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!

[restornu]

I cringe at how many scared manuscripts were destroyed or burn!

i> Such is not an example of chrisitan belief ... it's pure LDS.

NO it is a Dead Sea Scroll awareness you don't know every thing I read or study.

As I stated before to someone else there is no NT stuff in the DSS stuff!

We know we have 39 books an in the DSS collection they found over 800 scrolls that they continue to work on today!

Everyday something new is being brought to light from the Archealogy finds!

I rejoice and welcome it!

Thank God I am not so caught up in dogma that I must fear that something will challenge like those who honor the tradition of men!

I say this in all respect!

[SoothingDave]

OK, an exhaustive search of the New Testament for "James" finds no indicator that there is some third magical James, a biolgical child of Joseph and Mary who suddenly becomes a trusted Apostle sometime after the Resurrection of Jesus.

We do find these however:

Matthew 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Jesus has "brothers" (kin) called James and Joses and Judas. Keep thisin mind.

Mark 15:40 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;

A Mary is named as the mother of James (the less, referring to the two Apostles. James son of Zebedee is James the greater) and Joses. Curiously, if this same Apostle James is Jesus's half-brother, Mary, of the virgin birth is not mentioned as Jesus's mother, but only as James and Joses's mother.

Luke 6:16 And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.

James has a brother Judas (not Iscariot). Among Jesus' kin listed in Matt 13:55 is a James with a brother Judas. We've already seen James and Joses linked.

Luke 24:10 It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.

Same Mary, mother of James telling the news to the Apostles after the Resurrection. Again, curious that Jesus' mother is not identified as such here, if she is also the mother of James.

Acts 1:13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.

11 Apostles (Iscariot missing, of course) right at the beginning of Acts. Waiting for Pentecost and selecting Matthias as a new Apostle. It would seem if some new James was to come into the picture, it would get mentioned at some point.

Jude 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:

Again, Jude is named as a brother of James and not a brother of Jesus Christ, though we know from Matt 13:55 that a Judas is counted among the "brothers" of Jesus and James.

So, there it is. All these references to a James who is the son of Alphaeus. It's a shame none will look at this and truly analyze it, instead you will point to me that Matt 13:55 contains the English word "brother."

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

(restornu) "I cringe at how many scared manuscripts were destroyed or burn!"

Such is not an example of chrisitan belief ... it's pure LDS.

I'm not LDS but I am among those that believe - know - all every single one of the original documents have disappeared.

How many of the original documents are you aware of that exist?

[SoothingDave]

See Acts 15. You'll find James - the brother of Jesus and the son of Mary.

Acts 15 does not contain the word "Mary" and mentions James's name once. He is not identified as you suggest.

Please try again. Where in Scripture does this "third" James first appear from behind the grassy knoll?

SD

[annalex]

This might be of help:

James is without doubt the Bishop of Jerusalem (Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:18; Galatians 1:19; 2:9-12) and the author of the first Catholic Epistle. His identity with James the Less (Mark 15:40) and the Apostle James, the son of Alpheus (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18), although contested by many Protestant critics, may also be considered as certain. There is no reasonable doubt that in Galatians 1:19: "But other of the apostles [besides Cephas] I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord", St. Paul represents James as a member of the Apostolic college. The purpose for which the statement is made, makes it clear that the "apostles" is to be taken strictly to designate the Twelve, and its truthfulness demands that the clause "saving James" be understood to mean, that in addition to Cephas, St. Paul saw another Apostle, "James the brother of the Lord" (cf. Acts 9:27). Besides, the prominence and authority of James among the Apostles (Acts 15:13; Galatians 2:9; in the latter text he is even named before Cephas) could have belonged only to one of their number. Now there were only two Apostles named James: James the son of Zebedee, and James the son of Alpheus (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). The former is out of the question, since he was dead at the time of the events to which Acts 15:6 ssq., and Galatians 2:9-12 refer (cf. Acts 12:2). James "the brother of the Lord" is therefore one with James the son of Alpheus, and consequently with James the Less, the identity of these two being generally conceded. Again, on comparing John 19:25 with Matt 27:56, and Mark 15:40 (cf. Mark 15:47; 16:1), we find that Mary of Cleophas, or more correctly Clopas (Klopas), the sister of Mary the Mother of Christ, is the same as Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joseph, or Joses. As married women are not distinguished by the addition of their father's name, Mary of Clopas must be the wife of Clopas, and not his daughter, as has been maintained. Moreover, the names of her sons and the order in which they are given, no doubt the order of seniority, warrant us in identifying these sons with James and Joseph, or Joses, the "brethren" of the Lord. The existence among the early followers of Christ of two sets of brothers having the same names in the order of age, is not likely, and cannot be assumed without proof. Once this identity is conceded, the conclusion cannot well be avoided that Clopas and Alpheus are one person, even if the two names are quite distinct. It is, however, highly probable, and commonly admitted, that Clopas and Alpheus are merely different transcriptions of the same Aramaic word Halphai. James and Joseph the "brethren" of the Lord are thus the sons of Alpheus.

(The Brethren of the Lord)

Also see

St. James the Less

[OLD REGGIE]

If I need to understand the passage I suspect is not self-evident, I can read the Catechism or talk to a priest, till that process brings a better understanding. Usually, a reference to the early Church writings closes the deal, if the Catechism is silent. That way, the meaning of a particular verse, say, Matthew 1:25 or Luke 1:28, is understood not through some archaeological analysis of surviving copies, but by evidence of understanding common to the Fathers.

Do I need to elaborate?

Not really. Welllll---you might have to explain what you mean by "common to the Fathers." At least you didn't go so far as to say "unanimous consent of the Fathers".

BTW the RCC used to say the earth was the center of the universe --- until they didn't. Al Goreish?

[SoothingDave]

This might be of help:

Hey, no giving away secrets. ;-)

I'm trying to present the material in a Scriptural-based way. People so inclined will just tune out a paragraph from the Catholic Encyclopedia. It's much easier to simply lay out all the "Jameses" in the Bible and ask which one is supposed to be Joseph's son.

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

It's much easier to simply lay out all the "Jameses" in the Bible and ask which one is supposed to be Joseph's son.

It's much easier to simply lay out all the "Jameses" "brothers" in the Bible and ask which one(s) are supposed to be "blood brothers", "friends", members of an affinity group, "kin",or "cousins".

[restornu]

I was listening to a talk on the research that took place and where they are in the process.

What they know so far!
What still needs to be translated
This was divived among 3 groups the Arabs, the mainstream Christian, Hebrew and BYU University are working togather because of the technology and software BYU has!

Even though it is BYU it is an independed study with Hebrew U!

LDS Perspectives of the Dead Sea Scrolls (FARMS)
http://www.ldsvoices.com/index.php?id=336

[restornu]

How many of the original documents are you aware of that exist?

They had found 800 scrolls which it seems the OT only has 39 of those!

No NT was found among this sect because like today so many break away to form their man made concept what the Word of God means!

[annalex]

The Church is not a courthouse. Well, it has courthouses inside it, but as a whole it is a mystical body that operates in mystical ways. There is no legalistic way to get the sense of the Holy Tradition. Although we have the Gospels written by now, and the Catechism formulated, we are foremostly the experience of the Living Incarnate Word. Fundamentally nothing has changed since Christ puzzled the world with His parables. We still have to ask, and listen to the answer. It is possible that individual father of the Church has an error; only the Magisterium as a whole, and the Holy Father is protected from error by the prayers of Christ (Luke 22:32). But the faithful must do their work to understand when the Church speaks to them.

Is it clearer?

Of course the Earth is the center of the universe. This is where Christ is coming, is He not?

[annalex]

What's the point of soothing them if I don't whack them on the head with something heavy afterwards?

[Invincibly Ignorant]

What's the point of soothing them if I don't whack them on the head with something heavy afterwards?

We're still waiting for the whack.

[wmfights]

"...Tradition is self-correcting,..."

Baloney!
_________________________________
I was just catching up and was wondering if anyone was going to catch that.

[wmfights]

"About 80% of the Scripture is very clear to a casual reader. But not 100%. In order to read the scripture and profit from it spiritually one has to absorb the Holy Tradition at the same time."

Although I would agree with the first part of your statement the second part strikes me as the road to perdition.

The path to reading and understanding SCRIPTURE is being indwelled with the HOLY SPIRIT, praying on them, meditating about them, fellowshiping with other believers. If you rely on "Holy Tradition" you allow unverified, non-SCRIPTURAL sources, with their own personal agendas, to "shade" the truth. Holy Tradition has brought about false doctrine in numerous areas; indulgences, praying to the dead to amplify pray requests, Mary never dying, just to name a few.

[Jaded]

There's still hope.

[annalex]

I don't whack the invincibles.

[Jaded]

I want to know about the 500 brethren.

[Jaded]

Like, say, Joseph Smith?

[annalex]

The Holy Spirit was given the Apostles only (John 15:26-27, John 20:21, Acts 2), and they alone were commissioned to preach the gospel to the world (Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 21). Well, they still do, and we still listen. That gospel is the Holy Tradition. The written scripture is a part of it. It is special, as we know, as it is "profitable for reproof" but it is an organic part of a whole.

The scripture expressly warns against private interpretation of the scripture, see 2 Peter 1.