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!

[AlaninSA]

In fact, even her adherents, most of which are born into it, not converted, do not even know if they are saved, because Rome forbids that.

Where are you getting this information? From a Jack Chick cartoon? Our Catholic Church teaches that we are saved through grace.

[TheClintons-STILLAnti-American]

"If so, why do they insist in making a distinction between "Christians" and "Catholics" instead referring to all Christian denominations as Christian?"

My wife grew up in a "good Catholic" home, and now looks on the Catholic Church as containing the truth but making finding it like finding the proverbial needle in a haystack with all the extraneous additions that obscure it.

We attend a Bible church, as we want to cut to the chase and don't need the fancy liturgy and layers of authority, and frankly find the notion of a man being infallible silly.

I have no doubt there are Catholic Christians (using the term as in the Bible to mean those who have accepted Christ as Savior and are born again), but from my considerable experience with Catholics I've found most to be more concerned with going through the motions of worship and culture and ignorant of and/or unconcerned about a personal relationship with Christ.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I...don't have adequate time to fully digest this document now in order to knock holes in it

None of us have that long. 8~)

[AlaninSA]

Actually, you're wrong again by saying

No they don't. Rome doesn't have the marks of the Body of Christ.

There are more Catholics than there are members of any other individual sect of Christianity.

[muawiyah]

So, give me a source that says it's different than it was the last time a pope referred to "separated brethren".

[Flavius Josephus]

Most Christians are ROMAN Catholic. You can make lists of what you would want churches to be, but the fact remains that Most Christians Are Roman CATHOLIC. Maybe not in this country, but in the world? Oh, yes.

[muawiyah]

Most of the popes have been good guys, certainly, but I don't recall "stopping" when one of 'em died.

[muawiyah]

When Billy Graham passes on, he will have as much difficulty finding a Catholic priest to officiate at his funeral as any other Protestant.

The "spewing" of venem is sometimes rather quiet you know.

[TradicalRC]

No. When political issues come up, we're generally on the same side. Go figure.

[NYer]

One method of Hermeneutical understanding of Matthew 16:18 is to do a word study of all the scriptures which were then known as the Holy Word of G-d when Y'shua spoke these words. This will allow one to understand that all of the Holy Word of G-d was inspired by YHvH

The only conclusion that one can come to unless you are predisposed to believe in man's tradition over the Holy Word of G-d is that Y'shua was speaking of himself as the "rock"

Okay, let's do just that. First of all, let us agree on the fact that Jesus spoke in Aramaic amongst his Apostles.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus said in Aramaic, you are "Kepha" and on this "Kepha" I will build my Church. In Aramaic, "kepha" means a massive stone, and "evna" means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is "petra", that "Petros" actually means "a small rock", and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus' blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used "Kepha," not "evna." Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.

Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the "small rock," he would have used "lithos" which means a little pebble in Greek. Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential. Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church. (You don’t even need Matt. 16:18 to prove Peter is the rock because Jesus renamed Simon “rock” in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42!).

Matt. 16:17 - to further demonstrate that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, Jesus says Simon "Bar-Jona." The use of "Bar-Jona" proves that Jesus was speaking Aramaic. In Aramaic, "Bar" means son, and "Jonah" means John or dove (Holy Spirit).  See Matt. 27:46 and Mark 15:34 which give another example of Jesus speaking Aramaic as He utters in rabbinical fashion the first verse of Psalm 22 declaring that He is the Christ, the Messiah. This shows that Jesus was indeed speaking Aramaic, as the Jewish people did at that time.

Matt. 16:18 - also, in quoting "on this rock," the Scriptures use the Greek construction "tautee tee" which means on "this" rock; on "this same" rock; or on "this very" rock. "Tautee tee" is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence (and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee”) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros”).  Also, there is no place in Scripture where “faith” is equated with “rock.”

Matt. 16:18-19 - in addition, to argue that Jesus first blesses Peter for having received divine revelation from the Father, then diminishes him by calling him a small pebble, and then builds him up again by giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven is entirely illogical, and a gross manipulation of the text to avoid the truth of Peter's leadership in the Church. This is a three-fold blessing of Peter - you are blessed, you are the rock on which I will build my Church, and you will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven (not you are blessed for receiving Revelation, but you are still an insignificant little pebble, and yet I am going to give you the keys to the kingdom).

Matt. 16:18-19 – to further rebut the Protestant argument that Jesus was speaking about Peter’s confession of faith (not Peter himself) based on the revelation he received, the verses are clear that Jesus, after acknowledging Peter’s receipt of divine revelation, turns the whole discourse to the person of Peter:  Blessed are “you” Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to “you,” and I tell “you,” “you” are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. I will give “you” the keys to the kingdom, and whatever “you” bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. Jesus’ whole discourse relates to the person of Peter, not his confession of faith.

Matt. 16:17 - to further rebut the notion that Jesus was calling Peter a small pebble, Simon in Aramaic means "grain of sand." If Simon's name meant "grain of sand," it would be pointless for Jesus to change his name from "grain of sand" to "pebble."

Matt. 16:13 - also, from a geographical perspective, Jesus renames Simon to rock in Caesarea Philippi near a massive rock formation on which Herod built a temple to Caesar. Jesus chose this setting to further emphasize that Peter was indeed the rock on which the Church would be built.

This is born out by the other gospel writers.

[SaltyJoe]

I cannot state the following without first telling that I, myself, have fallen to liberal protestantism.

The sharp divide 3 plus decades ago was the advantage Satan needed to introduce abortion into America. The devil used our culture to popularize hedonism and infanticide on a global scale.

I asked a non-Catholic preacher about the presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. He exclaimed that his bread and non-alcoholic juice beverage did not have the presence of Christ. I agreed that he was correct. Jesus is not present at his worship. But, I'm sure the Holy Spirit is with him and his flock and urging their hungry hearts to the presence of Christ in the Sacramental Life. I know that the Holy Spirit works through such studious Christians because Jesus promised it so via the Beatitudes: Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for knowlege...

In reference to:
"Liberalism is a Sin" by Dr. Don Felix Sarda Y Salvany

http://www.liberalismisasin.com/

Satan takes advantage of our pride. The architect of the protesting will against Spiritual Authority is the same creature that influenced Adam and Eve's fall from Grace. If today's Christians refuse or are ashamed of the "Protestant" label, it's justifiably so. The wicked spirit that blindly rejects Spiritual Authority is the same spirit that rebels against Natural Authority. If a conscience can willful object to Jesus' appointing a man who's spent his entire life devoted to God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then how much easier is it to reject the practical God-given authority of a young father and mother? The spirit that rejects the reason and Faith of True Authority will endeavor to devour a soul and influence individuals to reject ALL authority.

But "Protestants" had children, and that's how the parents became "Christian". A youth may pretend to know everything until they're kicked out of the nest. Then the young adult realizes what geniuses his parents are. And when the young adult has children of their own, they might be wise enough to wonder how miraculous it was that the grandparents of his kids were able to survive at all.

"Protestant" is as dirty a name as "Soviet". The more modern Russian leaders neglect the abuse of the old Soviet system, the more Poland and Eastern Europeans will remind the world of how truly despicable the Stalinists' abominations were. Likewise, History is replete of Protestant errors. Yes, there's corruption in any human institution (as the Vatican knows corruption and internal rebellion). But the Protestant Heresy spawned or encouraged the worst atrocities of the last 100 years. Without Protestantism, there would never have been Communism, Fascist Socialism, or Liberalism.

Blasphemously rejecting the presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist opened the intellectual wound to rejecting the presence of Human Life in the womb. Abortion in a "Christian" culture could not have happened without the Protestant Revolt. The abomination came in degrees: state licensed marriages, divorce, and contraception. The horror of abomination happened only when the fruit of this disobedience is ripe to fall: homosexual "marriage", abortion, pop or political science/psychology bent on satiating human desires, and absolute enslavement of the will against the Fruit of Life.

In the American Presidential Election of 2004, the Holy Eucharist proved its Power. Jesus Christ is truly with us. He has never left. Sinners are the ones who leave the presence of Christ, yet, He Reconciles us back to Him.

There is no "orthodox" Protestantism. It's a spirit of rebellion. If orthodox non-Catholic Christians are so attracted to today's Papal leadership, it might be because the Holy Spirit has never allowed a Pontiff to stray from instructing on the Teachings of Christ. Yes, there have been anti-popes, but there have also been bad preachers and Pharisees too. God's Divine Mercy will heal the wounded souls to Reconcile us back into his Grace. History and private Revelation proves the presence of the Holy Trinity with the Roman Catholic Popes for better or worse among our fragile human leadership.

[AlaninSA]

If the man's family wants to have a funeral Mass, so be it. I have no doubt that many a priest would happily provide this service to Billy Graham's family.

But I doubt they'd want it.

Your point lacks relevance because he's a Protestant.

[Full Court]

There are more Catholics than there are members of any other individual sect of Christianity.

Yes, very telling isn't it? Especially in light of the fact that most catholics didn't chose Rome, they were born into catholic families.

Matthew 7:13  E
nter ye in at the strait gate:
for wide is the gate, and broad is the way,
that leadeth to destruction,
and many there be which go in thereat:

14  Because strait is the gate,
and narrow is the way,
which leadeth unto life,
and few there be that find it.

[franky]

Try to get TV station EWTN and watch the "Coming Home" show.

Marcus Grodi does a wonderful job explaining such issues as posted.

[AnalogReigns]

I have read Trent, and understood its arguments; it was part of the Counter-Reformation, not just in memory of the Reformation but during it... (Calvin was still alive and Luther had just died when the Council convened). Actually a number of the articles referred specifically to Protestant doctrines and cursed (consigned to Hell, by the "holder of the keys" to , understood in that day--not the gentler understanding of today) anyone who held to them...it didn't just describe Roman doctrines. It's revisionist history, to pretend, as many do today, the Roman curia at that time didn't really believe all the children of the reformation hell-bound. And those of us who've studied it today are not "invincibly ignorant" either...so, I guess Trent's curses surely must apply to me.

"CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified...let him be anathema."

verses St. Paul's: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." (Eph. 2:8,9)

Back to the original subject: Please go ahead call Western Christians not under Rome's control, Protestants. But in return, you should let us call you Papists, Romanists and maybe even let us refer to the Pope as antichrist. Of course I'd rather not do that myself--so maybe instead cut the pejorative word "Protestant."

I am in Christ, a Christian. A word older than any established church organization in Rome.

[where HE leads me]

The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

[TradicalRC]

The problem here , as I see it is that the Roman Catholics are sensing a shift of momentum. They are insisting on people using their( RC) terms to define themselves.

Okay. We will henceforth start refering to the various and sundry denominations as Christian when the "Christian" churches start refering to the RC Church as "The One True Church. That way we can all respectfully use each other's terms.

[Full Court]

Our Catholic Church teaches that we are saved through grace.

Since when?

Are you saying you do not believe in infant baptism or the other sacraments?

What about your good works? Don't those count any more?

Does Rome now allow you to commit the sin of presumption and declare that you KNOW you are saved?

If you were a Bible believing Christing you could KNOW for sure and have it all settled.

1 John 5:13  These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God;
that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

1 John 5:20  And we know that the Son of God is come,
and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true,
and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ.
This is the true God, and eternal life.

[Full Court]

Wow, you got saved from that? What a blessing to hear about!!!

Amen and amen again!!!!!!!!