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!

[Pyro7480]

The precedent was already there, in Acts, when the 11 remaining Apostles chose a successor to Judas Iscariot. Jesus didn't say anything about doing this, yet they still did. Hmmm...

[kerryusama04]

Catholic 10

Everybody else's 10

This is my first time posting a link, hope it works.

Yes, I do have pictures of my loved one's. They are actually pictures of them, not adaptations of existing idols that I call "my wife". I also do not stand in front of a picture of a dead loved one, cross myself, light a candle, and ask them to pray for me.

[tenn2005]

I Cor 1:16 does not say that infants were baptized. You are assuming that the household mentioned included infants. Please do not add to that which is written.

[TradicalRC]

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.

Whenever I meet someone with a strange accent and ask where they're from, they always say Tennessee or Maine or Minnesota, they never say United States of America! Maybe they're anti-American.

[xzins]

WriteOn.....been a while.

Good to hear from you. How's things?

[rwfromkansas]

It is about what you emphasize. When I ask a Protestant the same question, they usually just say Christian.

[Full Court]

The Bible says only those that already believe may be baptized.

So how could an unbelieving baby be saved by water on it's head?

[tenn2005]

Wrong again. Read Acts 1:20-21. They were obeying scripture which came from God. You really need to spend some time in the Bible before pontificating.

[Full Court]

when the 11 remaining Apostles chose a successor to Judas Iscariot. Jesus didn't say anything about doing this, yet they still did. Hmmm...

And yet, we never hear a word from or about Matthias again.

Acts 1:26  And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

God chose Paul.

[TradicalRC]

The same Jesus who granted authority to Paul granted it to Peter. The Pope carries the same authority via apostolic succession.

[kerryusama04]

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.

Agreed.

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

I really, really agree with this one. The Bible only lists 3 regular people who made it to heaven already (Enoch, Elija, and Moses, and one maybe (one of the guys that was crucified alongside Jesus). The idea that people die and go straight to heaven is Biblically unsound and makes much of the New Testament and Christianity in generally moot.

[tenn2005]

The Pope has zero authority because apostolic succession is a method contrived by the Catholic Church in the second or third century to justify having a pope. There is no mention of it in the Bible.

[magisterium]

Look, He *could* have spoken Inuit and Swahili if He felt like it. The point that NYer was making is that Jesus spoke Aramaic to His hearers because that is the language THEY spoke. Don't be obscurantist to make debating points. He also surely spoke Koine, as many people in the eastern Mediterranean did so as a second language. He also likely employed some Latin. But, inasmuch as He "grew in wisdom and knowledge before God and man" (Luke 2:52), one can glean from this that His human intellect, stemming from His human soul, was obliged to "learn" separate from His divine nature. How this was so is a mystery. But it is part of the explanation of what St. Paul says of Him: "Though he was in the form of God, He did not count equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself and took on the form of a slave, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross." Philippians 2:6-8

Getting back to the point, Jesus spoke Aramaic when teaching the people. In Aramaic, the "Rock" of Matthew 16:18 is the same word - Kepha - in BOTH of the instances where it appears in that verse. To appeal to the differences in the Greek is not compelling, even aside from the easily explainable reason for those differences linguistically and stylistically: namely, "petra" had to be changed to "Petros" because no male would be given a name that was a feminine noun in gender. The tortured explanations you must undertake for the syntax of this perfectly understandable sentence would be amusing if they were not so sadly misleading people in a rather important doctrine of Christ.

[TradicalRC]

There is no mention of it in the Bible.

God probably assumed that He wouldn't have to keep coming back and choosing shepards Himself and so He gave us the Church. Funny Scripture also doesn't say faith aloneor Scripture alone either. Also doesn't mention Trinity or free will or predestination. I don't recall it admonishing each individual person to read Scripture for themselves either. Hmmm.

[Pyro7480]

They interpreted Scripture before Pentecost, when they received the Holy Ghost. How do you explain that?

[Pyro7480]

And you're assuming it didn't.

[wmfights]

"Several in my time said that their Churches had no "Magesterium" to lead and guide them. It was a fact of life."
______________________________________
We don't need a group of weak and fallible men to interpret SCRIPTURE for us. We have the HOLY SPIRIT in us to guide us and convict us.

[Pyro7480]

We have the HOLY SPIRIT in us to guide us and convict us.

The Holy Spirit must have inspired many different opinions then, given the number of "Reformist" Christian denominations out there.

[tenn2005]

You need to read II Cor 5:8. Paul disagrees with you.

[Zuriel]

**The One Church goes back to Peter and to Christ without break**

The church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, JESUS CHRIST......HIMSELF ......being .....the....CHIEF....CORNER....STONE." Eph. 2:20

Who is the 'chief corner stone' that Peter writes of in his epistle (1Peter 2:6-8)? I say it is Jesus!

In a scriptural timeline, was Peter the first of the 12 disciples to acknowledge that Jesus was the Christ? NO. That was Andrew, "..we have found the Messias", which is being interpreted, the Christ. (John1:41)

The second? NO. That was Philip. (John 1:45)

The third? NO. That was Nathanael. (John 1:49)

Those all took place belore the 'beginning of miracles'.

The beginning of miracles was at Cana. (John 2)
Peter's word's, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16), came after several miracles.


Was Peter given the 'keys'? Yes. (it is how we are born again, as Jesus commanded)

In Acts 2:38, He opened the door of salvation to the Jews. In Acts 8:14-17, he opened the door to the Samaritans (part jew-part gentile). In Acts 10:44-48, he opened the door to the Gentiles. Philip, Paul, and the rest of the apostles used the 'keys' as well. The Acts 2:38 'keys' are still used today.

P.S. I really have no time to be on this thread at all, leaving shortly, no internet access for 6 days. But, check my past comments on other threads, if you want.