Posted on 02/15/2006 6:22:47 AM PST by 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!
Although it is not widely known in our Western world, the Catholic Church is actually a communion of Churches. According to the Constitution on the Church of the Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, the Catholic Church is understood to be "a corporate body of Churches," united with the Pope of Rome, who serves as the guardian of unity (LG, no. 23). At present there are 22 Churches that comprise the Catholic Church. The new Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, uses the phrase "autonomous ritual Churches" to describe these various Churches (canon 112). Each Church has its own hierarchy, spirituality, and theological perspective. Because of the particularities of history, there is only one Western Catholic Church, while there are 22 Eastern Catholic Churches. The Western Church, known officially as the Latin Church, is the largest of the Catholic Churches. It is immediately subject to the Roman Pontiff as Patriarch of the West. The Eastern Catholic Churches are each led by a Patriarch, Major Archbishop, or Metropolitan, who governs their Church together with a synod of bishops. Through the Congregation for Oriental Churches, the Roman Pontiff works to assure the health and well-being of the Eastern Catholic Churches.
While this diversity within the one Catholic Church can appear confusing at first, it in no way compromises the Church's unity. In a certain sense, it is a reflection of the mystery of the Trinity. Just as God is three Persons, yet one God, so the Church is 22 Churches, yet one Church.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes this nicely:
"From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God's gifts and the diversity of those who receive them... Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions. The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church's unity" (CCC no. 814).
Although there are 22 Churches, there are only eight "Rites" that are used among them. A Rite is a "liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony," (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 28). "Rite" best refers to the liturgical and disciplinary traditions used in celebrating the sacraments. Many Eastern Catholic Churches use the same Rite, although they are distinct autonomous Churches. For example, the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Melkite Catholic Church are distinct Churches with their own hierarchies. Yet they both use the Byzantine Rite.
To learn more about the "two lungs" of the Catholic Church, visit this link:
A Roman rite Catholic may attend any Eastern Catholic Liturgy and fulfill his of her obligations at any Eastern Catholic Parish. A Roman rite Catholic may join any Eastern Catholic Parish and receive any sacrament from an Eastern Catholic priest, since all belong to the Catholic Church as a whole. I am a Roman Catholic practicing my faith at a Maronite Catholic Church.
Sacraments deliver grace - they are one of the ways in which we are delivered God's grace.
Jesus' baptism, by John, was without merit. Well, not completely, but it was not a Christian baptism. We are born lacking grace in our souls, having no divine spark within. Baptism cleanses us from this congenital condition.
Jesus, being God Himself, had no need for a Baptism in order to become filled with grace. He WAS GOD.
The Baptism of Jesus is one of obedience, and provides an example for us. But it was not an efficacious Christian bpatism.
The people baptised by John did not receive the Holy Spirit and were not cleansed of Original Sin. His baptism was purely symbolic and foreshadowed the Christian efficacious baptism to come.
Jesus did not become holy by His contact with water. Water became Holy by contacting Him.
SD
But, of course, *you* don't have any preconceived notions when reading Scripture, for the Holy Spirit guides you, doubtless. Even to the point of revealing to you demonstrably false notions on the state of the soul after death that nearly all PROTESTANTS would disagree with you about. Yet you say that it is Catholics who are making "a really big wager" with respect to interpretation of Scripture!
As for your second point, I will try to be charitable and simply ignore it as a non-sequitur.
sniff, whimper.
You are right about this being a lesser known fact. I serve with two Anglican priests in the Navy chaplain corps who are in communion with Rome. They are, as you said, considered a different rite.
John the Baptist certainly understood the baptism he was offering to be different in kind from the one to come.
SD
SD
SD
Well, maybe you didn't know that. Anyway, take a look at what you just posted ~ "Baptism with the Holy Ghost and with fire".
My cousins who belong to various "Apostolic" and "Charismatic" churches say that has real meaning, and its only after you've been baptised by water by being immersed "backwards" three times, and then receiving the Spirit in church, that you've really been baptised. Some of my inlaws who are Roman Catholic, but also Charismatic, tend to read the same parts of the Gospels the same way as the Apostolic Charismatics too, and to the same effect, but they hold off on that full immersion thing!
And NO, none of them handle snakes in church ~ they think that derives from a misreading of the Scriptures ~ not sure, though, that they draw the line at drinking poisons ~ not gonna' ask either.
Good for them.
Well, maybe you didn't know that. Anyway, take a look at what you just posted ~ "Baptism with the Holy Ghost and with fire".
Yes, what about it? We always light the babies first, then throw them in the baptistry font. Seems to make more sense that way.
I'm not sure what point you are making. The "fire" is obviously symbolic. Baptism, Christian baptism, to which John refers is what happens in Churches all over the place all the time. Someone is washed with water and this brings about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. One is baptised with water and the Holy Spirit. The outward sign of washing signifys the inward cleansing of the soul by the Spirit.
That's efficacious Christian baptism, and distinct from John's baptism of repentence.
SD
Somebody must be wrong, right?
I said John's baptism was not the same thing as a Christian baptism.
Beyond that, I'm not sure what you are driving at.
Those Christian sects who insist Baptism is only a symbol and is not efficacious are, of course, wrong. Note I used the word "efficacious" not "real." It means something.
But this does not stop God from making their baptisms efficacious anyway. It's truly a gracious God we have.
SD
There is no heresy unless the Church, in an Ecumenical Council, proclaimes it to be such. To the best of my knowledge neither side is in heresy, although some individual fathers on both sides, and at different times, accused the other side of heresy.
from post 622,
Jack Chick need not pretend to be Catholic. John Kerry and Ted Kennedy have already offered what pretends to be Roman Catholic and they're paying the price (via embarrassment) for undermining Papal Authority and the Teachings of Christ concerning the Holy Eucharist.
Bearing the cross is nothing new concerning Christian doctrine as Jesus, Himself, has spoken of taking up our cross.
Matthew 10
38
...and whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me.
Luke 15
18
"If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first.
Luke 6
22
Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude and insult you, and denounce your name as evil on account of the Son of Man.
Matthew 5:
11
Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you (falsely) because of me.
Actually, my friend, the first recorded instance of Peter not being in Rome are the scriptures themselves.
Jesus gave the "Twelve" the Great Commission. Rome was a Gentile city and Claudius had banished all Jews from the city in 50 A.D. In verse 6 he tells the "Twelve" to go to the lost sheep.
Jesus himself, when asked, says the same thing. The lost sheep did not reside anywhere near Rome.
Paul was designated Apostle to the Gentiles, not Peter, and Acts 15:9 gives the authority to Paul. If you notice, Paul has the divine authority to preach to both Gentile and Jew.....Peter and the "Twelve" did not. It is further magnified in Galatians 2:7.
Again, Paul specifically had been given the authority to preach to the Gentiles (read Rome) here and that it was Christ who had chosen him.
Paul tells us he will establish the Roman Church. This happens about 55 A.D. and Paul states emphatically that he would not build upon another's foundation. Does this sound to you like Peter had been in Rome, against divine orders, evangelizing?
At the end of the Book of Romans Paul greet about 28 different individuals.....Peter is never mentioned. Odd?
In Acts 28:15 Paul is greeted by some "brothers" who had heard of his arrival....no mention of Peter. Odd? This is about four years after he wrote to the Romans.
When Paul arrived in Rome he summoned the The chief of the Jews whom he expounded and testified to the Kingdom of God. Where is Peter...Odd? The Jews even say is verse 22 that they want to hear everything about "This New Sect". Remember....Peter was an Apostle to the circumcised.
At his second trial in Rome Paul says he was alone in his defense. Where was Peter? And as for now. Peter never was in .....or about Rome.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.