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!

[InterestedQuestioner]

Ping to post # 1538:

Now that's a post! This should really be it's own thread.


"The depth rating for this pressurized Wasp is about 2200 feet. Being the diver is breathing an air mixture there is no need for decompression..... Basically its a submarine shaped like a wasp designed for a single person, not for me thank you."

LOL I wonder what kind of person gets in that thing. It actually sounds like something that I would like to try.

"More like 3 miles down, but very rarely do we go that deep, yet. Average depth is anywhere from 3000 to 8000 feet in the Gulf of Mexico. This is where our technology has taken us thus far in constructing permanent installations in ultra deep water. At these depths the creatures, as rare as they are, move very slow. Some so strange words cannot explain. I would see at times, very large crabs, things growing up out of the seabed like cactus, that seem to sense with contortions the lights of our arrival. At first you ask, is this a plant or some fleshy organism? One time I couldn't believe it, there was this fish, instead of bottom fins it had small legs and was actually walking on the seabed! Some of this stuff is right out of fossil records but they're alive!".......

Clay+Iron_Times, I assume any animal that lives that far down is a carnivore, since plants probably can't grow that far under water. I've heard that the fish at extreme depths have to have enormous jaws, because they pretty much have to be able to swallow anthing that floats down to them. Do you think that's true?

"My division manager wrote a story for Oil and Gas Journal and the first line of the first paragraph was: Imagine dangling a pencil by a string from the top of the Empire State building, landing the pencil in the middle of a nickel on the sidewalk below. That’s the accuracies in acoustic surveying needed to install the Shell Mars TLP foundation piles."

[Cronos]

Apples and oranges

Such comparisons seem the norm for those who seek to justify their break from Christ's Church.

[Cronos]

We do not believe the Church is "man made." Nor do we view it as a "corporation," at least not in the way you are using the word. It is a corpus, the Body of Christ on earth.

The Vatican is not a policital entity?

It does not have Diplomats (by whatever name) in any country in the world which will allow them into the country?

Diocese's (sp?) in trouble throughout the world don't claim the Vatican, not they, own their so-called property?

I could go on and on but I think I'll wait for you to claim that the RCC is nothing but a simple Church with no political or worldly ambitions.

Again Apples and Oranges.  The Vatican is both the place where the Bishop of Rome resides and a separate state (read up on the events of 1870).  Furthermore, each Patriarch in the Catholic Church resides in a separate city -- like the Patriarch of the Maronite Catholic Church, the Patriarch of the Chaldean Catholic church etc.)

[Cronos]

if Mary didn't have sex with Joseph she sinned and her children were by some other man.

Mary's only Child was Jesus Christ.

[Cronos]

He is talking about sex in that passage.

Really -- isn't it what you want to read into it?

But the wife is still to be submissive to the husband. Fod the woman was created for the man, not the other way around.

Really -- isn't it what you want to read into it?

[.30Carbine]

Thank you for taking the time to share all that. I was fascinated throughout the whole!

[.30Carbine]

Thank you for the links!

[Flavius Josephus]

Why do you only hope?

We don't take it for granted.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

More than a Teshuva, you were pointed to the Scriptures and to the Almighty One through Jesus. At some point, you were touched by the Sermon on the Mount, the call to Holiness and justice, the possibility of forgiveness, and the understanding that man has a higher purpose.

God could use all this to point you in the right direction as well if you'll let him. Come on home. :-)

[SoothingDave]

Why do you only hope? Why don't you know? Wasn't what Jesus did once and for all enough? Jesus isn't enough?

Why do you continue to act as if I never posted 1348, which addressed your false principle of "security" in your own salvation, with the very Scripture you tried to use to prove it?

Until you acknowledge responses given to you, it seems pointless to continue repeating the same old phrases. Can you respond to my post?

SD

[SoothingDave]

if Mary didn't have sex with Joseph she sinned and her children were by some other man.

Please present any evidence from Scripture that Mary was the mother of anyone else.

If you are capable of responding to posts, that is.

SD

[SoothingDave]

We do not believe the Church is "man made." Nor do we view it as a "corporation," at least not in the way you are using the word. It is a corpus, the Body of Christ on earth.

The Vatican is not a policital entity? It does not have Diplomats (by whatever name) in any country in the world which will allow them into the country? Diocese's (sp?) in trouble throughout the world don't claim the Vatican, not they, own their so-called property?

The Vatican City state is not the same thing as the Catholic Church. Do you not understand this? The Pope is leader of the government of the sovereign state of Vatican City. It is this state which conducts diplomatic affairs, just like any other state.

I know of no Catholics who consider their Church to be a small landlocked sovereign state contained within the state of Italy.

So why even mention it?

I could go on and on but I think I'll wait for you to claim that the RCC is nothing but a simple Church with no political or worldly ambitions.

Chuck lied and said Catholics view their own church as a man-made corporation.

We do neither. We believe the Church is of divine foundation and we do not think of it as a legal entity chartered to provide recognition under the laws of various states.

It may be organized in this legal fashion in order to efficiently operate in the various states in which it does, but this is a detail of the reality of operating a vast global enterprise in the 21st century.

The identity of what the church is in its professions and in the minds of its believers is no more that of a publicly identified non-profit corporation than the hordes of Steeler Nation consider the team to be a "corporation."

SD

[Full Court]

Jesus has brothers and sisters.

[SoothingDave]

Please present any evidence from Scripture that Mary was the mother of anyone else.

Jesus has brothers and sisters.

Perhaps you didn't understand the question. Where in Scripture is anyone identified as a child of Mary?

The use of the phrase "brothers and sisters" is ambiguous because of the way kin are accounted for in the Semitic language. Perhaps you were not aware of this. It's in the Bible.

SD

[Full Court]

You don't take it for granted, meaning you don't trust Christ?

That's a bad place to be.

Hebrews 11:6  But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

[Full Court]

Me:God the woman was created for the man, not the other way around.

You:Really -- isn't it what you want to read into it?

No, it's what God says.

1 Corinthians 11:9  Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

[SoothingDave]

Post 1348 is still sitting there waiting for you to acknowledge it.

SD

[wmfights]

"Jesus has brothers and sisters."
_____________________________________________

They will never accept anything you show them from SCRIPTURE. If they did their house of cards would collapse. If Mary had other children she would be just like the rest of us She couldn't be a "co-redemptress".

[Uri’el-2012]

First Century Mikvah is found in Jerusalem.

b'shem Y'shua

[SoothingDave]

They will never accept anything you show them from SCRIPTURE. If they did their house of cards would collapse.

Is it possible Scripture wasn't written in English for a 21st Century American audience?

And why so much gladhanding each other instead of addressing the points we make?

SD