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]

You can make lists of what you would want churches to be

It's not my list. It's the list that the Holy Spirit wrote.

[muawiyah]

Rules again ~

[TradicalRC]

What the Church demands of me to be in Communion, I cannot give her.

Curious. What specifically did the Church ask of you that you were unable to give?

[Full Court]

There will be plenty of Catholics at Grahams funeral. I'd even bet there would be at least one on the dias. He is very cozy with Rome.

[muawiyah]

"officiate, officiate, officiate"! ~ there will be literally mobs of Catholics milling about at Graham's funeral.

I even watched the Pope's funeral on TV, and I don't even agree with the idea that there should be a Pope. Still, he was a great man; a great Christian, and I know that if he'd been an American, after a little persuasion, he'd been a great Republican.

You do know we all have an enemy greater than the "other guys" in the "other church".

[Campion]

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

You mean Protestants who think that salvation can be lost (like, for example, Martin Luther, or Free Will Baptists, or any of a large number of other groups) are not "Bible believing Christians"?

[franky]

In the 1930s up to 1950s many Protestant clergy followed the Popes. They knew when the Pope made a declaration, it was true.

Several in my time said that their Churches had no "Magesterium" to lead and guide them. It was a fact of life.

Also there were not 30,000 denominations all claiming to have the truth in those days.

[TradicalRC]

I wouldn't follow a Pope out of a burning building.

Then I guess you'll burn.;^)

[Salvation]

Are you trying to be funny here?

[Uri’el-2012]

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

Do you believe that Y'shua was just a bumpkin from Galil ?

Or do you believe that Y'shua is the creator of the universe?

b'shem Y'shua

[TradicalRC]

Does the Nicene Creed contradict Scripture?

[Invincibly Ignorant]

And those of us who've studied it today are not "invincibly ignorant" either

Hey, watch it. :-)

[magisterium]

"What the Church demands of me to be in Communion, I cannot give her. As St. Thomas Aquinas pointed out, if you can't believe or assent to believe, have the integrity to get out."

I'm very sorry to hear that. But you're saying that it's not so much a matter of the Church being "wrong" as much as it's a matter of your not bing able to live up to its teachings. But who really is "totally" able to do that? It's not something that is likely to be achieved, rather, it is what is sought after. Jesus told us to "Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:28) We know that is not going to happen while in this life, yet we remain Christians struggling to attain that goal. We don't become discouraged for lack of perfect adherence to the ideal.

It's none of our business to inquire what it is that the Church demands that you cannot give. But I would ask you to be introspective here and really ask yourself if even the basic idea behind your statement makes a justifiable reason to leave. If sin is involved that you can't or won't give up, the Church is still there to help you overcome it, if you will allow it. If it's a matter of practices or policies in the Church, you have to consider whether the Church is otherwise "legitimate," and whether you might have to therefore consider a realignment in your own thinking. To leave simply because retaining membership poses personal inconveniences is wrong. Consider that the early martyrs certainly were inconvenienced by their imprisonment and deaths, and realize that your situation likely pales by comparison. Or consider their sacrifices of previous practices that were perfectly okay while they were pagans, or that were legitimized by the pagan world surrounding them, even if they were raised as Christians.

Sometimes we are called to submerge our personal desires or preferences in favor of mastering ourselves, as St. Paul himself had to do as described in 1Corinthians 9:27. The Truth is "one," and sometimes our natural inclinations find themselves outside of it. Happens to everyone! I hope that you will be open to the grace of reconsideration. You are in my prayers.

[AnalogReigns]

I don't like the (originially) pejorative term "Protestant" either, but all Christians coming out of Western Europe have ancestors (spiritual and genetic) once under the Bishop of Rome.

Read your history...American Baptists date back to England in the 1600s, breaking away from the official Church of England--which was one of the 3 original Protestant groups (Lutheran, Reformed (Presbyterian), and Anglican).

A fourth catch-all group, the Radicals (also called "anabaptists") is NOT the direct spiritual ancestor of modern Baptists, rather of pacifist groups like the Mennonites.

In every-day usage, any Western church, evangelical, baptist, Bible, etc., not Roman Catholic, is Protestant. And in fact, ALL stem historically from the Reformation started by Luther, like it or not.

It's a total myth that baptists had survived in Europe as any kind of body from before the 1500s Reformation. No self respecting scholar finds any evidence for that.

[Bainbridge]

And there are a comparable number of Moslems and Pagans.
The cross was a lonely place- the Truth is not manifested by a headcount.

[AlbionGirl]

magisterium, I have thought this through, I did what I believe I had to do. If, you believe, from my statement that my choice was an unexamined or ill-informed one, then we will have to leave it at that.

[AnalogReigns]

I'm not a Roman Catholic, but belief in the sacraments such as Communion and Baptism do not imply one is not saved by grace alone.

The non-baptist Christians that were the first to proclaim the "solas": salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, by Christ alone, with the absolute authority of scipture alone, to the glory of God alone, all taught that scripture indicates baptism and communion are A means of grace (but not the only means) if received in faith.

None taught they had the same meaning though, that Roman Catholics believe.

[Bainbridge]

Right, and in the election of "04 the Roman Catholic was the pro abort, pro- homo libertine Candidate
America was founded by Bible reading " Christians".
Aside from the state of "Mary"land, the ethos of the founding was purely Biblical Christianity.
You are over the edge, and I would hope that the sensible Roman Catholics here would rebuke you for extremism.

[franky]

###"Constantinian Christianity"###

I believe Constantinian Christianity came long after St Paul and St Peter got the Jews to change their ways.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13287b.htm

"Christ, while observing the Sabbath, set himself in word and act against this absurd rigorism which made man a slave of the day. He reproved the scribes and Pharisees for putting an intolerable burden on men's shoulders (Matthew 23:4), and proclaimed the principle that "the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" (Mark 2:27). He cured on the Sabbath, and defended His disciples for plucking ears of corn on that day. In His arguments with the Pharisees on this account He showed that the Sabbath is not broken in cases of necessity or by acts of charity (Matthew 12:3 sqq.; Mark 2:25 sqq.; Luke 6:3 sqq.; 14:5). St. Paul enumerates the Sabbath among the Jewish observances which are not obligatory on Christians (Colossians 2:16; Galatians 4:9-10; Romans 14:5).

The gentile converts held their religious meetings on Sunday (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2) and with the disappearance of the Jewish Christian churches this day was exclusively observed as the Lord's Day. (See SUNDAY.)"

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm

Did not St Paul and St Peter have sort of a coming out about circumcision?

[armydoc]

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

Let me fix it for you- "there are more self identified Catholics than there are members of any other individual sect of Christianity".

The point being, obviously, is that a person who denies essential Catholic dogma or teachings is not Catholic. Consider the following:

"...fewer and fewer people who call themselves Catholic actually follow Church rules or accept Church doctrine. For example, a 1999 poll by the National Catholic Reporter shows that 77 percent believe a person can be a good Catholic without going to Mass every Sunday, 65 percent believe good Catholics can divorce and remarry, and 53 percent believe Catholics can have abortions and remain in good standing. Only 10 percent of lay religion teachers accept Church teaching on artificial birth control, according to a 2000 University of Notre Dame poll. And a New York Times poll revealed that 70 percent of Catholics age 18-44 believe the Eucharist is merely a "symbolic reminder" of Jesus."

http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20031208.html

Now, criticize the source if you wish, but there is no denying that there are huge numbers (? majority) of self-identified Catholics who do not believe in one or more Catholic teachings, at least in the U.S. I suspect it is the same or worse in Europe. They are not Catholics.