hoge

 

This one’s going to require a bit of set-up. It began when I visited a discussion board at which Tim is a moderator. The board is run by a Protestant author named Eric Svendsen, and at one point I got into a brief discussion with him. Among other things, I said:

 

Your ancestors set aside the system into which they were born and claimed that Scripture was clear enough by itself to enable them to determine what doctrines Christianity proposes and what doctrines it condemns, without the need for Tradition or the interpretive authority of the succession of bishops in union with the pope. Well, 500 years have passed, and their descendants have been spectacularly unsuccessful at trying to make their new system work. Not only have they not been able to arrive at a unified version of Christianity to which they can all subscribe, but they’ve spawned dozens of different versions of Christianity, and they haven’t been able to advance a step in resolving any of the myriad theological conflicts that have arisen from their conflicting interpretations of Scripture. I think this casts considerable doubt on the truth of the original assertion that sola Scriptura is a workable alternative to the Catholic system it attempted to replace.

 

In response, Dr. Svendsen said:

 

If you’re going to continue to assert these extremely uninformed opinions, then you’re going to be banned from the board, plain and simple.

 

I decided to leave the board voluntarily, but Dr. Svendsen posted a note directed “to all Roman Catholics” in which he said, among other things, “This board is for more sophisticated arguments” than the ones I was making.

 

Now, that annoyed me, because I did not find Dr. Svendsen’s own arguments to be anything other than ridiculous. For example, in a different discussion I had said:

 

In Protestantism, it seems you can only resolve disputes by separating from each other and establishing rival denominations, which has the effect of setting the disputes in concrete and perpetuating them forever.

 

and Dr. Svendsen replied,

 

And in Roman Catholicism there exists over 8,000 denominations–just as many as in Protestantism–all of which are bickering with each other about the meaning of the latest “definition” from the pope. Get your facts straight or leave the board.

 

Excuse me!? There are eight-thousand denominations in Catholicism!?

 

Because Tim is on the staff of Dr. Svendsen’s organization, I wrote to him and asked where on earth Dr. Svendsen got that number. But a few minutes later I wrote back and said:

 

You can disregard the post I sent you a few minutes ago. I did a little research and found in Svendsen’s paper on “30,000 denominations” the source of his assertion that there are 8,000 Catholic denominations. It’s a number he drew out of thin air, a projection based on Barrett’s statement that in 1970 there were “223” Catholic “denominations.” Of course, as Barrett makes clear in his book, “all the figures in column 10 refer to number of denominations, except for those in italics (under Roman Catholic) which refer instead to the number of dioceses and jurisdictions.” So, apparently, there are 223 Catholic diocese in the world. Big deal. But Eric touts that in his post to me as proof that there are “just as many [denominations in Catholicism] as in Protestantism”!

‍ 

Amazing.

‍ 

Is that really the best you guys can do? When we point out that Protestantism has fragmented into dozens of doctrinally diverse denominations, is your best answer really, “Yeah, well you Catholics are organized into dozens of geographically diverse diocese, so you’re just as disunified as we are”? Is that what passes for a “sophisticated” argument on Svendsen’s board?

 

And that began the following dialogue:

 

It’s been a while since I looked at Eric’s paper, but I believe you completely missed the point. Keep in mind that we are not the ones who seriously maintain that doctrinal diversity invalidates a proposed rule of faith. When we talk about “Catholic disunity”, we are engaging in an “reductio ad absurdum“ form of argument–an argument that shows how if your principles are true, your own truth claims are false.

 

That would be fine, if that’s what you were actually doing, but you’re not. Instead of turning our objections around and applying them to us, your counter-arguments are always based on fallacies like equivocation, bad analogy, red herring, etc. For example, the case we were just discussing is a prime example of the fallacy of equivocation. In response to my observation that Protestantism can only solve its arguments by dividing into rival “denominations,” by which I meant “autonomous churches,” Dr. Svendsen replied, “And in Roman Catholicism there exists over 8,000 denominations–just as many as in Protestantism.” That is a truly laughable assertion, and the only way Dr. Svendsen can make it is by changing the customary meaning of the word “denomination” from “autonomous church,” which is how I used the word, to “administrative division within a single church,” and by pulling the number “8,000” out of thin air.

 

That is not “reductio ad absurdum,” Tim, it’s just absurd. No rational person could possibly think that Protestant denominations (like Baptist, Lutheran, and Presbyterian) are the equivalent of Catholic diocese (like Fargo, Cleveland, and Palm Beach), and Dr. Svendsen’s attempt to assert such an equivalence is just sad. He avoids the real issue by equivocation and by making a false comparison that tries to make it make it look like we have the same problem you do.

 

And frankly, from what I’ve seen, this is the typical pattern of Protestant replies to Catholic objections. For example:

 

(1) We point out that different Protestant denominations officially teach a wide range of conflicting doctrines, and since you can’t deny that, or counter that Catholicism officially teaches a wide range of conflicting doctrines, too, because it doesn’t, you reply instead with the irrelevant fact that individual Catholics profess belief in a wide range of conflicting doctrines. But that is an invalid comparison because the Catholics you have in mind either don’t know or reject the teaching of their church, and thus they reflect only their own ignorance, not any actual diversity of doctrine in official Catholic teaching. But in Protestantism, the diversity of doctrine among Protestants is often (though not always) a reflection of a diversity that really does exist in official Protestant teaching. Thus you avoid the real issue of doctrinal diversity in the official teachings of Protestantism by responding with an irrelevancy about ignorant Catholics that falsely makes it look like we have the same problem you do.

 

(2) We point out that your claim that Scripture is clear is undermined by the historic inability of the various Protestant denominations to agree on what it teaches in key areas, and since you can’t deny that inability, or counter that Catholicism also can’t agree on what Scripture teaches in those key areas, you reply instead with the irrelevant fact that many Catholics dissent from Church teaching, and so you claim that the Magisterium must not be clear either. But that, too, is a bad analogy because those dissenters do understand what the Church teaches, they just don’t like it, and they want the Church to teach something else. Theirs is not a failure to understand; it’s a failure to submit. And so, your comparison of faithful Protestants to dissenting Catholics is invalid, and is just another way to avoid the real issue by responding with an irrelevancy that falsely makes it look like we have the same problem you do.

 

(3) We point out that Protestantism has fragmented into dozens of denominations, and since you can’t deny that, you reply with the false statement that “there exists over 8,000 denominations” in Catholicism. This would be an outright lie, but instead, because you’ve torqued the word “denomination” until it means simply “diocese,” it’s merely the most flagrant example of equivocation I’ve seen in my life.

 

Etc.

 

If you want to move beyond trite slogans, you need to at least understand this point and stop taking our “Catholic disunity” argument as if it is really a serious argument we are advancing against your position. It isn’t!

 

Then you should quit making it, because if it isn’t a serious argument, then it isn’t a legitimate reductio ad absurdum, either. You can’t demonstrate the fallacy of our arguments by making fallacious arguments in reply. If you want to take the wind out of our arguments using reductio ad absurdum, then you need to show that those arguments, applied against us fairly and in a valid manner, would also invalidate Catholic claims. Otherwise, you’re only proving your ability to make a bad argument.

 

It’s simply designed to show the massive double-standards you folks use.

 

Fine, turnabout is fair play. If you want to show that we’re just as disunified as you are, by our own standards fairly applied, then by all means do so. Show that there are hundreds of autonomous Catholic churches that define their own doctrines, issue their own conflicting creeds, and stake out radically different positions on major issues of Christian doctrine. Show me that when people want to know what Catholicism teaches, they have no idea where to look for answers among a bewildering array of conflicting Catholic magisteria. Rigorously apply to us the same standards I apply to you. And while you’re at it, either demonstrate that I have a different standard for us than I do for you, or quit accusing me of having a double-standard.

 

So let’s try this again, sans your rather poor attitude above.

 

(A) The way that Barrett uses the term “denomination” is such that your Church falls under it just as much as any Protestant group.

 

Except that Barrett makes it clear that when he applies the word to Catholicism he’s talking about “diocese and jurisdictions,” not independent churches, as in Protestantism. In other words, for convenience sake he uses the same word to cover two very different concepts. But now I wish you would follow your own advice. You and Dr. Svendsen have argued that Barrett’s use of the word “denomination” is misleading, and therefore Catholics shouldn’t use his numbers in their arguments against Protestantism. I think that point is well taken, and I quit using Barrett’s numbers years ago. But now here you are, trying to get mileage out of Barrett’s unconventional use of the word “denomination” to falsely argue that Catholicism has “just as many” denominations as Protestantism.

 

You aren’t allowed to answer this aspect of the “Catholic disunity” charge by simply assuming that your Church is the Church and everyone else is some weirdo group that hived off of that the Church. No matter how “obvious” that equation is to you, such a tactic is called “begging the question”, and it’s a logical fallacy. No one is obligated by any force of logic or history to simply grant you your assumptions about your Church relative to every other Church. Please tell me you understand this because given the way you argue in terms of both principles and rhetoric, I can’t see that you do.

 

Although I do believe that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ, I don’t assume that fact in my discussions with you. I assume only that Protestantism began as a reform movement within Catholicism. I assume that it was led by ordained (Luther) and lay (Calvin, Zwingli) Catholics. And I assume that its purpose was to correct perceived errors in Catholicism. I didn’t think these assumptions would be controversial. After all, these men did not set out to reform Buddhism, they set out to reform Catholicism, and every major branch of Protestantism that exists today is descended either directly or indirectly from that reform movement. Thus, every major Protestant group that exists today either “hived off” from Catholicism, or from some other Protestant group. That is not “begging the question,” it’s just “stating the facts.”

 

(B) The diversity in Catholic dioceses is not merely geographical. You know better than this!

 

And you know better than to assert that a Catholic diocese, a concept that is entirely geographical, is in any way analogous to a Protestant denomination.

 

Doctrinal diversity exists within Catholicism just as much as it does in Protestantism.

 

No, doctrinal diversity exists among Catholics just as much as it does among Protestants. I don’t deny that. I’m sure we’ve both seen polls that show things like “only 30 percent of Catholics believe in the deity of Christ,” or “only 40 percent of Catholics believe in the Real Presence,” or “only 35 percent of Catholics believe in the inspiration of Scripture.” (I’m just making those numbers up, by the way). And I’m sure we’ve both seen similar polls that show similarly depressing things about Protestants. But it is irrelevant to compare ignorant Catholics with ignorant Protestants, and I have never argued against Protestantism on the grounds that some (or even many) of its members don’t understand or don’t agree with its official teachings. My critique is based solely on the diversity of official teaching among the Protestant churches.

 

I don’t know how many dioceses are represented on Steve Ray’s board, but if I was to use the same logic as the “Protestant disunity” argument I would gleefully point out that, say, Mark Shea and “pax” disagree about the supposedly “clear” teachings of the pope on evolution.

 

And I would point out that Mark Shea and Pax are not required to agree on the supposedly clear teachings of the pope on evolution. They are only required to assent to the defined doctrines of the Church, which I assume they do. The pope’s opinion on evolution, however interesting it may be, is not a doctrine of the Church, and thus it doesn’t matter whether Mark and Pax agree on what the pope says about evolution. Your argument along this line is a fallacy called “Moving the Goalposts,” whereby if I show that faithful Catholics are united on the doctrines of the faith, you just keep raising the bar until we get to a point where I can’t show unity anymore. Of course, by then we’re talking about relatively minor disagreements on debatable issues, but somehow you still think you’ve made a point.

 

Arguing as you do, then, this diversity invalidates your rule of faith because that rule has not solved the diversity problem right now.

 

See, this is the inevitable outcome of the “Moving the Goalposts” fallacy. It invariably leads to the fallacy called “Inflation of Conflict,” in which you argue that if two Catholics disagree about anything they must disagree about everything and the whole Catholic rule of faith is called into question. Thus, if I can’t show that two Catholics are united on their favorite color of M&M, you declare that this is a crisis and the whole Catholic rule of faith has failed because it can’t resolve right now this dispute that threatens to divide the church.

 

I guess that means the Catholic rule of faith is “unclear” and “has no way of adjudicating conflicts”.

 

See what I mean? Never mind that the Catholic Church has been teaching the faith and adjudicating conflicts for centuries, if you can point to two Catholics on a message board who disagree about something they’re perfectly free to disagree about, all is lost.

 

You only miss this point because you wrongly assume that Mark and pax’s common membership in a single organizational structure is something really profound.

 

It is profound, especially considering how different those two men are. You fail to realize just how profound that is because your membership in the “organizational structure” of which you are a member – the PCA – is based on the fact that the PCA teaches what you want to hear and does stuff you like. But Mark and Pax are committed to submitting to the teaching of the Church because they accept its divine authority, not because they happen to agree with it on every point. Given the reality of fallen human nature, I think the success of this unity is indeed profound, and completely beyond the reach of Protestantism, which can only organize itself into ever-smaller groups of like-minded people.

 

You’ll tolerate doctrinal diversity so long as it’s within the same visible structure, but magnify it all out of proportion if it’s in different visible structures. Why is that?

 

You’re mistaken, Tim. I tolerate doctrinal diversity only within the bounds of defined Church teaching. Beyond that, I don’t tolerate it at all, especially within my own church. Didn’t you see my argument with Adomnan [a guy on Steve Ray’s message board] over whether Protestants have a right to be called Christian? The Church definitively teaches that they do, and by denying that, Adomnan went “out of bounds,” and I told him so in no uncertain terms.

 

Summary: You think that mere doctrinal diversity is a problem for Sola Scriptura, but you don’t think that mere doctrinal diversity is a problem for your denomination.

 

No, I think doctrinal diversity in regard to the defined teachings of Christianity is unacceptable anywhere. That’s why I am so critical of sola Scriptura. In addition to being unbiblical, it has simply proven to be an unreliable method of determining what the true doctrines of Christianity are.

 

This is called a “double standard”, and especially so because it’s based on a lot of begged questions.

 

On the contrary, I have the same standard for you as I have for myself. I insist on unity in regard to the defined doctrines of the Christian faith, and I insist on liberty in regard to debatable matters. My criticism of Protestantism is that it is organically incapable of achieving unity on the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, and it can’t even agree on what the fundamental doctrines are. The result of its system of authority has been a doctrinal smorgasbord in which just about any error you can think of is the official teaching of some denomination somewhere.

 

Contra you’re repeated slander that we Protestants don’t have a way of adjudicating conflict, I can point you to examples (a) within denominations, where adherence to a certain traditional standard (the WCF) solved doctrinal disagreements and prevented splits

 

Are you seriously pointing to Presbyterianism – the “split P’s” – as an example of a group that was successful at solving doctrinal disagreements and preventing splits? You must not have a very high threshold for “success.” :-) Nevertheless, for what it’s worth I agree with you that the more creedal Protestants, by mimicking Catholicism and insisting on adherence to “man-made creeds” instead of “Scripture alone,” have been more successful at sticking together than the non-creedal Protestants have been.

 

and (b) between denominations where adherence to the standard of Scriptural exegesis allowed both parties to conclude that the matters they disagreed on either weren’t addressed by Scripture at all, or else weren’t of such a kind as to warrant charges of defection from “the True Church”.

 

So, were the disagreements themselves actually resolved, or did the denominations just decide not to care about them anymore?

 

You could try to rebut these points by comparing the unity that exists in your single organization with the unity that exists in any single Protestant organization.

 

Sure I could, but “the unity that exists in any single Protestant organization” isn’t a valid test of the Protestant system of authority. What you have in any single Protestant denomination is the end result of centuries of division, until finally you’re left with a group that, at least for now, agrees with itself. In my opinion, that process illustrates the failure of the Protestant system, and after all the disputes and errors have been incorporated into the official teachings of myriad denominations, the fact that each of the resulting fragments has unity within its tiny self isn’t much to be proud of. Nor is there any reason to believe that this “unity” is anything other than the temporary absence of conflict that inevitably results when like-minded people separate from a larger group. But what will happen in a few generations, when the next reformer rises up within the new group and says their parents were wrong about something? If history is any guide I think you’ll see that their unity will evaporate, because it isn’t based on anything other than the self-selecting nature of their original association.

 

But I daresay that the unity that exists in the Presbyterian Church in America is exactly the same kind as exists in the Catholic Church, which pretty much nullifies the whole “diversity” argument at its root.

 

No, it just misunderstands the whole “diversity” argument at its root. I don’t doubt that, for the moment, the PCA agrees with itself. But the PCA is only a tiny fragment of Protestantism, and is itself the result of a split within the PCUSA less than forty years ago. That is not unity, because if it is, then there’s no such thing as disunity. If you shatter a group into a thousand subgroups, those subgroups are naturally going to agree with themselves, and if they don’t, they’ll divide again until they do. There will always be “unity” among each of the combatants in a larger, disunified group.

 

On the other hand, seeing the futility of the bad comparison of “single entity / multiple entities”, you could go to the broader level of comparing “rule of faith / rule of faith”. And here you’re in a great deal of trouble because, ironically, you disagree with some of your fellow Catholics about the nature / meaning of the Catholic rule of faith.

 

And we all know that if two Catholics disagree about anything, all is lost.

 

You think that the “sola ecclesia” argument is invalid because it illegitimately puts Catholicism in with JWs and Mormons. Well, John Pacheco disagrees with you and accepts the sola ecclesia claim under the name “ecclesia Dei”. Which of you is right?

 

I can’t speak for John Pacheco, but I think the “ecclesia Dei” argument is invalid because it compares apples and oranges and expects them both to produce orange juice when squeezed in an identical manner. If you want to say that we have the “same system” as the Mormons just because we both have a centralized teaching authority, fine. But to draw conclusions about the workability of that system from the fact that Rome and Salt Lake City don’t have the same doctrines is silly. Of course they don’t have the same doctrines. They have different Scriptures, a different Tradition, a different teaching authority, and they’re based on different alleged divine revelations. Under those circumstances, to expect them to come up with the same doctrines just because they have a similar authority structure would be like expecting zoology and astronomy, even though they’re investigating different things, to come up with the same findings just because they both use the scientific method.

 

That’s why, in my opinion, the “ecclesia Dei” argument is one of the silliest arguments you guys have come up with yet. Not only is it fundamentally invalid, but it actually backfires on you and proves our point, not yours. You want to show that “ecclesia Dei” systems are just as disunified as sola Scriptura systems, but the evidence shows that just the opposite is true. It shows that ecclesia Dei systems, within themselves, are remarkably unified. I mean, how many Mormon denominations are there? How many Jehovah’s Witness denominations are there? How many Roman Catholic denominations are there? So, if anything, the evidence shows that ecclesia Dei systems are remarkably cohesive. But what happens when people who accept the same divine revelation and the same Scriptures adopt the sola Scriptura method instead? Endless disagreement over what Scripture really teaches, followed by endless division. Without the unifying influence of a centralized teaching authority, as in an ecclesia Dei system, the result is rapid fragmentation into autonomous sects.

 

Your only retort is to point out that although sola Scriptura groups do disagree with each other, ecclesia Dei groups also disagree with each other. This is the main point I think you’re trying to make. But as I said, this is exactly what we should expect because those groups aren’t looking at the same data. Mormonism, for example, is based on an alleged revelation given to Joseph Smith, Jr., the contents of which contradict the Catholic faith on many points. Therefore, it’s hardly surprising that Smith’s followers don’t have the same doctrines as Catholics do, even though they have a similar authority system. The bottom line is that the ecclesia Dei groups are applying a similar system to different data, and getting different, though internally consistent, results. But the sola Scriptura groups are applying the same system to the same data, and they’re getting different results. That indicates a problem with the system.

 

I guess since the Pope hasn’t addressed this issue, your system has no way of adjudicating the problem of your disunity with Pacheco!

 

Right, and I guess since the courts haven’t addressed the issue of campaign finance reform, they have no way of doing so.

 

You’re a logical guy, Tim. How do you go from “the Magisterium hasn’t addressed this problem yet,” to “therefore the Magisterium can’t address this problem”? I guarantee that if my dispute with Mr. Pacheco (if I even have one) threatened to divide the Church, we’d be hearing from the pope about it.

 

(And this is the parallel to your argument against Presbyterians and Baptists–i.e., you imply that because the problems have not already been resolved, they never will be.

 

But, as usual, this is a fallacious parallel. If a dispute is unresolved in the Catholic Church it’s only because the Church hasn’t decided to resolve it yet, or because some people dissent from the Church’s teaching on the matter. But your disputes remain unresolved because you can’t resolve them. Goodness knows you’ve tried, but other than arguing with each other and hoping the other guy will change his mind, you have no mechanism for resolving those disputes. I’m not saying they won’t ever get resolved anyway – anything’s possible – but you guys have had 500 years to solve your disagreements, and you haven’t been able to do so yet, so I’m not holding my breath. The problem is you guys have no teaching authority to which you’ll both submit. Yes, yes, I know, you both submit to Scripture. But Scripture isn’t going to say anything next year that it doesn’t say now, so I see no reason to hope that the status quo of the last five centuries will ever change. If it does, I’ll be delighted. But my point remains: Hoping the other guy will change his mind is not the same thing as having an actual mechanism for resolving disputes.

 

But in the name of generosity to the uphill battle you are (bravely, but futilely) fighting in the name of this ridiculous form of argument, I’ll eliminate the JWs and Mormons from the “sola ecclesia” model and just leave you Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox. Now what do you do? Both your institutions claim the same kind of “apostolic succession” and respect for “tradition”, but you both disagree about some highly significant matters, not the least of which is the role of Peter in the Church.

 

Good, this is a much better argument. As I understand it, your argument goes something like this: You propose that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are two ecclesia Dei systems that accept the same divine revelation, you observe that they are divided, just like the Baptists and the Presbyterians, and so you conclude that the ecclesia Dei system doesn’t work any better than sola Scriptura. Therefore, you think you’ve blunted the force of our argument against you by showing that it’s just as effective against us.

 

But there are a couple of problems with that analysis. First, even on your own terms this argument proves that the ecclesia Dei system works a heck of a lot better than sola Scriptura. The theological differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy are minuscule compared to the differences between the various sola Scriptura groups, even though our two ecclesia Dei groups have been around twice as long as the sola Scriptura groups have. Therefore, the evidence suggests that an ecclesia Dei system is much better at handing down a consistent version of Christianity over a long period of time. Second, I’m not defending the idea that Scripture and Tradition alone are clear enough to avoid all theological controversies. The fact that such controversies existed in the ancient Church (see “Arianism,” “Monophysitism,” etc.) is sufficient proof of that. Nor am I claiming that the episcopate itself is sufficient to avoid intractable controversies, as the divisions in Orthodoxy prove. I believe that the papacy is also necessary to put a definitive end to such controversies, because someone has to have the final word.

 

That is the system I am defending: Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium (bishops in union with the papacy). More to the point, that is the system that Protestantism attempted to “correct.” Your founders were Catholic, not Orthodox, and they attempted to reform Catholicism, not Orthodoxy. Therefore, it is valid to compare the Protestant system with the Catholic system that it was supposed to replace, and to ask ourselves how well the Protestant system has been able to hand down a consistent version of Christianity from one generation to the next over the centuries. Clearly, in that respect it was a dismal failure right from the start. I’m sorry, but there’s something deeply comical about a group that scoffs at the Catholic Church for ignoring the “plain teachings of the Bible” but that can’t even agree with itself what those plain teachings are. Even if, for the sake of argument, I were to grant that the Catholic/Orthodox split proves that the Apostolic system of authority isn’t foolproof, I’d still argue that it’s a thousand times better than the Protestant system that was supposed to “correct” it. That system has turned out to be an unmitigated disaster.

 

Some of your fellows have told me in the past that you and the Orthodox agree on about 90% of Apostolic Christianity.

 

That’s probably about right.

 

Well, if that’s the case, why don’t you just reunify now?

 

That would be fine with me, but there’s the little problem of the role of Peter in the Church.

 

I mean, after all, as you rather callously reminded me many months ago in a similar discussion, Christ commanded unity right now so there just isn’t any excuse for two groups who agree on so much to be scandalously disunited in terms of organizational structure.

 

I agree. I think the division between East and West is a slap in Christ’s face. But the point of your argument, and the reason you brought up the Eastern Orthodox, is because you seem to think that their existence somehow calls into question the efficacy of the Catholic system of authority. But I’ve never claimed that the Catholic system of authority is somehow able to prevent people or groups from rejecting it, whether they be Orthodox or Protestant. All I’m doing is evaluating the alternative system that your founders proposed as an “improvement” to or “correction” of the Catholic system, and their system has been a disaster, shattering Protestantism into a thousand pieces in only a few centuries. In contrast, the Eastern Orthodox system, which is so very close to the Catholic system, has actually worked rather well.

 

I guess this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that your rule of faith, which you share with the Orthodox and which you both simplistically and wrongly equate with the patristic one, is insufficient because it doesn’t produce the kind of unity Christ required.

 

Catholics and Orthodox don’t share exactly the same rule of faith, because the Orthodox reject the papacy, which we believe is an integral part of the true Christian rule of faith. But you know, even if I granted your argument here, I’d still point out that there’s a big difference between just barely missing the mark, and not even coming close. The Apollo spacecraft didn’t always make it to the moon, but they were at least capable of it. The Catholic system is at least capable of producing the kind of unity that Christ required. Protestantism is not. It’s like trying to fly to the moon in a car. It’s never going to make it; it’s never even going to come close, because it is systemically incapable of producing the unity Christ required. In fact, it produces the polar opposite of the unity Christ required.

 

You need to repent of your factionalism and return to the One True Church that Christ founded, which is, of course, the Presbyterian Church in America.

 

LOL!

 

Hey, if you can argue that an entity that’s only been around for about 500 years (your particular spin on “the Church”), I can argue that way for an entity that’s only been around for 25 years (my particular spin on “the Church”).

 

Please tell me how my particular “spin” on the Church was different 600 years ago than it was 400 years ago. Seems to me we had Scripture, Tradition, the episcopate, and a pope 600 years ago. How, then, can you rather absurdly claim that the Catholic Church has only been around for about 500 years?

 

But of course, I don’t and won’t argue that way, because I’m concerned about real catholicity, not the sham question-begging attachment to mere words that your denomination is concerned with. Let it be clearly stated that in the last paragraph, I was putting my assumptions on the table to be discussed, which is more than I can say for you.

 

Tim, I have spelled out my assumptions and premises again and again. I’ve done so yet again in this letter. My premise is that Protestantism was an attempt to reform Catholicism by returning it to what was believed to be the true biblical system of authority, sola Scriptura. In evaluating the success of that experiment (and the truth of some of its foundational assumptions) I consider the evidence of Protestant history. The conclusion I draw from that evidence is that sola Scriptura has been an unmitigated disaster, causing Protestantism to be splintered into dozens of sects that bear little resemblance to each other or to historic Christianity.