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!
But either can address issues raised by the other, indirectly, in replies to others.
The RCC is one part of the overall Catholic Church, which in turn is but a part of the Apostolic Church of God -- the Churchs that were set up by Christ himself through his Apostles, not by any man. Those groups that are not part of the Apostolic Church are not Christian period. Individuals in those groups may be, but the overall bunch of non-catholic/orthodox cannot be labelled Christian.
Typical of a member of a quote based grouping: you completely ignore the entire statement and consider only one quote. The entire statement was "The Vatican is both the place where the Bishop of Rome resides and a separate state(read up on the events of 1870). "
Thank you for explaining that so well I.Q.
As you see FC -- THIS is why were Belong to The Church, the Apostolic Church founded by Christ through His Apostles. This entire community of believers -- dating back 20 centuries helps us learn more about our faith. Do you think no one asked these questions in the 20 centuries before the Pentecostals and Evamngelicals came along? No, these questions were asked and answered by the Holy Spirit and by people who actually KNEW The Christ. We cannot be presumptive to refute THOSE proofs.
FAMILY OF JESUS CHRIST (recap)
Matt. 12: 46
46 ¶ While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
Mark 3: 31
31 ¶ There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.
Luke 8: 19
19 ¶ Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press.
Matt. 13: 55
55 Is not this the carpenters son?
is not his mother called Mary?
and his brethren, James, and Joses,
and Simon, and Judas?
Mark 6: 3
3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary,
the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon?
and are not his sisters here with us?
And they were offended at him.
John 2: 12
12 ¶ After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.
John 19: 27
27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
Acts 1: 14
14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
Gal. 1: 19
19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lords brother.
I think the Hare Krishnas have stopped recruiting lately...
oh, the Word of God is perfect -- however, MAN's interpretation of it is fault (as we ARE faulty, unlike God) -- so we as INDIVIDUALS err when trying to understand scripture on our lonesome. You read scripture in a community, don't you FC? You go home and ponder on your own as well, but you learn it with a group of people? Well, we do the same, only our community of people extends back 2000 years and includes the Apostles. That's what so many Protestant miss out on -- the depth. They are like seeds planted on shallow dirt, lacking the richness and the depth. We as individuals make mistakes -- and the Church Fathers as individuals make mistakes. But when united by the Spirit in the ONE Church, the CHURCH does not err...
Amen!!
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.