Posted on 02/15/2006 6:22:47 AM PST by NYer
Has anyone noticed the almost complete disappearance of Protestants from our nation? "What!" I can hear my readers exclaim, "Storck has really gone off his rocker this time. Why, just down the street there's an Assembly of God church and two or three Baptist churches and the Methodists and so on. My cousin just left the Catholic Church to become a Protestant and my niece just married one. Moreover, evangelical Protestants have many media outlets of their own and they have great influence in the Bush Administration. They're everywhere." All this, of course, is true. Except that for some time, they no longer call themselves Protestants, but simply Christians, and increasingly they've gotten Catholics to go along with their terminology. I recall over 10 years ago when I was a lector at Mass, for the prayer of the faithful I was supposed to read a petition that began, "That Catholics and Christians
." Of course, I inserted the word "other" before "Christians," but I doubt very many in the congregation would even have noticed had I not done so. Just the other day I saw on a Catholic website an article about a Protestant adoption agency that refused to place children with Catholic parents. The headline referred not to a Protestant adoption agency but to a Christian one. And how often do we hear of Christian bookstores or Christian radio stations or Christian schools, when everyone should know they are Protestant ones? Now, what is wrong with this? Well, it should be obvious to any Catholic -- but probably isn't. Are only Protestants Christians? Are we Catholics not Christians, indeed the true Christians? About 30 years ago, Protestants, especially evangelicals, began to drop the term Protestant and call themselves simply Christians as a not too subtle means of suggesting that they are the true and real Christians, rather than simply the children of the breakaway Protestant revolt of the 16th century. This shift in Protestant self-identification has taken on increasingly dramatic proportions. A recent Newsweek survey (Aug. 29-Sept. 5, 2005) found that, between 1990 and 2001, the number of Americans who consider themselves "Christian" (no denomination) increased by 1,120 percent, while the number of those who self-identify as "Protestant" decreased by 270 percent. But perhaps I am getting too worked up over a small matter. After all, are not Protestants also Christians? Yes, I do not deny that. But usually we call something by its most specific name.
Protestants are theists too, but it would surely sound odd if we were to refer to their radio stations and bookstores as theistic radio stations and theistic bookstores. Language, in order to be useful, must convey human thought and concepts in as exact a way as it can. And, in turn, our thoughts and concepts should reflect reality. As Josef Pieper noted, "if the word becomes corrupted, human existence will not remain unaffected and untainted."
Moreover, words often convey more than simple concepts. A certain word may seem only to portray reality, but in fact it does more. It adds a certain overtone and connotation. Thus, it is not a small matter whether we speak of "gays" or of homosexuals. The former term was chosen specifically to inculcate acceptance of an unnatural and immoral way of life. When I was an Episcopalian, I was careful never to speak of the Catholic Church, but of the Roman Catholic Church, as a means of limiting the universality of her claims. I always called Episcopal ministers priests, again as a means of affirming that such men really were priests, in opposition to Leo XIII's definitive judgment that Anglican orders are invalid and thus that they are in no sense priests. Perhaps because of these early experiences, I am very aware of the uses of language to prejudge and control arguments, and I am equally careful now never to call Episcopal ministers priests or refer to one as Father So-and-So. And I think we should likewise not go along with the evangelical Protestant attempt to usurp the name Christian for themselves. They are Protestants, and public discourse should not be allowed to obscure that fact.
Apparently, though, it is the case that some Protestants call themselves Christians, not out of a desire to usurp the term, but out of an immense ignorance of history. That is, they ignore history to such an extent that they really don't understand that they are Protestants. Knowing or caring little about what came before them, they act as if their nicely bound Bibles had fallen directly from Heaven and anyone could simply become a Christian with no reference to past history, ecclesiology, or theology. The period of time between the conclusion of the New Testament book of Acts and the moment that they themselves "accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Savior" means nothing. Even Luther or Calvin or John Wesley mean little to them, since they can pick up their Bibles and start Christianity over again any time they want. These souls may call themselves simply Christians in good faith, but they are largely ignorant of everything about Church history. They do not understand that Jesus Christ founded a Church, and that He wishes His followers to join themselves to that Church at the same time as they join themselves to Him. In fact, one implies and involves the other, since in Baptism we are incorporated in Christ and made members of His Church at the same time.
So let us not go along with the widespread practice of calling our separated brethren simply Christians. They are Protestants. Let us begin again to use that term. It is precise. It implies Catholic doctrine in the sense that it suggests that such people are in protest against the Church. Moreover, it forces them to define themselves in terms of, rather than independently of, the One True Church. And if we do resume referring to our separated brethren as Protestants, perhaps a few of them might even be surprised enough to ask us why -- and then, behold, a teachable moment!
"And when some Protestants (thankfully not all are like you folks) are confronted with scriptural documentation that refutes their errors, they start sputtering. Or telling Catholics that they are going to hell. Or screaming "conspiracy theory" "
______________________________________________________
You have provided a perfect example of what I was talking about. It seems to be a pattern, when your positions are challenged Scripturally you end up denigrating those who would question your position.
"I would love to see your SCRIPTURAL basis for these positions the Roman Church takes.
Don't hold your breath - there is no scriptural basis for much of this mythology."
_____________________________________________
It can be very frustrating. It seems that a lot of the posters are erudite individuals who are well versed in their church's doctrine, but will refuse to the death to recognize error.
For us Lutherans, it is more because the term Protestant conotates "Reformed Calvinistic" theology. Also, the question then becomes "what are you protesting?" Since for the most part that isn't the case nowadays, the term isn't used as much.
I may be mistaken in your point but to me it would make more sense if the word remained "identified".
As another Lutheran, I just want to point out that there are Lutherans involved in those "mainstream" churches; ie. the ELCA. My wife and I left that Synod last year for the LCMS because of their Liberal positions.
I understand that to admit that the Lord could accomplish His will, reveal His Holy Word through Scripture, provide Salvation to His creation, guide His flock through the power of His Spirit, without the Roman Catholic Church is hard for you to grasp. Those that wrote Scripture and canonized scripture were tools in the Creator's hand and nothing more.
I never was a Catholic. My proximity to the Catholic church came through my aunt and her children. Hence the reason I said I thought it was a beautiful religion until I grew up and started reading the Bible and comparing what Scripture says to what the RCC teaches.
I didn't bash anything or anyone Catholic. I simply potsed the news report showing that "most" catholics don't read the Bible for themselves and that the leadersship of the RCC recently told the "catholic faithful" that parts of the Bible were not true and could not be trusted.
But Mark, how do you get in touch with the dead? A seance or something?
I have seen that happen also. In fact, we had a missionary who spoke today and while he might of quoted some Scripture, he never really read anything from the word.
he talked a lot about that movie, "End of the Spear." I found all that to be borning and spent most of the service this morning reading in my own Bible and praying for the unsaved in the service.
You do have to admit....this is a good line!
That was a typo (sorry about that). I did mean identified.
"That was a typo (sorry about that). I did mean identified."
I kinda thought so but wasn't sure.
Take care,
bcsco
Didn't accuse you of that (in fact, I intentionally reworded it to reflect those who, on this thread, have said that or implied it, not all...thus the statement some of you (Had I meant you, I would have said, you -- but you (gscc) are not the only one reading this thread).
Clearly we are told to pray for one another. We are not told, however, to pray to each other.
Exactly...and when we ask a saint to pray for us, that's exactly what we do. We ask for their prayers to be united with ours to God.
Think about it for a second, the word "pray" (Greek: deomai) means to ask, beg, desire, want, etc.
So when you "ask" somebody to pray for you, you are, in fact, praying that they will offer their prayers to God for you. Think about it, when Lot said to the Sodomites, "I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly," was he worshipping the Sodomites? Clearly no. The word "pray" meant "ask." When the Eunuch said to Phillip, " I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?" was he worshipping Phillip? Of course not.
Pray means 'ask' (look it up if you don't believe me). Worship, adoration, and so on is properly only given to God. But to pray that you pray for me to God is a completely reasonable, understandable, and appropriate thing.
I've been inferred a liberal. I've been told that I'm going to hell. I, likewise have made other statements not appropriate to address other Christians (please forgive my indiscretions in that regard).
Folks, regardless of whether you are Catholic or Protestant or Orthodox or Coptic or whatever, last time I checked, Christ is proclaimed in each of our houses of worship. We are sounding like a bunch of d@mned Democrats with the bickering that we have going on -- and yes, I am pointing a finger and yes, I have four of them pointing back at myself.
THIS IS RIDICULOUS
We are all Christians. You may not like how I worship and may find it at fault. I may not like how you worship and may find it at fault. Regardless of that, we all follow Christ...or at least claim to. We are all conservatives...or at least claim to be. (If we are posting, it means we haven't gotten zotted...and with the Viking Kitties patrolling around, if there was a liberal tendency among us, we wouldn't survive if we weren't)
ENOUGH
Christians fighting Christians is unChristlike. Check out 1 Cor 3 as an example of just exactly what we are doing here. It is ridiculous.
I can't speak for any of my Catholic FRiends, but I'd be happy to engage any of my Protestant brethren in a serious, charitable, Christian dialogue on any matter of doctrine. If you wish to do so, in a Christian light and in a Christian tone, I'd be happy to engage. Please feel free to FReepmail me and I'll send you my e-mail addy.
But I'm done taking potshots and done with the smart-ass attitude. When I went to Mass this evening, I came to recognize that it isn't appropriate and sure doesn't reflect good on either of us. So I'm done. I realize that a couple of you will undoubtedly take a parting shot at me. Feel free. Whatever.
Your source, please. Otherwise you are stating mistruths/Catholic bashing.
I have not heard Pope Benedict XVI (leadership) say that parts of the Bible were untrue.
|
|||
|
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html
That's MSM BS, based on bishop who are losing/lost the faith.
Not painting anyone with that brush just supplying what the poster was referencing. Did Rome condemn these bishops?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.