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!

[Jaded]

For the 50th time.

If Jesus Christ had brothers and sisters AT ALL, He would have SINNED in giving care of HIS mother to John.

[Jaded]

Since you posted your snippet to show how women are owned by men.... try the ENTIRE Pararaph. Perhaps the next one.

1 Corinthians 11
1Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.

Propriety in Worship
2I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings,[a] just as I passed them on to you.
3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7A man ought not to cover his head,[b] since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

11In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. 13Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

[Uri’el-2012]

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

I never said that !

Put some ice on it, Dave.

I corrected my statement so that even you could understand it.

Perhaps I overestimated your skills.

[OLD REGGIE]

Someone has to represent the Church to the UN or the nations of the world.

The RCC is a political organization with one of the biggest diplomatic corps in the world. The same political organization which gave up her world domination goals only when she lost too many wars.

[Full Court]

Since you posted your snippet to show how women are owned by men...

I didn't say that or imply that. I posted what God says about why women were created. They were created FOR THE MAN, not the other way around.

Since you are a catholic, I don't expect you to take what God says in Scripture too seriously, put please do not lie and claim I said something I did not, or claim that the Bible says something it doesn't.

Corinthians 11:7  For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

8  For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

9  Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

The woman was created for the man.

Genesis 2:18  ¶And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

As a female, I don't have a problem with the way God ordered things, why do you?

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

I corrected my statement so that even you could understand it.

Perhaps I overestimated your skills.

Sounds like the good old days :)

BigMack

[Full Court]

For the 50th time.

If Jesus Christ had brothers and sisters AT ALL, He would have SINNED in giving care of HIS mother to John.

It is amazing that you would ascribe sin to Jesus Christ rather than believe the full proof of Scripture that Mary had other children, and that she had sex with Joseph like any good wife should.

Holy Scripture is clear that Jesus had siblings, brothers and sisters. It in no way at all says that it was a sin for Jesus to give care of Mary to John.

You people have got to face real life here and smell the coffee.

You would actually rather believe that Jesus sinned rather than believe God's Holy Word.

What a shame.

BTW, if God had wanted to use the word nephew, he would of, in describing Jesus' brothers, because it is used in Scripture in other places. Also the word "cousin", if that had indeed been the case.

Jesus had siblings, Mary was a good wife who had maritial relations with her husband.

Matthew 1:25  And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

[OLD REGGIE]

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

What comparisons?

Maybe you can give me an example of a limb or eye growing back.

[Full Court]

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

So you'd rather follow the men that brought you the homosexual/pedophile scandal than the Bible?

[NYer]

Since you are a catholic, I don't expect you to take what God says in Scripture too seriously, put please do not lie and claim I said something I did not, or claim that the Bible says something it doesn't.

Full Court's postings are a clear example of how Sola Scriptura leads to solo scriptura. Each individual becomes their own pope and magisterium. With little or no knowledge of the language in which the Bible was written and ignoring the audience of the Gospel writers, each person 'interprets' Scripture anyway they wish. Two thousand years of theologians is totally disregarded.

Best to leave Full Court to her opinions and pray for her enlightenment.

[Jaded]

Perhaps you should actually read and try to comprehend Scripture instead of making obnoxious unfounded statements about others. If this: "Since you are a catholic, I don't expect you to take what God says in Scripture too seriously, put please do not lie and claim I said something I did not, or claim that the Bible says something it doesn't. is the best that you can do, don't bother me again. I've seen all of your "psuedo-christianness" that I care to. Good day.

[Uri’el-2012]

XS>I corrected my statement so that even you could understand it.

XS>Perhaps I overestimated your skills.

BM>Sounds like the good old days :)

BigMack

1,566 posted on 02/24/2006 10:03:51 AM MST by PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain (Never under estimate the power of stupid people in a large group:)

Mack:

Some things never change, even after four or five years.

Good to hear from you.

Blessings on you and yours!

I like your tag line.

b'shem Y'shua

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Sounds like the good old days :)

Which makes you pretty friggin old. :-)

[OLD REGGIE]

(read up on the events of 1870).

I assure you I have read the events of 1870 - simply the last war lost by the Vatican State. What does that have to do with the price of cheese?

[annalex]

References to how Joseph kept Mary virgin prior to the birht of Jesus say nothing to whether they had marital relations after. References to "adelphoi", "brothers" of Jesus are collective references to kinsfolk, as is the common usage of "adelphos" or its Hebrew equivalent, which I forget at the moment, throughout Scripture. For example, Lot is described as Abraham's "brother" even though his genealogy is explicitly given and he is Abraham's nephew.

The scripture is silent on the question whether Mary remained virgin; the tradition is of a single mind that she did, and there is some indirect scripture that corroborates that.

Please refrain, in the future, from reading the scripture in an ill-educated way. Private interpretation of the scripture is forbidden by it. If you are in doubt how to understand a verse from the scripture ask a Catholic or an Orthodox, who can give you an apostolically correct interpretation. I, personally, will be happy to guide you any time you care to ask, as I have done so before.

No Jesus did not sin by asking John to take care of His mother. No one suggests that He did.

[OLD REGGIE]

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

It's in the same book which says she was not the mother of anyone else. Just another mystery. :-)

[Uri’el-2012]

These new comers will be surprised by us that have done this for years

Blessings on you and yours.

b'shem Y'shua

[Jaded]

You are correct. He/She should be my prayer intention for Lent. Surely that example is not what being a follower of Christ means.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Which makes you pretty friggin old. :-)

I'm so old I fart dust...no wait thats Reggie :)

I may be older than you but you're still the ugliest one of the group.

BigMack

[Jaded]

Ping. You are correct.