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!

[Full Court]

They didn't say it wasn't true,

They did claim parts of Scripture are not true.

[Full Court]

Is our salvation dependent on a literal understanding of Genesis? No, of course not, but it is important to understand that God is the cause of all, and that is the bottom line of the creation story.

John 5:46

 For had ye believed Moses,
ye would have believed me:
for he wrote of me.

47  But if ye believe not his writings,
how shall ye believe my words?

[Full Court]

I find your assertion that the Church instructed the faithful that the Bible is "not to be trusted" and "not true" to be highly specious at best.

Then you can write the Bishops in question and tell them they are dead wrong.

[Full Court]

Answer the questions then, why did Jesus have to die if you Catholics can save yourselves through the sacraments.

[Conservative til I die]

Not to mention I love watching you present yourself as one who's obviously gone to finishing school on a pirate ship. That's half the fun.

Says the person who got banned within the last month.

[Conservative til I die]

Our Scriptures comprise 2/3's of your Bible, The title of this thread was too good to resist and I'm a former Catholic and Protestant. Too bad I'm out of popcorn.

Will Zoroastrianism be next?

[Conservative til I die]

The Roman Catholic church advances, supports and teaches evolution, which is at odss with God's Holy Word.

You're refuting a statement with another statement. Would you be kind enough to explain how the Catholic Church advances, supports, and especially how it teaches evolution?

Also, did God tell you that He is odds with evolution. By what authority do you say this?

[Cronos]

You, like all Protestants, Hi peg -- let's not resort to generalisations like tenn.

[Cronos]

I have been studying Catholic teachings for at least 20 years now.

Might I also ask which "Catholic teachings" you have read besides J Chick? have you read the Catechism of The Church?

The Bible also states that Jesus has brothers and sisters.

Ah, yes, another PERFECT example of ignorance of biblical culture and a reason why individual interpretation fails -- not due to lack of clariy in God's Word but in the shortcomings in all of us individual mortals.

you make the same error as tenns2005

In post # 741 you say "The fact of the matter is that the Bible is so straigntforward and understandable that to misunderstand it you must have the help of a Priest, Rabbi, or Preacher."

To which I said in post #769: "REally, then what was YOUR interpretation about Christ's "brothers and sisters"

Tenns #775: "Christ brothers and sisters were his half brothers and sisters. Is that hard for you to understand"

You never bothered to read my post number #603: "Exactly -- the problem with personal interpretation is that it is made without any background understanding -- so many readers of the Bible light on the verse "Jesus and His brothers and sisters" and say "AHA!! He HAD brothers and sisters -- perhaps they were born of Mary or just step-siblings" -- these people do not know that in the middle east and even in Greece it is common to call your cousins (first and second) your brothers and sisters"

This was in response to wmfights's #595 "This point is a perfect example of how different Christians and Catholics are. Christians will leave a church and form a new one, or join another denomination if they find doctrine contrary to SCRIPTURE"

[Cronos]

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.

oh, now you make an inference? You're guessing aren't you?

The OT also said not to eat pork so I guess in 2000 years there was never any Jew who ate pork ? I know what you'll say next: "oh, those weren't true jews" -- so you make more statements to support your false assumption

[Cronos]

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.

Nope, that's what YOU say the RCC teaches.  You've created your own false slander against God's Church.  Congratulations.

[Cronos]

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

Ok, so everyone except you have no idea about the Bible, I guess.  You are the sole interpreter of the Bible, eh?  Even though you get such simple things wrong as talking about Christ's brothers and sisters -- sheesh, it's such a simple proof that you, tenns and b's ideas about reading the Bible like a book and coming to your own childish conclusions (oh, and all us individual mortals are childish, me included).

Only a group of persons can even START to comprehend the enormity that is God.  That's why God left us a Church and why the early Christians prayed together and why the idea of the TRinity didn't get pieced completedly until the 4th century -- because it takes so many individual mortals to GET that idea.

[Cronos]

yes, actually. Don't really sleep more than 3 hours though. And remember -- InterDev is your friend -- just copy the silly posts there.

[Cronos]

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.

What about the other Churchs that make up the Catholic Church (btw there are 22 Churchs in the Catholic Church

Although it is not widely known in our Western world, the Catholic Church is actually a communion of Churches. According to the Constitution on the Church of the Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, the Catholic Church is understood to be "a corporate body of Churches," united with the Pope of Rome, who serves as the guardian of unity (LG, no. 23). At present there are 22 Churches that comprise the Catholic Church. The new Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, uses the phrase "autonomous ritual Churches" to describe these various Churches (canon 112). Each Church has its own hierarchy, spirituality, and theological perspective. Because of the particularities of history, there is only one Western Catholic Church, while there are 22 Eastern Catholic Churches. The Western Church, known officially as the Latin Church, is the largest of the Catholic Churches. It is immediately subject to the Roman Pontiff as Patriarch of the West. The Eastern Catholic Churches are each led by a Patriarch, Major Archbishop, or Metropolitan, who governs their Church together with a synod of bishops. Through the Congregation for Oriental Churches, the Roman Pontiff works to assure the health and well-being of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

While this diversity within the one Catholic Church can appear confusing at first, it in no way compromises the Church's unity. In a certain sense, it is a reflection of the mystery of the Trinity. Just as God is three Persons, yet one God, so the Church is 22 Churches, yet one Church.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes this nicely:

"From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God's gifts and the diversity of those who receive them... Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions. The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church's unity" (CCC no. 814).

Although there are 22 Churches, there are only eight "Rites" that are used among them. A Rite is a "liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony," (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 28). "Rite" best refers to the liturgical and disciplinary traditions used in celebrating the sacraments. Many Eastern Catholic Churches use the same Rite, although they are distinct autonomous Churches. For example, the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Melkite Catholic Church are distinct Churches with their own hierarchies. Yet they both use the Byzantine Rite.

To learn more about the "two lungs" of the Catholic Church, visit this link:

CATHOLIC RITES AND CHURCHES

A Roman rite Catholic may attend any Eastern Catholic Liturgy and fulfill his of her obligations at any Eastern Catholic Parish. A Roman rite Catholic may join any Eastern Catholic Parish and receive any sacrament from an Eastern Catholic priest, since all belong to the Catholic Church as a whole.

[Cronos]

If I want to learn more of my faith, why should I go to a Catholic web site.

as cons pointed out -- you keep criticising what you think are Church teachings, but have no knowledge about it whatsoever, so before you make any more silly statements, READ.

[Cronos]

You cannot deny that when Israel walk righteously with the Lord we blessed them and when they did not he not only withdrew His favor but punished them.

Huh?  YOU blessed Israel?  Isn't that a little bit too much of deification?

[Cronos]

some of the statements ARE quite out there, aren't they?

[Cronos]

a former Catholic and Protestant

just curious -- are you a kabbalaist?

[Invincibly Ignorant]

just curious -- are you a kabbalaist?

Negative.

[Cronos]

I totally agree that Mary and Joseph knew each other in the Biblical sense. They had sex.

Yup, you guys were there to verify it, eh? Come on, how can you make such silly, easily refutable statements? Sheesh -- there are so many Protestants with sensible differences of opinion, but here all you put forth are unread opinions and guesses.