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]

Jaded said "Since you posted your snippet to show how women are owned by men.... try the ENTIRE Pararaph

Cronos said: Exactly my point Jaded -- FC, like so many of those who are led astray away from The Church see only one line --

Let me get this straight for all of you one more time. I NEVER SAID THAT WOMEN ARE OWNED BY MEN.

That's a lie by Jaded.

I said "Women were created for men, not the other way around."

Further, a wife is to be submissive to her husband.
She is to be obedient to him that the Word of God be not blasphemed.

She is also to reverence her husband.

The husband is also the head of the wife.

None of that negates the husbands responsibilities to the wife, which are listed in Scripture.

So do me a favor. Don't claim I said something I didn't.

Thanks.

[Full Court]

He had a group of relatives there, that many of us, including people from early days of the church believe were the children of Joseph and a first wife.

If that were true, those children would of been with them on the trip to Bethlhem and they were not.

So there were no children from some fictional first wife.

[Full Court]

But when united by the Spirit in the ONE Church, the CHURCH does not err...

When the RCC was burning people at the stake for professing faith in Christ and for having a Bible, who was in charge then?

That right there precludes the Roman Church from being a true church because it was an enemy of Christ and his Word.

Revelation 6:9  ¶And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

10  And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

[annalex]

Protestants look at Christianity in the vacuum of the Bible

We are reminded that they do not look at the entire Bible either, thus large swaths of Christian theology, such as Communion of Saints and treasure of merits remain off limits.

It is actually worse that merely separating a part of the tradition, -- written canonical Word that is -- and ignoring the rest. Ignorance of Tradition is ignorance of the Scripture. On this thread, for example, we see an utter unability to profitably read a plain canonical text because of the perverse urge to reject the traditional understanding.

[Full Court]

Why do you look for reasons to reject the clear words of God?

[Full Court]

Ignorance of Tradition is ignorance of the Scripture

That is sadly funny.

You have the Christians on here urging you all to believe the Bible and trust that what Christ said is true, and you have the catholic on this thread making major contortions to try and prove why the Bible isn't accurate or tue or doesn't mean what it says.

The ignorance my friend, does not lie with us.

[Titanites]

I don't need to respond to a post that uses a text I do not believe in or a post that tries to make the Bible untrue.

It doesn't make the Bible untrue. What you are afraid of is that is makes your solo scriptura interpretation of scripture untrue. That you are afraid to discuss it is all we need to know.

The Bible is true, whether you believe it or not.

Yes, the Bible is true. It is your solo scriptura interpretation of it that isn't, which is what we don't believe.

Every time the phrase "knew her" is used it is talking about sexual relations.

Yes, it does; nobody has ever disagreed with this. It's the word till that was under discussion. You've gone this long and didn't know that? You could have at least looked at post 1633 to know that. Maybe if you actually read what's posted to you, a lot of misunderstanding could be avoided.

There's not much else to say to you, pope Full Court, since you are stuck on solo scriptura and refuse to discuss.

NYer - I hope you don't mind but your phrase is a jewel and I'd like to borrow it for a while to use as my new tag line.

[annalex]

Do you understand what you quote (cf Acts 8:30)?

Please see the meaning of "sisters", "brothers", "brethren" in the post 1600, to which you pretend to respond.

[annalex]

there is plenty that tells us that Mary and Joseph had sex and had other children

Plenty where? You have not shown us any scripture to that effect.

[Full Court]

Just because you make the claim that the Bible is not true and does not mean that Jesus had brothers or sisters when he clearly did means nothing.

You are just someone who doesn't believe Scripture claiming it isn't true.

[annalex]

The Word of God is very clear that Mary and Joseph had sex.

No it is not. For explanation of Matthew 1:25 see my 1633.

[annalex]

Why do you look for reasons to reject the clear words of God?

Why do you refuse to understand the Word of God?

[annalex]

[Catholics] try and prove why the Bible isn't accurate or [true] or doesn't mean what it says.

The Bible is accurate and true, but your refuse to understand it, and show no curiosity to even try.

[annalex]

Just because you make the claim

I don't claim, I prove. See 1633. You claim.

[Titanites]

Please see the meaning of "sisters", "brothers", "brethren" in the post 1600, to which you pretend to respond.

Referring to 1 Corinthians 15:6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, some posters on this thread must believe the Virgin Mary was very busy after the birth of Jesus.

[Full Court]

If you don't believe that the Bible means what it says, then you are the one who is afraid, not I.

Matthew 1:25  And knew [ginosko {ghin-oce'-ko} Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman]

her not till [heos {heh'-oce}; Until]

she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

UNTIL', prep. [un and till. See Till.]

1. To; used of time.

He and his sons were priests of the tribe of Dan, until the day of the captivity. Judges 18.

2. To; used of objects. Obs.

3. Preceding a sentence or clause, to; that is, to the event mentioned, or the time of it; as, until this hour; until this year.

The scepter shall not depart from Judah - until Shiloh come. Gen. 49.

4. To the point or place of.

In open prospect nothing bounds our eye,

Until the earth seems join'd unto the sky.

5. To the degree that.

Thou shalt push Syria, until they be consumed. 2Chron. 18.

[Note. Until is always the same part of speech in fact, and has the same signification. The only difference is, that it is followed sometimes by a single word denoting time, and in other cases by a verb denoting an event, or a word denoting place or degree. The sense is in all cases to; and till may be used as its substitute, and in modern usage it is most common.]

[NYer]

NYer - I hope you don't mind but your phrase is a jewel and I'd like to borrow it for a while to use as my new tag line.

Take it! Makes a great tag line :-)

[wmfights]

"...we see an utter unability to profitably read a plain canonical text because of the perverse urge to reject the traditional understanding."
____________________________________

Aren't you really saying that because we read the SCRIPTURES and see a clear meaning that disagrees with what your magisterium and unwritten, unverified, tradition has determined you can't understand it?

[Jaded]

Oh please. This really is outside of too much. Acts does not prove Mary had sex. You seem to be more than willing to assign your own predjudices to others. Actually, you stand in judgement of all who don't subscribe to your Solo Scriptura.

Main Entry: for

Pronunciation: f&r, (')for, Southern also (')fär

Function: preposition

Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Latin per through, prae before, pro before, for, ahead, Greek pro, Old English faran to go -- more at FARE

1 a -- used as a function word to indicate purpose b -- used as a function word to indicate an intended goal c -- used as a function word to indicate the object or recipient of a perception, desire, or activity

2 a : as being or constituting b -- used as a function word to indicate an actual or implied enumeration or selection

3 : because of

4 -- used as a function word to indicate suitability or fitness

5 a : in place of b (1) : on behalf of : REPRESENTING (2) : in favor of

6 : in spite of -- usually used with all

7 : with respect to : CONCERNING

8 a -- used as a function word to indicate equivalence in exchange <$10 for a hat>, equality in number or quantity , or correspondence or correlation b -- used as a function word to indicate number of attempts <0 for 4>

9 -- used as a function word to indicate duration of time or extent of space

10 : in honor of : AFTER

[Knitting A Conundrum]

I will not discuss this any more, since we have come to different conclusions, even though we both understand each other's POV. Since you are choosing not to let the subject drop, please take me off the group ping. Arguing fruitlessly is something our Lord asked us not to do, so I would prefer not to. Thank you and God bless.