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!
Where do you find Scriptural evidence that Jesus' "brothers" (actually His cousins, but I'll humor you. It's too late at night for a massive refutation of that idea right now) were non-believers at the time of His death? There is none. Cousins or brothers, there is not one shred of evidence that they were unbelievers. According to you guys, at least two of them were Apostles! The Apostles were to have all doubts removed three days later in the upper room, no? So what would have been the big problem?
If He had brothers, Jesus would have defied MASSIVE Jewish tradition against not favoring the eldest son in all things pertaining to inheritance. With Jesus dead, according to your theory, some OTHER man was now the eldest. He would HAVE to care for Mary in this circumstance.
Since this didn't happen, and her care was entrusted to someone we KNOW wasn't His literal brother (John was the son of Zebedee), there is compelling evidence that Jesus had no blood-brothers.
Besides that, we have the testimony of the early Church, which unanimously understood the situation in an identical fashion to modern Catholicism. You would discount testimony from those early days, even when that testimony starts within the lifetimes of those whose lives overlapped the Apostles themselves! Yet, somehow, it is the Catholic Church which is "ignorant" in this matter...
1 Corinthians 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
Neither of those statements say that a wife sins by not sleeping with her husband, except by your inference, your personal, individual, flawed, interpretation. In fact neither statement even talks about sex...
Of course many of those who have a knee-jerk reaction to deny The Church will say that Nicaea was wrong -- it was with, Shock, the Emperor Constantine
Correct -- especially those who seem to think that Christianity was started in the 16th century.....
I don't buy the "once saved always saved". I've known some incredibly hateful "Born Again Christians". They say that the Bible gives them license to hate and carve out the snippets of verse to support them.
I have a friend who does alot with the Right To Life organizations. She said that while they were praying across the street from the main abortion mill in Houston a woman brought in her teenage daughter for an abortion. The mother came back out to scream at the protesters that she was saved and God has already forgiven her for getting her daughter's abortion.
Recently a Southern Baptist friend told me that if you lost your salvation by walking away or backsliding that you could never get it back. That I don't believe either.
And yes, I know people who claim to be Catholic but you couldn't tell it.
They ignored it when I've said it. Good luck.
"I don't buy the "once saved always saved". I've known some incredibly hateful "Born Again Christians". They say that the Bible gives them license to hate and carve out the snippets of verse to support them."
_________________________________
I never thought you did think you had the blessed assurance of knowing JESUS has you in his hand and won't let go. If you thought that you couldn't be a Roman Catholic.
I'm sure we've all seen shocking things. I have yet to meet anyone who is SAVED by FAITH not by works who hasn't become a changed person. I've never met anyone who is SAVED who ran around claiming that gave them the right to be hateful. Born again Christians have a habit of reading their BIBLES and know that JESUS commanded us to love our neighbor.
You know you never really answered my question. What are the works your church demands of you in order to be in a state of grace?
This should be easily attainable concerning these 2 sets of 10 Commandments illustrated below. Could someone tell me first as to why we have these variations. Please also give me a name or names of the persons involved in making this alteration. Because it is an alteration and not simply a misinterpretation
Are there any verifiable canons concerning this change, if so, what is the canon's number? Is this action found in The Canons & Decrees of the Council of Trent?
I found only this one:
Canon 1188. "The practice of displaying sacred images in the churches for the veneration of the faithful is to remain in force..."
There must have been some opposition to prompt a statement like that... what happened here?
Thanks in advance
|
I just getting use to tables sorry about the size
In the graffed in sense?
Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
Jewish Reckoning | Augustinian-Lutheran Reckoning | Orthodox-Reformed Reckoning | |
Introduction | And God spoke all these words, saying, | And God spoke all these words, saying, "I am the LORD your God." | And God spoke all these words, saying, "I am the LORD your God." |
1st Word | "I am the LORD your God." | "You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image" | "You shall have no other gods before me." |
2nd Word | "You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image." | "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain." | "You shall not make for yourself a graven image." |
3rd Word | "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain." | "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy." | "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain." |
4th Word | "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy." | "Honor your father and your mother." | "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy." |
5th Word | "Honor your father and your mother." | "You shall not kill." | "Honor your father and your mother." |
6th Word | "You shall not kill." | "You shall not commit adultery." | "You shall not kill." |
7th Word | "You shall not commit adultery." | "You shall not steal." | "You shall not commit adultery." |
8th Word | "You shall not steal." | "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." | "You shall not steal." |
9th Word | "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." | "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife." | "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." |
10th Word | "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife; and you shall not desire anything that is your neighbor's." | "You shall not desire anything that is your neighbor's." | "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife; and you shall not desire anything that is your neighbor's." |
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.