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 quote an angelfire page to say Hosius didn't say it.

I say he did say it.

[TradicalRC]

Saying that people have to recite it to be considered Christian is a stretch, don't you think?

Recite as if it were a magic formula, yes, that would be a stretch. The creed contains the essentials of the Christian faith that were subscribed to ultimately by all Christians for the first millenium. I see little reason to believe that the nature of God has changed much since then. The tenets of the creed stand up quite well and while I don't believe that you must recite them, one ought to theologically subscribe to the tenets contained therein to really call yourself a Christian.

The resurrection of the dead is perfectly consistent with Scripture as well.

[TradicalRC]

Having no knowledge of Scripture and relying on another persons understanding and teaching is consistant with being a Catholic

It is also consistent with most newly baptized Christians as well.

[Pyro7480]

The baby who dies in utero or before baptism does not go to hell, nor goes to Heaven. It did not commit personal sins obviously, but did not earn the merit to go to Heaven.

The grace bestowed in Baptism does not depend on the state of grace of the priest or deacon, but only depends on the form of the Sacrament. If they before what the Church calls for, then the Sacrament is valid.

It's not about "getting the child's head wet," but the form plus the matter. "I baptize you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," while pouring water over the person to be baptized, is all that is needed. In emergency situations, any Catholic or Orthodox Christian can baptize.

[Uri’el-2012]

Xenia - the warrior princess.

Your cult strikes me as the ultimate undecided voter. Can't be fully Christian, can't be fully Jewish...

The only thing in the middle of the road are yellow stripes and dead armadillos.

310 posted on 02/15/2006 7:41:28 PM MST by AlaninSA

You seem very confused

Xenia - the warrior princess.

I believe you are thinking of : "Xena: Warrior Princess"

Perhaps you are dyslexic

I follow a Jewish Rabbi who's name is Y'shua
which means " YHvH has become my salvation"

Psalm 118:14 YHvH is my strength and my song; he has become my salvation.

I pray that one day, Abba draw you to His Son.

b'shem Y'shua

[tenn2005]

If an Evangelical is one who teaches others (as commanded by Jesus)and a Protestant is one who stands against false teaching (as commanded by Paul), what is the distinguishing characteristic of a Catholic if not a follower of the teachings of a man (Which both Jesus and Paul condemn).

[Full Court]

You ignorant fool.

Open yourself up to more than the sewage spewing from whatever "minister" you have at whatever "church" you claim to attend.

I quote the Bible and you answer with such a hateful post?

You need more Jesus and less hate.

[Pyro7480]

I say he did say it.

Based on what?

[Pyro7480]

Physician, heal thyself.

[tenn2005]

True to a degree. New Christians know enough scriptre to become a Christian. After that true Christians continue to study the Bible so they may mature in their faith and understanding.

[dangus]

"The "unit" of interest is faith in Jesus Christ. I would not call myself a theist because I do not believe that other faiths provide a path to God. OTOH, I do think all Christians (all of those who accept Jesus as Lord and Savior) do."

I would accept that the unit of interest was "Christian," and not "Protestant" if the word "Christain" wasn't used in contexts where it was meant specifically to exclude Catholics. Go into any "Christian" bookstore and just try to find any of the world's most popular Christian books. Besides the bible, they aren't there, because books like "The Story of A Soul" aren't considered "Christian," but rather "Catholic."

Oh, and Protestants have understood that framing works for centuries. That was why they were so adamant at avoiding Latin-derived words and vernacular bibles... Any mention of a Latin word, and the commonfolk would've understood the word to have Catholic connotations. And of course you could claim any Catholic doctrine using such a word was non-scriptural. ("Purgatory" isn't in the bible because it's A LATIN WORD!)

And if you got the general public good and ignorant by imposing iconoclasm on illiterate folks, then you could say "Priests" aren't in the bible, but "Presbyters" are! (as if Priests isn't simply an Aglicization of "Presbyter.")

[SaltyJoe]

"Chick is a recluse."

Sounds like he needs a Mass intention.

[Full Court]

The baby who dies in utero or before baptism does not go to hell, nor goes to Heaven. It did not commit personal sins obviously, but did not earn the merit to go to Heaven.

Where does the baby go? There is no limbo any longer.

How can an unbeliever be saved by sprinkling water on it's head? That isn't in God's Word.

[rwfromkansas]

Whenever I ask a Catholic what religion they are (not even knowing if they are not atheist or Buddhist or whatever), they ALWAYS say Catholic....not Catholic Christian, not Christian, not believer in Christ.....Catholic and ONLY Catholic.

It seems Catholics isolate themselves from the rest of Christianity by their own will...and now they complain?

[Pyro7480]

There is no limbo any longer.

I didn't see anything to the contrary.

[TradicalRC]

what is the distinguishing characteristic of a Catholic if not a follower of the teachings of a man (Which both Jesus and Paul condemn).

Then we ought to dismiss the teachings of Paul, no?

[tenn2005]

The term presbyter is never translated priest. In every case it is translater as either elder or bishop which two words always refer to the same New Testament office which is without exception made up of mre than one person. All holders of this office are equal to each other.

[TradicalRC]

After that true Christians continue to study the Bible so they may mature in their faith and understanding.

I agree.

[Pyro7480]

How can an unbeliever be saved by sprinkling water on it's head? That isn't in God's Word.

You didn't digest everything I said. I said, "form and matter." The form comes from Scripture, specifically Matthew 28: 19. The baptism of infants also comes from Scripture: 1 Cor. 1:16.

[tenn2005]

Paul was an Apostle of Jesus. The Pope isn't.