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]

I am not the one insulting scripture.

[tenn2005]

Are there any other words that you want to put in my mouth to justify your apostate religion?

[Cronos]

The Catholic church is an apostate church and the Pope is a fraud.

And 2000 years of true Christians tell you that your statement is false and the person making that fraudulent statement would be, a fraud

It is God, not you or your church who decides who is a Christian and who is not.

Yes, and those who don't belong to GOD's Church are not Christian.

You like to belittle those who do not blindly follow the erroneous teachings of the Pope and his church.

Nope, I like to point out the mistakes ofIslamics, Scientologists and members of fraudulent groups.

As for me and my family we will follow the Lord.

Then you should be in The Church

[Cronos]

So, then I guess that I was right when I said that I guess it's one of the all-singing, all-dancing, no theology, just some guy standing up on a dais and gesticulating wildly while shouting like Rev. Al Sharpton kind of group (can't call it a Church) -- one which does not recognise any sacraments or give it's members any deeper religious teaching than kumbaya.

[Cronos]

And these are the same folks who dismiss tradition in the same manner/

[Cronos]

well, an apostate would be one who has broken away from the mainstream -- and let's see, the majority of Christians -- Orientals, Orthodox, Catholics and many Protestants, agree with us, so I guess your group would be the apostate.

[Dajjal]

Bumpus ad summum

[markomalley]

You know, 547 posts and not one decent answer to the following:

The problem is, at least based upon conversations I've had with my Protestant friends, is that they do not comprehend that there is one Church and that is that (cf 1 cor 3:1-5, 1 cor 12:12ff, Eph 5:27, etc.). Jesus Christ is the head of that Church and is the bridegroom of that Church (cf Eph 5:23). He installed Peter as his "prime minister," to deal with the temporal issues relating to that Church (Matt 16:19, cf Isa 22:20-23). Additionally, they do not comprehend the concept of Apostolic succession (cf Acts 1:15ff, and many other examples of episcopal ordinations, cf 2 Ti 1:6, Acts 20:28, etc.).

Typical Christian vs Protestant thread...

[Gamecock]

Amen

[kosta50]

And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, Who, together with the Father, is adored and glorified: who spoke through the prophets

Cronos, that is not the Creed we confess, never have and never will.

The Spirit, although He belongs to the Father and to the Son equally, "as regards His existence" (+Gregory Palamas) proceeds only from the Father. The Greek term used in the Creed "proceeds" implies origin. Unfortunately, the Latin term procedere does not have the same meaning, and does not express the truth to the same end.

[kosta50]

Both Churches are Apsotolic and Catholic, and both are particular churches with the Church; both have authority from Apostoles in an unbroken line of succession. The Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church recognize only one Church, and consider the other as a particular Church within the Church, in schism over theology and ecclesiology with respect to the other. Both Churches believe and work towards the common goal: to be reunited through an Ecumenical Council, when such can be convened.

[markomalley]

Both Churches are Apsotolic and Catholic, and both are particular churches with the Church; both have authority from Apostoles in an unbroken line of succession. The Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church recognize only one Church, and consider the other as a particular Church within the Church, in schism over theology and ecclesiology with respect to the other. Both Churches believe and work towards the common goal: to be reunited through an Ecumenical Council, when such can be convened.

And that is the biggest part of all...that it is one, holy, katholikos, and apostolic Church. That one Church is the Bride of Christ. I hope that some day that the divide can be healed among the various particular patriarchies that comprise Her.

[Cronos]

Aargh -- sorry, I meant to cut out the filioque -- should remove it directly from the word file. Apologies

[Cronos]

should really double-check before I post. Apologies again

CREDO IN unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem coeli et terrae, visibilium omnium, et invisibilium.

Et in unum Dominum Jesum Christum, Filium Dei unigenitum. Et ex Patre natum ante omnia saecula. Deum de Deo, lumen de lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero. Genitum, non factum, consubstantialem Patri: per quem omnia facta sunt.

Qui propter nos homines, et propter nostram salutem descendit de coelis. Et incarnatus est de spiritu sancto ex Maria Virgine: et homo factus est. Crucifixus etiam pro nobis, sub Pontio Pilato passus, et sepultus est.

Et resurrexit tertia die, secundum Scripturas. Et ascendit in coelum: sedet ad dexteram Patris. Et iterum venturus est cum gloria, judicare vivos et mortuos: cujus regni non erit finis.

Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem: qui ex Patre procedit. Qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur: qui locutus est per prophetas.

Et unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam.

Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum.

Et exspecto resurrectionem mortuorum. + Et vitam venturi saeculi. Amen.

---

I BELIEVE in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages; God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary and was made man. He was also crucified for us, suffered under Pontius Pilate, and was buried. And on the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven. He sitteth at the right hand of the Father: and He shall come again with glory, to judge the living and the dead: and His kingdom shall have no end. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who, together with the Father and the Son, is adored and glorified: who spoke through the prophets. And one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. And I await the resurrection of the dead and the life + of the world to come. Amen.

[Cronos]

X --> as pointed out by kosta and eloquently shown by my goof up with the Creed, there are issues between the Churches (I do understand that the Latin rite Church is looking to remove the filioque -- as, in fact, the meaning that both Churches meant was the same, just that we Latins should have waited for a council to have it defined in the creed) The Spanish fathers wanted to say what we both agree -- that the holy spirit belongs to the Father and to the Son equally, but gaffed by implying dual procedure which they do not mean.

So, there are differences and yes, I'll say it, errors on our side -- however, do not take that as a means to say that we have been heretical for the past millenia. That's one hysterical extreme.

[Cronos]

I pray for the same too -- perhaps a removal of the filioque would go some way. I was earlier under the impression that the Orthodox wording seemed to imply that Christ was a "lesser deity", but, after long(!) conversations, have come to understand that the Orthodox mean nothing of the sort, but that they understand the mystery of the Holy Spirit in the same way as we Latins do. I hope that my Orthodox friends also realise that what the Spanish priests in the 9th century meant was more in the nature of refuting the idea that Christ was a "lesser deity". As a note I would point out that the Eastern rite Catholic Churchs like the Maronite, do not use the Filioque and incidently, neither does the Vatican San Pietro Church either -- correctly waiting for it to be deliberated in an ecumenical council

[pegleg]

You quote an angelfire page to say Hosius didn't say it. I say he did say it.

The person that did the research just happened to put it on an Angelfire page. The research was solid but I suppose you didn’t read it. For example:

The complete works of Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius were published in two volumes in 1584 in Cologne, under the title „Opera Omnia“. The complete title reads as follows:

D.STANISLAI HOSII, S R E CARDINALIS, MAIORIS POENITENTIARII; ET EPISCOPI VARMIENSIS

Coloniae Apud Maternum Cholinum Anno M. D. L XXXIIII

The purported statement is nowhere to be found in the letters of Cardinal Hosius

There is no section titled "Apud Opera" among Hosius‘ complete works. And there is no letter of that name. So the reference "Letters, Apud Opera" is apparently meaningless.

The source for all of your erroneous quotes comes from the book “Trail of Blood“ by J. M. Carroll.

Trail of Blood

Hate to bust your bubble however this book is nothing but shoddy scholarship and has been debunked by serious scholars. The book was written by J. M. Carroll in 1931 and was published by Ashland Avenue Baptist Church in Lexington Kentucky.

The Trail of Blood theory alleges that true churches—as opposed to the Catholic Church—have been persecuted and forced underground throughout most of history. The alleged carnage and bloodshed following the persecutions is called the “Trail of Blood”. There is no evidence that any “Baptist churches” ever existed before the Reformation, but that, it is claimed, is because the Catholic Church destroyed all the evidence as they chased the Baptists to the ends of the earth.

I just love a good consipracy story.

[tenn2005]

In the first place I don't have a group, Jesus does. In the second place it is the Catholic church who has left his teachings. How much money have you had to pay out to protect your child molesting priest yet you maintain them on your payroll. Paul condemns homosexually but the Catholic church protects it. And you call yourself the mainstream of Christianity?

[tenn2005]

No, you were wrong because you have no idea what my church believes and teaches.

[pegleg]

Peter was never in Rome, was never close to Rome and that can be demonstrated from scripture. None of these folks you mention were eye witnesses....so how you can even call them that is mystifying to me.

Do you know the origin of this myth? Does the name Loraine Boettner mean anything to you? Do you know what Boettner based his statement from? Does the name William Cave mean anything to you?

Do a little research and get back to me.