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!

[tenn2005]

The Apostles were guided into all truth (John 16:13). They did not appoint or recognize a Pope therefore, the Pope is not of the truth.

[magisterium]

You already know the answer. Of course there are no direct references to this in the NT, otherwise, even with our heated disagreements here, we would not need to even discuss the issue, as the answer would be plain. However, the point is that St. Peter, writing from Rome, used "Babylon" as code for that place, and had good reasons to do so, as he was a wanted man, especially after the great fire of Rome in 64 AD. Not every detail of any Apostle's life is found in the NT, very few travel details at all are known for any of them except St. Paul, really, and even he travelled to and through many more places than Acts and his own Epistles chronicle.

I have no idea why 2nd Century testimony is of no use to you. These same people transmitted the faith through their generation intact, as well as the Scripture. The oral tradition concerning Peter's death and burial only had to continue some 80 years until we DO have evidence from his burial place that the Christians of Rome knew the burial spot. Tiles were used in the construction of the tropaion ("trophy") or monument Caius speaks about in my listed quotes, which were stamped from the tile works owned by Marcus Aurelius while he was "Caesar" but before he was sole emperor. This places the construction between 147 and 161 AD. Do you suppose an oral tradition could not last even 80-90 years at a time when oral tradition was MUCH better developed than it is today? Say at least one of the builders was 50 years old or more, or the builders consulted a fellow Christian of at least that age who had knowledge of the circumstances of St. Peter's death handed down through oral tradition. When this person was 20, in 127 or so, he was still within the living memory of potential Christian witnesses to Peter's furtive burial who saw it take place when they themselves were about 20 in 64-67 AD. Would such a man know the spot perfectly well? This is hardly a farfetched scenario. I know there are any number of perfectly reliable anecdotes about events in my own grandparents' lives nearly 90 years ago, with only one link between those events and myself, namely, my parents. Those events, generally, were relatively trivial compared to how the early Christians would have cherished the details of Peter's final moments and burial, so, if anything, they retained such memories with far greater cause and precision, I'm sure. I hope you get my drift in this.

When Peter's tomb was found during excavations under St. Peter's in the 1940's, there was overwhelming evidence that the pre-Constantine Christians had known for 250 years that this was, in fact, where St. Peter was buried. Further, NO OTHER CITY claimed to be the resting place of St. Peter, at a time when Christian towns vied with each other over the importance of the remains of "their" martyrs. Again, if the witness of the early Church is so untrustworthy in this sort of thing, why bother trusting it with the faithful transmission of both Scripture and early development of doctrine leading to "definitions" like the Trinity?

[Diego1618]

At the Council of Jerusalem, the first Council, by the way, Peter spoke out about circumcised and uncircumcised

Did you notice who was in charge....? It wasn't Peter! It was James, the Lord's Brother. (Galatians 1:19) So much for primacy.

[Pyro7480]

They did not appoint or recognize a Pope therefore, the Pope is not of the truth.

Tell me why then, is Peter mentioned more often in the New Testament than any other Apostle? Is it just a coincidence?

[tenn2005]

Just what do you think Paul was commanding Timothy to study; Math?

[Pyro7480]

It was James, the Lord's Brother. (Galatians 1:19) So much for primacy.

Jerusalem was his see, so obviously, he will have some importance there. He wasn't the most important though.

[tenn2005]

You are obviously well versed in Catholic tradition. Now try reading the Bible.

[kerryusama04]

Oh, good grief. You find one obscure quote from Paul about leaving one's body and you decide that overrides Jesus' own words as well as the Revelation? Try the following texts:

John 11:1-44

Matt 22:23-32

John 5:29

Acts 23:6

Acts 24:25

1Cor 15:12

and most importantly

Revelation 20:5-6

[tenn2005]

No. He was usually the first to shoot his mouth off.

[tenn2005]

So who was the most important?

[Pyro7480]

See my #384.

[Diego1618]

The baptism of infants also comes from Scripture: 1 Cor. 1:16.

I'm sorry, but this scripture says nothing about baptizing infants. If you want to check out the next line to find out how much credence Paul put on baptism.... here it is

[tenn2005]

A nice list of scripture. But none of them address the question at hand. Acts 23 6, for instance, has to do with Paul's defense before the sanhedrin. Go back and study more, then give an intelligent reply.

[Jaded]

The bible doesn't mention the Trinity as such either.

[tenn2005]

I already answered your post 284.

[wmfights]

"The Holy Spirit must have inspired many different opinions then, given the number of "Reformist" Christian denominations out there."
___________________________
Mock us all you want. We didn't surrender our ability to think, learn and grow in our relationship with the LORD to an institution of man.

[kerryusama04]

I see now that the tab says MKJV, not NKJV. You should not accuse people of lying. In any translation, your text does not reference the state of the dead.

[Diego1618]

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

Works for me, Senator!

[tenn2005]

You are wrong again. Try studing the baptism of Jesus. It will do you good to try and find the scriptures yourself rather than ne giving them to you.

[Pyro7480]

Paul isn't king. Christ is. His last command on earth was "teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matthew 28: 19-20). Note, Our Lord mentioned baptism first.