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!

[Clay+Iron_Times]

It's good to see you in the forum again, Clay+Iron_Times

Thank you ... I am over the water right now so my connection is via satellite.

You put some time into responding with regards to the 10 Commandment questions and I appreciate it. However, the question remains.. Out of 1700+ Canon Code, why the absence of code with certainty, as to which 10 was decided on?. Being as no code exist to solidify what Augustine had to say, would that raise the possibility of some future alteration in the 10 choices?

Of course that would be placing a "Law" upon a set of "Laws". As Augustine, I also would be reluctant to do that.

be broken into two Commandments or should it be summarized as one?

Exactly.... this also applies to the 9th and 10th Commandments of the right column I posted. Why not leave those 2 grouped together as depicted on the left column?

Finally, and I know this may seem a silly question to some... How did we get from 10 Commandments to over 1700 Canon codes of Law?

For my part it would take an in-depth study on the bibliography of Canon Law. I would not want to expend the time which would take me away from my focus on God. I would rather stay in the scriptures themselves

I read a small portion of this text:

Canon law was born in communities that felt great ambivalence about the relationship of law and faith. Custom governed early Christian communities, not a body of written law. It was custom informed by oral traditions and sacred scripture. Christians did not arrange their lives according to a Christian law but according to the spiritual goals of the community and of individual Christians. St Paul wrote to Roman Christians who knew and lived under the law created by the Roman state and reminded them that faith in Christ replaces secular law with a quest for salvation (Romans 7:1-12 and 10:1-11). Law, he sharply reminded the Galatians, cannot make a man worthy to God; only faith can bring life to the just man. The inherent tension between the faith and conscience of the individual and the rigor of law has never been and never will be completely resolved in religious law.

[InterestedQuestioner]

"commit a mortal sin (please define this)"


I think everyone can agree that is a good definition of a mortal sin. Since the authors of the Baltimore Catechism cite Ecclesiasticus (also know as the book of Sirach,) which not all Christians accept as Scriptural, it's good to reference mortal sin from another source in Scripture:

"If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal. (1 John 5: 16-17, RSV)

Here the Apostle John points out that there is sin which is mortal, and sin which is not, (what many of us refer to as venial.) Both are wrong and contrary to life in Christ, but there is definitely a more serious category.

I usually start by thinking of mortal sins as being sins which break the 10 Commandments. Worship of a false god, Adultery, Murder, theft, and bearing false witness.

[SoothingDave]

You put some time into responding with regards to the 10 Commandment questions and I appreciate it. However, the question remains.. Out of 1700+ Canon Code, why the absence of code with certainty, as to which 10 was decided on?.

What is the need for declaring whose "decalogizing" of the Biblical verses is the best? Why would it be important and to whom?

Any way you break it up to try to make it memorable, it contains the same information. This is, frankly, a pathetic position to claim that Catholics "ignore" the 2nd commandment.

I ask again, what part of "I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me" do you read as official sanction for the worshipping of idols?

Being as no code exist to solidify what Augustine had to say, would that raise the possibility of some future alteration in the 10 choices?

Think this through again. There is no official position, therefore there can be no "alteration" to what does not exist.

SD

[SoothingDave]

I usually start by thinking of mortal sins as being sins which break the 10 Commandments. Worship of a false god, Adultery, Murder, theft, and bearing false witness.

I think you'd be hard pressed to think of any sin which can not be construed as violating a commandment. They are pretty all-encompassing.

The type of sin has to do with the seriousness of the evil introduced into the world. Bearing false witness to spare someone's feelings is venial. Bearing false witness to swindle money from people or to have someone punished by a court of law is much more serious.

Any sin is a failure to acheive perfection, but mortal sins are so serious that they amount to a rejection of God and His Will.

SD

[magisterium]

Then you err in that you cannot discern that all this talk about the Catholic Church and the scriptual canon *presupposes* that the Holy Spirit guides the process. The Church has always referred to God as the "primary Author" of Scripture, and the humans who physically wrote it as the "secondary authors." However, unlike Islam, which teaches that Mohammed was nothing more than a dictation machine writing what Allah specifically told him word for word, we say that the humans involved in Scripture really were inspired by God, but wrote in their own way, and in their own style.

Anyway, no one claims that the Catholic Church deserves primary credit for Scripture. God inspired the authors of the books in their writing, and then led the Church in the compilation, discerning, vetting and canonizing process, as well as continuing to lead the Church in the interpretation of Scripture.

[Titanites]

why the absence of code with certainty, as to which 10 was decided on?

You still seem to have difficulty understanding. The list of 10 you recite, and the one I recite, are a tools of convenience to summarize the 10 commandments. They aren't the actual commandments that are found in Exodus and Deuteronomy, but summaries of this scripture for the sake of convenience.

Each of the 3 lists presented summarize equally well the 10 commandments of Scripture. One is no better, or more complete, than the other. You keep pretending that one list is superior to the other or that one comes from scripture and the others don't. No enumeration of the ten can be found in scripture and the ones you and I use are based on tradition.

[InterestedQuestioner]

"Thank you ... I am over the water right now so my connection is via satellite."

Over the water in a boat, or in a plane? I'm picturing you in some sort of James bond set-up.

" Out of 1700+ Canon Code, why the absence of code with certainty, as to which 10 was decided on?"

Well, the Decalogue is the Decalogue, it's Exodus 20: 6-17, and Deuteronomy 5: 6-22. That can't be changed. There are actually something like 14 imperative statements, combined with a lot of information that might be considered extraneous from a modern day perspective (references on how to treat your slave on the Sabbath, references to not desiring your neighbors donkey or oxen, etc.) The question is, how can those 14 imperative statements be best summarized in a 10 Commandment format? Western Catholics choose one list, Eastern Catholics tend to choose another, and Jews choose still a third. All are good summaries, and IMHO, capture the central points of the Decalogue.

"Exactly.... this also applies to the 9th and 10th Commandments of the right column I posted. Why not leave those 2 grouped together as depicted on the left column?"

Well, there are good arguments for either position. Some feel that worshiping a false God and making an idol are the same thing, and so can be summarized together. Others feel that coveting goods and desiring your neighbors wife are essentially summarizing earlier commandments (against theft and adultery,) and pointing that it is not merely external actions, but the state of one's heart that matters. These people feel it's fine to combine these two imperative statements. The view against this is that it speaks specifically to a neighbors wife and property, (echoing the prohibition on theft and adultery,) but does not address the other previous Commandments. Others might object that a spouse is not the same as property.

"would that raise the possibility of some future alteration in the 10 choices?"

No one can alter the actual Decalogue, it's Scriptural. With regards to the division and summary of the ten Commandments from the 14 imperative statements in the Decalogue, it's simply a teaching tool. Christ and His Apostles themselves summarized the Decalogue in different fashions, and there is nothing binding on us Catholics to accept one version over another. It's the Scripture that is inspired, not the summaries of that Scripture.

Our Catechism works from a particular summary of the 10 Commandments, but it quotes and cites the underlying Scripture that makes up the actual and entire Decalogue. When you study the Ten Commandments within the Catholic Church, you are going to be pointed to the actual Decalogue in Scripture.

"Finally, and I know this may seem a silly question to some... How did we get from 10 Commandments to over 1700 Canon codes of Law?'

That's not a silly question at all, Clay+Iron_Times.

"For my part it would take an in-depth study on the bibliography of Canon Law. I would not want to expend the time which would take me away from my focus on God. I would rather stay in the scriptures themselves."

I'm right with you, Clay+Iron_Times. That makes good sense. I've never seen the Code of Canon Law, and I don't know of any Catholics who actually have looked at the Code of Canon Law , outside of people here on FR and, presumably, priests. Your motion to focus on Scripture is an excellent one.

As for the origin of Canon Law, when you have a Church of 1.3 Billion people from every culture and nation on earth, you have to have some set of rules that people can turn to for a set of standards. The Code of Canon Law is not an explanation of Scripture, it's a technical manual that sets a written standard for how the Church operates. It answers questions such as, "Who can be married?" and "What are the proper procedures for disciplining Clergy? The entire point of the Code of Canon Law is to ensure justice in a large, diverse, and complex human organization. It's the answer to "How does one Love thy neighbor as oneself?" when the neighbors are a bishop and a priest who is accused of teaching heresy, or the neighbors are a woman who has just married a man who turns out to be a practicing homosexual, and she wants to know if she is in a valid marriage or just a sham.

It's also the source that the old Norwegian guy who always sits in the back of the Church can turn to if he feels the young priest is not celebrating the mass correctly.

For the most part, the Code of Canon Law is not something to guide your daily walk with Christ. It's a collection of Ecclesiastical laws for the governing of the Church. Most Catholics will never even see, much less read the Code of Canon Law. Basically, Clay+Iron_Times, you don't need the Code of Canon Law unless you get into a dispute with another Catholic relating to Church governance, or you somehow find yourself in a serious pickle vis a vis Church policy. It's not analogous to the Decalogue, it's more analogous to the Book of Leviticus, in that it contains a detailed collections of rules.

[SoothingDave]

As for the origin of Canon Law, when you have a Church of 1.3 Billion people from every culture and nation on earth, you have to have some set of rules that people can turn to for a set of standards. The Code of Canon Law is not an explanation of Scripture, it's a technical manual that sets a written standard for how the Church operates. It answers questions such as, "Who can be married?" and "What are the proper procedures for disciplining Clergy? The entire point of the Code of Canon Law is to ensure justice in a large, diverse, and complex human organization. It's the answer to "How does one Love thy neighbor as oneself?" when the neighbors are a bishop and a priest who is accused of teaching heresy, or the neighbors are a woman who has just married a man who turns out to be a practicing homosexual, and she wants to know if she is in a valid marriage or just a sham.

There was some hubbub a few weeks back about Michael Schiavo getting married again in the Church and how this should not have happened since it violates Canon.

When you stick around for a few millennia, just about every possible situation has come up and been decided before.

Yes, it is a violation of Canon to arrange for the demise of your spouse so that you are then "free" to marry your girlfriend.

To those who are basically ecclesial anarchists, this is dismissed with the "legalistic!" charge. To the rest of us, it seems wise to have a collection of the decisions and wisdom of the Church through the ages.

SD

[InterestedQuestioner]

"For my part it would take an in-depth study on the bibliography of Canon Law. I would not want to expend the time which would take me away from my focus on God. I would rather stay in the scriptures themselves."

Clay+Iron_Times, if you want to understand how Catholics read the Scriptures, a much better source would be the Catechism. I often turn to it to understand concepts that I can't resolve in my own reading of Scripture.

[InterestedQuestioner]

"When you stick around for a few millennia, just about every possible situation has come up and been decided before."

Yes. What situation has not been thrown at the Church before? I'm reminded of the two young mothers who approached King Solomon for judgment after one of them had lost her infant during the night, and they both claimed the survivor. It's good to have sincere, committed, and intelligent individuals utilize a broad perspective and exxperience to set a just standard of law. The ancient Israelites had the Decalogue and the Book of Leviticus, but they still needed the judges to help determine how those rules apply to particular situations.

[Full Court]

I can assure you as a Catholic that the Church does not disregard what God says.

Romans 8:34  Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

35  Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

36  As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. 37  Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.

38  For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

39  Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

[InterestedQuestioner]

"I think you'd be hard pressed to think of any sin which can not be construed as violating a commandment. The type of sin has to do with the seriousness of the evil introduced into the world. Bearing false witness to spare someone's feelings is venial. Bearing false witness to swindle money from people or to have someone punished by a court of law is much more serious."

That's very interesting, and I'll have to think about it. You're saying that intention counts as well as the actual action in determining whether a sin is mortal or venial.

"Any sin is a failure to achieve perfection, but mortal sins are so serious that they amount to a rejection of God and His Will."

I've seen the argument that all sin is a rejection of God's will and therefore, all sin deserves death. Since I saw that in Father Keung's book on Karl Barth's theory of Justification, I guess it was from a questionable source. Can you suggest a way of thinking about this?

Could it be that it is the desire to commit the sin that makes it mortal? For example, bearing false witness in order to save someone's life during war time would not be motivated by the desire to sin itself, but rather by the desire to protect someone. Committing adultery, on the other hand, is basically saying, "I know that God Commands us not to do this, but I am going to do it anyway because I desire to do it regardless of what God instructs me to do." (Heaven forbid I ever be in that position.)

[Full Court]

There is no Scripture that says we must be adults to be addressed

God says that we MUST believe first.

The man made traditions of the Catholic chucrh can not change what God has says and you follow the man made traditions at the peril of your soul.

Please reconsider, and trust God. His word is true.

[Full Court]

But that does not apply to the situation where both spouses mutally agree to not have sex

1 Corinthians 7:5
 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.

James 4:17  Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

And Mary was not the Ark of the New Covenant. Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant.

[InterestedQuestioner]

"Romans 8:34-39"

Wonderful Scripture. I quoted this Scripture to you in post # 1343 because I felt it was germane to the topic of conversation, but I'm not sure why you are quoting it back to me without comment. Is there something in particular to which you would like to call my attention?

[Full Court]

"Some people are in a state of grace today who may die out of grace."

Jesus failed?

God aborted you from the New Birth?

[Full Court]

Gotta run, time to get ready for church.

[wmfights]

"What are holy orders?

You really don't know? It's the sacrament that changes a man into a priest."

So this is a sacrament that only a small group participate in, why is it called a sacrament if all RC don't participate in it?
_________________________________________________________
"One who is dying and has no access to a priest is not doomed, he may make an act of contrition in his own heart."

If one can make an act of contrition on their own when dying, why must you confess to a priest? Why can't you go straight to our LORD and SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST all the time?

[InterestedQuestioner]

"God says that we MUST believe first."

Full Court, since the founding of the Church by Jesus Christ, the Faith of the community has always preceded the faith of the individual. In the Baptism of infants, it is based upon the faith of the parents, and their commitment to rearing the Child within the Faith that the Child is Baptized. Without the commitment to raising the Child in the Faith, the Child will not be baptized.

The original comment was that Jesus said we have to be adults to be baptized. I haven't seen that Scripture yet, but am eagerly waiting for someone to produce it.

"The man made traditions of the Catholic chucrh can not change what God has says and you follow the man made traditions at the peril of your soul. Please reconsider, and trust God. His word is true."

I appreciate your concern for my soul. Certainly God's Word is true, and we all want to follow it. Can you show me where the Bible explicitly prohibits the Baptism of infants?

[wmfights]

"Jesus failed?

God aborted you from the New Birth?"
__________________________________________
Not a chance!

John 6:37 "All that the father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away."