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!

[sauropod]

rl

[Bainbridge]

I am tremendously relieved that you do not hold me accountable for all of the miseries that the evil separated brethren have inflicted upon you and your ancestors and your progeny.I am ever so grateful that you deign to even respond to my evil, blasphemous heretical comments, and that you would be gracious as to offer them up as a sacrifice for the continued suffering of those in the one true church who have to suffer the agony of living in this nation based on the KKK, Calvinist Pope -haters, etc

You are perhaps so confused that you do not realize that what you offer serves to make Catholics look slightly obscene.If Jack Chick wanted to achieve the same, he would author such posts pretending to be a Roman Catholic.

I would implore any who are embarrassed by this persons ravings to rebuke him and separate their church from this.

[Uri’el-2012]

XS>I know that the king of the universe can and most likely spoke Aramaic. I would not build dogma on that fact however.

SD>Then you are willfully ignoring the very words spoken by Christ and documented in the New Testament. If that's where you want to make your stand, have at it.

SD

613 posted on 02/16/2006 9:58:42 AM MST by SoothingDave

The very fact that the Ruach haKodesh chose to indicate some words that
Y'shua spoke were in Aramaic should not blind you to the fact that the
Ruach haKodesh purposefully breathed the Gospels and Epistles in Koine Greek
for our understanding.

I stand by my recommendation not to build dogma on the Aramaic.

b'shem Y'shua

[magisterium]

Your observation would be valid in merely human terms. But the issue takes on a different level of understanding of "trust" in God's Providence here, insofar as it treats to matters of "faith." As someone who has rejected Christianity outright, I would imagine that this specific issue of magisterial authority makes no difference to you. Yet you have similar issues regarding "authority" in your own cirlcle. The Old Testament in general, and the Torah in particular, have meaning for you, I would expect. But they do not for Hindus, Shintos, Buddhists, and a host of others. You would have to establish credibility for your Scriptures with such people in the same way a Catholic needs to establish the authority of Sacred Tradition, Ecumenical Councils, the Papacy and the like with non-Catholic Christians.

Catholics consider the sources above to come down to us with Divine sponsorship and ratification. We do not suppose that each individual priest is so endowed. So, like you vis-a-vis rabbinical pronouncements, I don't necessarily agree with every pronouncement issuing from the mouth of every individual priest talking out of his hat, either.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Catholics consider the sources above to come down to us with Divine sponsorship and ratification. We do not suppose that each individual priest is so endowed. So, like you vis-a-vis rabbinical pronouncements, I don't necessarily agree with every pronouncement issuing from the mouth of every individual priest talking out of his hat, either.

I would equate Catholic traditions such as Peter in Rome, Perpetual Virginity, Immortality of Souls, etc., etc., to Judaism's Jewish "Midrash". Midrash being traditions that embellish Torah and Tanakh. These traditions, some and maybe most might be true, are not binding. The difference it seems is that "all" Catholic tradition has to be accepted to maintain being a Catholic.

[kerryusama04]

Please read over my banter with tenn2005. The whole NT points to a day of judgement where all the books will be opened and justice will be known to all.

[SoothingDave]

It's that "properly baptised" part. You guys don't do it the same as we do it, so you are not properly baptised as well.

Again, it helps to understand the lingo. A proper baptism is one done with water and the words "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." That's it.

Any baptised Christian can baptise someone validly.

SD

[SoothingDave]

I find myself agreeing with you, Dave. From G-d's point of view as He is outside of our time and space, having created our time and space, all things happening in our timeline would seem to occur at the the same "time" for the king of the universe. This would permit free will for us in time and space and G-d to pre-know our outcome.

Mark the calendars. We are in agreement. :-)

SD

[SoothingDave]

How do you explain their failure to recognize SCRIPTURE instructing us we are justified by faith alone.

Please provide a citation from Scripture stating justification by faith alone.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Please read over my banter with tenn2005. The whole NT points to a day of judgement where all the books will be opened and justice will be known to all.

Sure it does. But that doesn't make God subject to time. Contemplate eternity. Asking whether we go straight to Heaven or only after some time and events take place is to totally not think about eternity.

If our destination is Heaven, we are already there. From eternity we will be able to view our present.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Any baptised Christian can baptise someone validly. Are ye sure about that laddie? Isn't baptism a sacrament? Are sacraments administered by anyone, or the ordained?

Yes, I am sure. The normal minister for administering Baptism is a priest. But in an emergency, any baptised person can do so. If your wife gives birth to a dying baby, or if you are on a ship sinking into the sea, you can baptise an unbaptised person.

Yes, it's a sacrament and different sacraments have different ministers. In marriage, it is the spouses who administer the sacrament to each other. The priest is a witness.

SD

[SoothingDave]

I appear to have misspoken. One does not even need to be baptised in order to baptise another. From the Baltimore Catechism

Q. 633. Who can administer Baptism?
A. A priest is the ordinary minister of baptism; but in case of necessity anyone who has the use of reason may baptize.

Q. 634. What do we mean by the "ordinary minister" of a Sacrament?
A. By the "ordinary minister" of a Sacrament we mean the one who usually does administer the Sacrament, and who has always the right to do so.

Q. 635. Can a person who has not himself been baptized, and who does not even believe in the Sacrament of baptism, give it validly to another in case of necessity?
A. A person who has not himself been baptized, and who does not even believe in the Sacrament of baptism, can give it validly to another in case of necessity, provided:

(1) He has the use of reason;
(2) Knows how to give baptism, and
(3) Intends to do what the Church intends in the giving of the Sacrament. Baptism is so necessary that God affords every opportunity for its reception.

[kerryusama04]

I do agree with you that since God created time, he is not bound by it. However, since the time prophesies of the Bible are true and relevant, the 1000 year judgement period in revelation must be too.

[Uri’el-2012]

Mark the calendars. We are in agreement. :-)

After five or six years! ;-)

[magisterium]

Well, there are differences. Small "t" tradition tends to run along the lines of customs and practices, which can and do change sometimes. Other than a certain attention due to following a custom because it has a "current status," a custom's rejection generally has little implication in one's salvation one way or another. Capital "T" tradition pertains to doctrine, and, having been so defined, is binding on the faithful.

[TexanToTheCore]

Mark for future reading. An incredibly interesting thread.

[kerryusama04]

I agree with your philosophy but not your theology. Words mean things, especially if they were written by the Holy Spirit through the prophets. If you believe in Jesus, repent, confess your sins, try to quit sinning, and get baptized, then you move from the "lost" to the "saved". That alone does not end sin nor does it destroy Satan. Only God and Jesus can do that.

[Jaded]

Matthew