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!

[gscc]

Seems #3 & #4 are both the son of Mary and the brother of Jesus. They are also both the first Bishop of the Church at Jerusalem.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Catholic legend then. Whatever. I know plenty of Catholics that believe it. Matters not to me if its an
official Magic Sternum item.

[restornu]

To understand on how the offices of the church is set up, it might help to read Ex 14 this should gives a little idea.

Ex 14
12 And Jethro, Moses’ father in law, took a burnt offering and sacrifices for God: and Aaron came, and all the elders of Israel, to eat bread with Moses’ father in law before God.

13 ¶ And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the people: and the people stood by Moses from the morning unto the evening.

14 And when Moses’ father in law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even?

15 And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to enquire of God:

16 When they have a matter, they come unto me; and I judge between one and another, and I do make them know the statutes of God, and his laws.

17 And Moses’ father in law said unto him, The thing that thou doest is not good.

18 Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou, and this people that is with thee: for this thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thyself alone.

19 Hearken now unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee: Be thou for the people to God-ward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto God:

20 And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do.

21 Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:

22 And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee.

23 If thou shalt do this thing, and God command thee so, then thou shalt be able to endure, and all this people shall also go to their place in peace.

24 So Moses hearkened to the voice of his father in law, and did all that he had said.

25 And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.

26 And they judged the people at all seasons: the hard causes they brought unto Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves.

[SoothingDave]

Thanks, Quester. I'm off home sick today, but I will give this some attention as soon as I can. This is not a dodge.

SD

[SoothingDave]

The Bible clearly says he knew her not.

The Bible says he knew her not TILL she had Jesus. Until.

Hooray. Now that we have your attention, perhaps you will now focus on the word in question, which is the one translated into English as "till."

If someone says, e.g. "He was a great person til the day he died" are they saying that on his death day he ceased being a great person?

No.

Therefore, you must admit that the English word "till" does not have to mean that the situation described changes. "Till" can mean "before" without meaning that the thing described must change.

You have been told this many times on this thread. Perhaps you will look at the argument. You don't even have to accept the argument, only that it is a possible meaning of the words. And if it is possible that this verse was written to mean "They had no sex before Jesus was born" (i.e. this was a miraculous conception), then it is possible that the tradiational Catholic (and Protestant) interpretation is valid.

I ask very little of you. Only that you accept that a different understanding of the words is not to treat the Bible as a lie, but to understand what was meant to be communicated differently. You seem to think the point of the passage was to affirm the sexual relations of Mary and Joseph. I don't agree that is why the verse was written, and that is not what the words must mean.

There are alternatives.

SD

[Jaded]

Could it be becasue the Jesus knew that John was going to be the Last Apostle standing?

That's certainly a new, um, twist, considering she was between 45-50 at the Ressurection. Just one of many things still unexplained.

[Jaded]

There are quite a number of non-Catholic types involved in Shroud research.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Wow. I caught a cold that laid me out for the weekend.

[gscc]

Your entire dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary is based on the "possible meaning of the words" (till or until) and the possible meaning of brothers and sisters not actually meaning brothers and sisters, and the possible existence of a third man named James and on and on. Scripture is clear to those who choose to believe that if the Lord had meant to convey to us that Mary was perpetually a virgin He would have clearly stated it. If He had meant that His "brothers and sisters" were cousins He would have stated they were cousins. Contrary to your statement that in the middle east brother often means cousin the Bible does mention cousins clearly defined as cousins.

[Quester]

Sorry you're not feeling well today, SD.

Hope you're feeling better soon.

[Nihil Obstat]

Your entire dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary is based on the "possible meaning of the words" (till or until)

Actually, no. It is about how the Ark of the Covenant was treated in the Old Testament.

[Titanites]

The Catholic Church maintains that the Renaissance dating is due to the mending

No, not the Catholic Church, but a researcher at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, as explained in this article:

An article appeared in a peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta, which proved that the carbon 14 dating was flawed because the sample was invalid. Moreover, this article, by Raymond N. Rogers, a well-published chemist, and a Fellow of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, explained why the cloth was much older. It was at least twice as old as the radiocarbon date, and possibly 2000 years old.

But even if the shroud is determined to be 2000 years old, there is nothing definitive to say that it is the one used in Christ's burial.

[gscc]

Pope Benedict XVI in a letter stated “His Holiness trusts that the Dallas Conference will advance cooperation and dialogue among various groups engaged in scientific research on the Shroud . . .".  Why is it than that the Vatican will not give to the researchers a portion of the shroud that was not reweaved?  Is it the fear that the shroud will go down in history along with the "Donation of Constantine" and the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals?

[restornu]

How much does anyone understand about Resurrection?

Yes the LDS has their understanding but in general sticking to what is in the Bible how much are you really aware of?

Do you know there is a First and a Second Resurrection?

Rev. 20: 5-6
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

The OT & NT has many verses on Resurrection and two verses obvious on the First and Second Resurrection in Rev 20!

When Jesus was Resurrected the first fruits were also resurerrect to than!

Matt.27
50 ¶ Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

55 And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him:

In verse 52 & 53 are the First resurrected!

The Second will not be resurrected at this time (Judgement Day) and we also know that Jesus did go visit them in Spirit Prison, many I am sure will have beable to go to Paradice (Spirit World) not to be confused with Heaven!

Gen. 25: 8 (Gen. 49: 33) Abraham gave up the ghost.
Ps. 142: 7 Bring my soul out of prison.
Eccl. 12: 7 shall . . . spirit return unto God who gave it.
Mark 15: 37 Jesus . . . gave up the ghost.
Luke 23: 43 To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Luke 24: 39 spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
John 5: 25 dead shall hear the voice of the Son.
Acts 7: 59 Stephen, calling . . . receive my spirit.
Heb. 12: 23 spirits of just men made perfect.
James 2: 26 body without the spirit is dead.
1 Pet. 3: 19 he went and preached unto the spirits in prison.
1 Pet. 4: 6 gospel preached also to them that are dead.
Rev. 14: 13 dead which die in the Lord . . . may rest from their labours.
Rev. 20: 5 dead lived not again until the thousand years.

hoping this be an interesting adventure of what the Bible say about Resurrection!

[restornu]

click
Recover fast!

[Full Court]

Dave that's just too funny! You are trying to claim that till doesn't mean until?

Tell me you are not trying to pull a Bill Clinton here.

[annalex]

The Church teaches that the first resurrection is of Christ as described in the Gospels, through Whose work on the Cross the souls of the justified live in Heaven; and the second resurrection is that of the body, which is yet to come. This is the Douay-Rheims commentary to Apocalypse 20:1-5.

2 "Bound him"... The power of Satan has been very much limited by the passion of Christ: for a thousand years; that is, for the whole time of the New Testament; but especially from the time of the destruction of Babylon or pagan Rome, till the new efforts of Gog and Magog against the church, towards the end of the world. During which time the souls of the martyrs and saints live and reign with Christ in heaven, in the first resurrection, which is that of the soul to the life of glory; as the second resurrection will be that of the body, at the day of the general judgment.

[annalex]

"Eos" in the original can mean "till", and "until", and "the time before", as I showed you in 1633.

[Full Court]

It is about how the Ark of the Covenant was treated in the Old Testament.

Mary was not the ark of the new covenant.

Jesus was the mediator of the new covenant.

Hebrews 12:23
 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

24  And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling,
that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

[Full Court]

That's certainly a new, um, twist, considering she was between 45-50 at the Ressurection. Just one of many things still unexplained.

There is nothing in Holy Scripture to even imply that Jesus should not of left the care of Mary to John.

Yet there is ample Holy Scripture proving that Mary was a good wife who had proper marital relations with Joseph and that Jesus had siblings.