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!

[pegleg]

Your Pope is an imposter, your church is apostate and your beliefs and teachings are in direct contradiction of the Bible. You faith, or lack thereof, will not save you, me, or anyone else who follows it.

Do you have a source for these allegations or is this your opinion? I sincerely doubt you have any original interpretations of scripture. You, like all Protestants, merely parrot somebody else’s interpretation that you happen to agree with. Yet, you criticize Catholics because we follow the teachings of our Church. Which, by the way, is what the scripture tells us to do. Do you not realize this?

[redgolum]

Mexico hasn't been a Catholic, or even a Christian, country since the early part of the 20th century. The Mexican Revolution had as one of its goals, the ending of Christianity. The Catholic's in Mexico suffered a lot, and to a great extent have never really recovered.

[Nihil Obstat]

Good point. I was just reading about an article abut the Mexican anti-clerical laws. From the article:

The constitution of 1917 highlighted and institutionalized many of the nineteenth-century secular reforms. The new constitution included at least five articles that affected all religious groups, regardless of denomination. These articles, appeared to preclude any national role for the Catholic Church. Article 3 forbade churches from participating in primary and secondary education. Article 5 prohibited the establishment of religious orders. Article 24 mandated that all religious ceremonies occur within church buildings. Article 27 gave the state ownership of all church buildings.

Article 130 contained the most extensive restrictions on the Roman Catholic Church. The article stated that the Roman Catholic Church lacks legal status; ecclesiastical marriages have no legal standing; state legislatures can determine the maximum number of clergy operating within their boundaries; and operation of church buildings requires explicit government authorization. Among the most contentious provisions of Article 130 was Section 9: "Neither in public nor private assembly, nor in acts of worship or religious propaganda shall the ministers of the religions ever have the right to criticize the basic laws of the country, of the authorities in particular or of the government in general; they shall have neither an active nor passive vote, nor the right to associate for political purposes."

I can't imagine living like that. Many priests were shot and killed just for wearing the collar in public. The laws were not repealed until 1992.

[SoothingDave]

That is true, but I know more about the Bible than your Pope does.

Pride goeth before a fall. Be careful you don't become impelled on your own pickard.

SD

[Full Court]

First of all, I didn't join some group. I started reading the Bible.

Secondly, in able to converse with some knowledge on the subject, I have been studying Catholic teachings for at least 20 years now.


The Bible says that husband and wife do not keep themselves from each other, so therfore, Mary had sex with Joseph, since she was his wife.

The Bible also states that Jesus has brothers and sisters.

[Full Court]

"I found out that what Rome is teaching is very far away from a saving faith in Jesus Christ"

This is a false statement.

It is not incorrect or false.

The RCC teaches that if anyone claims that faith in Jesus Christ saves you then you are anethema, which I just spelled wrong, but you know what I mean.

[Jaded]

The Catholic Church recognizes baptisms made by other faiths that are made in the name of the Trinity. They don't as so many others, require a second or third or fourth baptism.

[Jaded]

If Jesus had given His mother to the care of someone who was not a brother or sister that would have been in violation of Jewish law.

[SoothingDave]

Secondly, in able to converse with some knowledge on the subject, I have been studying Catholic teachings for at least 20 years now.

The RCC teaches that if anyone claims that faith in Jesus Christ saves you then you are anethema,

Alone. "Faith alone" is what is anathema. Try studying harder. Read books without pictures.

The Bible itself refutes the notion of salvation by faith "alone."

SD

[Full Court]

BTW, the official teaching of the Church is quite clear on Scripture: it is the word of God, true every word

Then why does the RCC teach evolution if the Bible is true?

Why didn't the Pope correct the Bishops who say the Bible is not true?

[Full Court]

Tenn first stated that the largest denomination was the Baptists. So, do you consider them to be part of the broad gate purely due to numbers?

In fact, the modern Southern Baptist movement would be to my way of thinking part of the broad gate, yes.

[Full Court]

The Catholic Church recognizes baptisms made by other faiths

God only recognizes Baptisms of those who believe BEFORE baptism.

[SoothingDave]

God only recognizes Baptisms of those who believe BEFORE baptism.

Is baptism necessary for salvation?

SD

[Full Court]

"Faith alone" is what is anathema'

Really? Then why did Jesus die if you can do it yourself?

[Full Court]

We'll have to catch up later Dave, I have to go and baptize myself and the baby and ready myself for the day.
(Take a bath.)

[SoothingDave]

"Faith alone" is what is anathema'

Really? Then why did Jesus die if you can do it yourself?

Non sequitur. The choice is not between "faith alone" and "do it yourself."

Faith is an essential component, but not the only component necessary. Christ died to enable us to have grace and faith and to put these into practice.

The word "alone" really does mean something, and its presence or absence in a sentence can change the meaning.

SD

[Invincibly Ignorant]

just curious. do you have a job?

[Diego1618]

ok, bung in Josephus as well -- is his work part of Scripture? If you say no, then would you say that all his historical details are false, JUST BASED ON THAT?

Herodotus and Josephus were both impartial historians. The early church fathers were not. To say the fathers had an opinion...... would be an understatement.

[Diego1618]

Nope -- we have enough man made groups clustered under the Protestant umbrella that look back to a founder in the past 3 centuries -- a "pastor" that leads his flock astray by shouting and gesticulating like Benny Hinn.

You and I agree on this one. I'm not a Protestant....or a defender of Martin Luther.

[gscc]

The Bible clearly states that Joseph did have union with Mary. 

22All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"—which means, "God with us."

 24When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.