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]

The view being objected to is the view that the Mother of our Lord was somehow a piece of meat, who was at one moment the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, and at another moment engaging in completely unfruitful sexual relations that produced no children.

How can a god given sexual relationship between husband and wife turn Mary into a piece of meat?

As much as God chose Mary to bear the child, He also chose Joseph to be her husband.

To smear that relationship by implying that their marital was sinful is pretty low.

By the way, Mary was not married to the Holy Spirit. She was married to Joseph.

[Conservative til I die]

Invincibly Ignorant has asked that you not ping him. Do not ping him or discuss him in a reply post to someone else!

Two honest questions:

1) Was this request made to you in private, or is it a public request I may have missed earlier on this thread? Because this seems to be coming from out of the blue and judging by the use of exclamation points in your message, seems to be a serious issue.

2) Does this request prohibit me from responding to anything that he posts?

I ask this in all sincerity.

[Full Court]

Actually, the Bible I use and believe was not preserved by Rome.

I do not read or believe any Alexandrian based Bibles.

I only read and believe the KJV, from the Textus Recptus.

[InterestedQuestioner]

"We know from the Bible that Mary and Joseph had sex"

Nope. Full Court, it has been pointed out to you a dozen times that you do not know this. The Bible never says this. The Bible says that Mary did not have sexual relations with Jospeh, prior to the birth of the Christ. It does not say that she that Joeseph had sexual relations with the Mother of the Christ after His birth. You feel it is implied by the word "until." Not an unreasonable interpretation, but not a definitive one either. The BIBLE nowhere says that Joseph had sexual relations with the Mother of the Lord. That is your own personal opinion. You are entitled to it, but it is an opinion and not a fact.


" that Jesus was the firstborn, meaning others were born after,"

Nope. You can be both the first born and the last born. The terms do not exclude each other.

" and we know that he had siblings from the bible."

The question is whether Mary had children, not whether Jesus had siblings. Name the Children of Mary, from the Scriptures.

[Conservative til I die]

But *you* can feel free to reject what God's Scriptures say. *Your* soul is the one in peril should you decide to do so.

Do you think it's about time for both Full Court and you to stop passing judgement on each other?

Actually, you're right. My statement above was not intended as a judgment on her soul. It was a bit of rhetoric, turning around a statement she has rather condescendingly made to Catholics on this thread.

[OLD REGGIE]

*** My overall advice is not to read the scripture until you can get a good spiritual advisor, Catholic or Orthodox. Without instruction grounded in the tradition of the Church, "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15) your reading is very likely to lead you away from the truth. I will be happy to help you along (I am Catholic) but I am but a layman and my time is limited.

Thanks but no thanks. You don't have any idea about my background but let me assure you I have been "helped" by experts.

[Conservative til I die]

The Catholic Church (Roman and Orthodox Catholicism) Canonized the Bible under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

False.

Were the early Church Councils Baptist or Methodist? Am I missing something here?

[Full Court]

One could ask why you are so obsessed with sex.

One could reply and ask why you would even say something like that.

[InterestedQuestioner]

"I do not read or believe any Alexandrian based Bibles. I only read and believe the KJV, from the Textus Recptus."

That's very interesting. We are not discussing translations of Scripture here, we are discussing the canon of Scripture--which books are included in the Bible,and which books are excluded from it.

That canon is not determined by individuals, it has been determined by the Church, acting under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit. You have received the canon and the bulk of your understanding of Christianity through the Catholic Church. The doctines of the Canon of Scripture, the Inspiration of Scriptures, and the doctrine of the Trinity are all Catholic Traditions which you received through the Catholic Church.

[Conservative til I die]

1 Corinthians 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

So you take this verse to mean you (alone) have the right to knock everyone else because you (alone) are beyond judgment?

So basically, this verse is a command to be a snob?

[Full Court]

Let's see, we know Joseph and Mary had sex.

We know Jesus had brothers and sisters.

We know it would of been a sin for Mary to with hold sex from her God ordained husband.

All this we know from God's Holy Word, the KJV Bible.

So what's your problem with these known facts?

[Full Court]

I'm not knocking you personally.

I am disagreeing with your rejection of God's Word.

[Conservative til I die]

I'm not knocking you personally.

I am disagreeing with your rejection of God's Word.

I didn't say you knocked me personally. You've knocked others here and the Catholic Church in general (which we are all of course a part of). And your disagreements take on a bit of a personal dimension, rather than just merely theological or academic.

[Conservative til I die]

" that Jesus was the firstborn, meaning others were born after,"

Nope. You can be both the first born and the last born. The terms do not exclude each other.

Example: The Passover story, when God smote the firstborn of Egypt. Does that mean God spared those who only had one child?

[annalex]

I explained to you Matthew 1:25 here: 1633. Go read it.

[annalex]

I agree that to "know" often means to have sex. I never argued otherwise.

[annalex]

you are far, far away from any original

And you?

[annalex]

no thanks.

It is my duty to offer help at least once when I see someone reading the scripture and not understanding it. It is, of course, also my duty to correct the error every time I have a chance, for the benefit of other readers.

[OLD REGGIE]

Again, it is specific to him giving care of his mother to a non-relative. He would not have done that. Maybe Luther or Zwingli decided otherwise.

John, chapter 5
1: After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
2: Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, in Hebrew called Beth-za'tha, which has five porticoes.
3: In these lay a multitude of invalids, blind, lame, paralyzed.
1 5: One man was there, who had been ill for thirty-eight years.
6: When Jesus saw him and knew that he had been lying there a long time, he said to him, "Do you want to be healed?"
7: The sick man answered him, "Sir, I have no man to put me into the pool when the water is troubled, and while I am going another steps down before me."
8: Jesus said to him, "Rise, take up your pallet, and walk."
9: And at once the man was healed, and he took up his pallet and walked. Now that day was the sabbath.
10: So the Jews said to the man who was cured, "It is the sabbath, it is not lawful for you to carry your pallet."
11: But he answered them, "The man who healed me said to me, `Take up your pallet, and walk.'"
12: They asked him, "Who is the man who said to you, `Take up your pallet, and walk'?"
13: Now the man who had been healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had withdrawn, as there was a crowd in the place.
14: Afterward, Jesus found him in the temple, and said to him, "See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse befall you."
15: The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had healed him.
16: And this was why the Jews persecuted Jesus, because he did this on the sabbath.
17: But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working still, and I am working."

Your "it is specific" is a perfect example of cherrypicking. Jesus violated Jewish law and, by your standard, sinned. Now you feel qualified to determine which Jewish Law he would or would not obey.

[gscc]

God is Himself, in a sense, united with Mary because he chose to take on human nature entirely from Mary's human substance.

It is you that does not understand that the Lord's humanity is not secured through Mary if she is not fully human as ourselves.  That you continuously give her attributes that make her less then the human vessel that God intended her to be is what is not Scriptural.

Moses could not wear his sandals on the ground near the burning bush because it was Holy, the site of a Theophany.

Yet the apostles and the Lord's disciples walked with Him, ate with Him, and learned at His feet.  There is no parity here for the two situations.  The Lord walked among us fully human, yet fully divine.  The humanity through the miracle of His birth, His Divinity through His Sonship with the Father.

The view being objected to is the view that the Mother of our Lord was somehow a piece of meat, who was at one moment the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, and at another moment engaging in completely unfruitful sexual relations that produced no children.

I certainly do not believe that the marriage with Joseph was unfruitful.  He took her as his wife.  Sorry you view the marriage condition with such low regard.