Where Have All the Protestants Gone?

NOR ^ | January 2006 | Thomas Storck

[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!

[xzins]

You must have missed my previous post. The denominations you cite: Presbyterian, Baptist, and Lutheran were all central groups in the Protestant reformation.

I have been speaking of those groups that have come into existence in the last 200 years or so...especially the more recent. They cannot rightly be called protestant, and they are not protesting anything similar to the reformation issues.

Now, I could make an excellent case that many Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Baptists are themselves no longer focused on those issues that led to the reformation break with the Roman Catholics.

[SoothingDave]

a bunch of impossible to understand regulations and requirements

Is there something I can help you understand?

Sure. How does the Hellenistic apostate church claim to be the "one true church" when its doctrine and creeds are in direct contradiction with the scripture.

Which part of that is a question about your inability to understand the Church's regulations and requirements?

You sound pretty sure of yourself for someone who professes he thinks the object of his scorn is impossible to understand.

SD

[jo kus]

In those days the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit was accepted as a perfect triune relationship. eg. Father, Son and Holy Spirit with the HS coming from co-equal contributions from both the Father and the Son.

That is totally false. The Roman Catholic Church NEVER taught that there were two divine principles, and certainly, there was nothing about "equal" contributions!

This new roman bishop decided to throw his weight around. So, he deliberitly issued an inflammatory letter proclaiming that the HS only followed from the Father through the Son and then on down to the Holy Spirit.

The Roman bishop had a problem to deal with in Spain. There were some Adoptionists teaching that old heresy again. Some orthodox bishop (not Greek) suggested the word "AND". The beliefs did NOT change, but it was felt that it would be a foil to the Adoptionists. Unfortunately, it seemed to be a poor choice of a word, as "AND" CAN imply BOTH are needed for the Third to proceed. The more correct word, in my opinion, should have been "THROUGH". The fact of the matter remains that the beliefs of the Creed did not change - we still believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and not from Jesus (as if a second principle) but through Jesus.

Perhaps if relationships were better between Rome and Constantinople, the matter might have been cleared up - it was not the best choice of a word. But to say that Rome moved away from the BELIEFS of Nicea are just false. The words are NOT infallible, the BELIEFS are.

Regards

[Frumanchu]

Hey now, not all of us Lutherans deserve that joke

Ditto that for the Presby's

[Flavius Josephus]

I just told you, Jesus couldn't have recited the creed because it wasn't written yet. Same applies to the Apostles. Ultimately it's not a matter I am in a position to judge. Take it up with God.

[AnalogReigns]

Ian Paisley, Jack Chick, Bob Jones, are NOT exactly representative of typical Protestant leaders, nor even typical Evangelical leaders. All three are radicals fundamentalists.

The still accepted (ca. 1557)Council of Trent document (though in reality much of it is abrogated by the recent Roman Catholic Catechism) also completely condemns with multiple "anathemas" (i.e. "cursed" and therefore going to Hell) all who hold to key reformational (Protestant) doctrines. (Things like saying faith alone is the foundation of the Christian life of good works.)

I haven't heard any plans on revoking Trent, even though in reality the official church no longer automatically assigns all Protestants to Hell.

[Lee N. Field]

If the world doesn't want to be Catholic, why do they all stop when the Pope dies?

We don't.

[markomalley]

I have been speaking of those groups that have come into existence in the last 200 years or so...especially the more recent. They cannot rightly be called protestant, and they are not protesting anything similar to the reformation issues.

Oh, OK. I guess I must have. And, yes, particularly with the Lutherans, I would agree that there have been some very positive signs in recent years.

[Frumanchu]

You must have missed my previous post. The denominations you cite: Presbyterian, Baptist, and Lutheran were all central groups in the Protestant reformation.

I have been speaking of those groups that have come into existence in the last 200 years or so...especially the more recent. They cannot rightly be called protestant, and they are not protesting anything similar to the reformation issues.

You are correct, but only insofar as their ignorance of the issues that sparked the Reformation to begin with. Most of those groups came about as a protest to Protestant doctrines, and nearly every one of them is anti-creedal and almost purposefully ignorant of church history and historical doctrine.

Now, I could make an excellent case that many Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Baptists are themselves no longer focused on those issues that led to the reformation break with the Roman Catholics.

Yes. Some of these denominations, such as the PCUSA, have fallen prey to modernist liberalism. And some of them have been able to successfully recapture their denomination from the liberals (see SBC).

[Sopater]

That article reminds me of an interesting conversation that I had once. A person asked me, "You're a Christian, aren't you?". To which I replied, "Yes, I am. Are you a Christian, too?". To which he replied, "No, I'm a Catholic".

Now I was raised in a Catholic family. My father went to seminary at Notre Dame, and I always considered myself to be a Christian growing up. It wasn't until I actually read my bible and became "born again", that I realized that I was never really a Christian.

I'm not saying that Catholics aren't Christians, only that when I was attending the Catholic church, I was not a Christian.

[Sopater]

Praise God! My prayers are with you, brother.

[Bohemund]

Now I was raised in a Catholic family. My father went to seminary at Notre Dame, and I always considered myself to be a Christian growing up. It wasn't until I actually read my bible and became "born again", that I realized that I was never really a Christian.

I'm not saying that Catholics aren't Christians, only that when I was attending the Catholic church, I was not a Christian.

I'm sorry you were so poorly catechised. I will pray that you grow in the Holy Spirit and return to the faith of your fathers.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

They were not part of that old struggle on a personal level and many of the denominations were't a part of that struggle at ANY level.

And that is their error. All non-Roman Catholic Trinitarian Christian churches have their roots in the Scriptural principles defended by the Reformers who bravely reasserted the Biblical truths of Christ and the early church under great peril to life and liberty.

Our local Republican committee may be far removed from the Battle of Saratoga, but it owes its existence to that and other battles of the Revolutionary War.

If more Protestants would read about the Reformation they might better understand their own faith and not shrink from identifying themselves as "Reformed."

[NYer]

I see in the book of Acts where they were first called Christians at the Church at Antioch but where is it stated that the Antioch Church was founded by Peter or they were called "Catholic" there?

That Saint Peter, before he went to Rome, founded the see of Antioch is attested by many Saints of the earliest times, including Saint Ignatius of Antioch and Saint Clement, Pope. It was just that the Prince of the Apostles should take under his particular care and surveillance this city, which was then the capital of the East, and where the faith so early took such deep roots as to give birth there to the name of Christians. There his voice could be heard by representatives of the three largest nations of antiquity — the Hebrews, the Greeks and the Latins. Saint Chrysostom says that Saint Peter was there for a long period; Saint Gregory the Great, that he was seven years Bishop of Antioch. He did not reside there at all times, but governed its apostolic activity with the wisdom his mandate assured.

READ MORE

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Ping to 113. (I forget you're back.)

[Sopater]

Thank you for your prayers. I am growing in the Holy Spirit and cling to the faith of the apostles, a faith in Jesus Christ.

[blue-duncan]

"he katholike ekklesia (the universal Church) was an expression first documented by St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch,"

Then there is no scriptural basis for calling the Antioch Church "Catholic" nor is there a scriptural basis for it being founded by Peter.

[xzins]

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.

Actually, my comment had to do with the above comment in the article. Calling themselves Christian had absolutely nothing to do with protestant roots.

They didn't call themselves protestants because that wasn't how they defined themselves. They weren't protesting anything.

[NYer]

Your claim about Peter and the Popes though is wrong. If you read the entire passage and context of the passage the "ROCK" to which JESUS is referring to is him being the Messiah and that salvation would only be found through faith in him.

In Mark 3:16; and John 1:42 – Jesus renames Simon "Kepha" in Aramaic which literally means "rock." This was an extraordinary thing for Jesus to do, because "rock" was not even a name in Jesus' time. Jesus did this, not to give Simon a strange name, but to identify his new status among the apostles. When God changes a person's name, He changes their status.

As to the suggestion that "rock" referred to Christ, you assume words used in Scripture can only have one meaning. This, of course, is not true. For example:

In 1 Cor. 3:11 - Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are called the foundation of the Church. Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are called the shepherds of the flock. These verses show that there are multiple metaphors for the Church, and that words used by the inspired writers of Scripture can have various meanings. Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church, but this does not mean He cannot confer this distinction upon Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church.

[markomalley]

The still accepted (ca. 1557)Council of Trent document (though in reality much of it is abrogated by the recent Roman Catholic Catechism) also completely condemns with multiple "anathemas" (i.e. "cursed" and therefore going to Hell) all who hold to key reformational (Protestant) doctrines. (Things like saying faith alone is the foundation of the Christian life of good works.)

---

Actually, the way that those anathemas are worded are not "if they hold to key Protestant doctrines", but rather "if they deny (or fail to affirm) _(fill in the blank with the applicable Catholic doctrine)_."

For example, CANON X.-If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.

There is a slight difference...

As to the changes over the years, the western schism that preceded Trent (what you'd call the Protestant Reformation) was still fairly fresh in everybody's minds, within the lifetime of many folks. It was reasonable to state that if a person refused to believe the teachings of the Church that the person would be excommunicated (anathema). By the time that Vatican II had come out (and the Catechism), it had been centuries since that time. It's not like you have personally committed heresy resulting in schism (nor any other Protestant alive). Falls into the category of 'invincible ignorance.'

However, modern-day Canon law is not any easier on heretics/schismatics:

Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.

§2. If contumacy of long duration or the gravity of scandal demands it, other penalties can be added, including dismissal from the clerical state.

Can. 1366 Parents or those who take the place of parents who hand offer their children to be baptized or educated in a non Catholic religion are to be punished with a censure or other just penalty.

Can. 1367 A person who throws away the consecrated species or takes or retains them for a sacrilegious purpose incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; moreover, a cleric can be punished with another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.

Can. 1369 A person who in a public show or speech, in published writing, or in other uses of the instruments of social communication utters blasphemy, gravely injures good morals, expresses insults, or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty.

So I wouldn't say things have changed all that much...