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!

[Diego1618]

*Why* do you discount their witness as if they had lied about the circumstances of St. Peter's life, death and burial in Rome?

Simple. Matthew 10:5

[jo kus]

I don't see many Catholics blowing the dust of the Bible checking to see if something the Pope said jives with the writings.

Because we know that it does. We don't have to second-guess the Holy Spirit working through the Pope, unlike our brothers who rely on their own intellect to decide for themselves what is Christian beliefs, not knowing for sure if their interpretation is God's meaning.

Regards

[jo kus]

Actually, the text says that the Berean (Jews) were more noble because they readily received the Word and searched the scriptures daily.

Brother, then can't we presume that the Thessalonicans ALSO searched the Scriptures? We can presume that they did, correct? Consider that Paul first went to the synagogue in every case when he evangelized. Thus, we can presume that it wasn't the Scripture that determined whether the Word was accepted, as BOTH the Thessalonicans AND the Bereans would have likely searched the Scriptures, trying to determine the validity of Paul's Gospel, that was scandalous to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks.

The point is that is wasn't the mere searching that made them noble! It was their acceptance of the Word. Is that agreeable? This is why I believe this verse is overused and doesn't prove in any way Sola Scriptura.

Regards

[Titanites]

Rome was a Gentile city and Claudius had banished all Jews from the city in 50 A.D.

When did they return?

[Titanites]

Actually, my friend, the first recorded instance of Peter not being in Rome are the scriptures themselves.

The scriptures don't say Peter was never in Rome. You've jumped to that conclusion. Where does scripture say Peter died and was buried?

[SaltyJoe]

The presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist is the Truth.

Thanks for your prayers.

[NYer]

And when you net out Jesus' words, amazingly brief.

Jesus Christ spoke Ancient Aramaic, the language in which the disciples and apostles preached the Gospel and the scribes recorded the Scriptures. It was then translated into Greek. From the Greek, those words were then translated into the vernacular of contemporary societies. As a polyglot, I can assure you that things get lost in translation.

[magisterium]

What in heaven's name does Matthew 10:5 have to do with second-generation ROMAN CHRISTIANS lying or not lying about St. Peter's burial place???

[NYer]

The presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist is the Truth.

Ditto that!

"So Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.'"

(John 6:53-55)

Lanciano, Italy 8th Century A.D.

Ancient Anxanum, the city of the Frentanese, has contained for over twelve centuries the first and greatest Eucharistic Miracle of the Catholic Church. This wondrous Event took place in the 8th century A.D. in the little Church of St. Legontian, as a divine response to a Basilian monk's doubt about Jesus' Real Presence in the Eucharist.

During Holy Mass, after the two-fold consecration, the host was changed into live Flesh and the wine was changed into live Blood, which coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size.

The Host-Flesh, as can be very distinctly observed today, has the same dimensions as the large host used today in the Latin church; it is light brown and appears rose-colored when lighted from the back.

The Blood is coagulated and has an earthy color resembling the yellow of ochre.

Various ecclesiastical investigation ("Recognitions") were conducted since 1574.

In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.

The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs.
These analyses sustained the following conclusions:

• The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.
  
  
• The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.
  
  
• The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.
  
  
• In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.
  
  
• The Flesh is a "HEART" complete in its essential structure.
  
  
• The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).
  
  
• In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.
  
  
• In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.
  
  
• The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.

---

 

	Fig. 1 - Eosine x 200. Overall histological aspect of a Flesh sample with fibers collected in bundles with longitudinal orientation as it occurs in the outer surface layers of the heart.
	Fig. 2 - Miracle Heart in Lanciano. Mallory x 250. An artery and, very close, a branch of the vagal nerve.
	Fig. 3 - Miracle Heart in Lanciano. Mallory x 400. Evidence of the "Rough" aspect of the endocardium; the syncytoid structure of the myocardial tissue
	Fig. 4 - Elution-absorption test x 80. Above: Hemagglutination test on blood sample in Lanciano: on the left, anti A serum used; on the right, anti-B serum. Below: hemoagglutination test on a Flesh sample in Lanciano: left, with anti-A serum, right,with anti-B serum. It appears thus that the Flesh and the Blood in Lanciano belong to AB blood group.
	Fig. 5 - Electro-phoretic pattern of Blood proteins (Cromoscan photometer). The profile of serum fractions is normal and superimposable to that of a fresh serum sample.

In conclusion, it may be said that Science, when called upon to testify, has given a certain and thorough response as regards the authenticity of the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano.


EUCHARISTIC MIRACLES

[magisterium]

jo,

You and I are on the same "Team" pretty much all of the time on these FR Religion threads...but not THIS time! The Pats are back to enlarging their wayward dynasty next go round! Four out of six Super Bowls ain't bad...

;-D

[pegleg]

Actually, my friend, the first recorded instance of Peter not being in Rome are the scriptures themselves.

Actually it was the bogus accusation made by William Cave that created this myth. However since you’re blind to facts or history no amount of documentation will convince you otherwise. So let me ask you another question.

The scripture is silent on what happened to most of the Apostles, however there are other references to their activities. For example there are documented accounts of St. Thomas evangelizing in India and being martyred there.

Do you believe that St. Thomas was in India?

[pegleg]

The Pats are back to enlarging their wayward dynasty next go round! Four out of six Super Bowls ain't bad...

As a lifelong Pats fan I’ll second that! Now if only the Red Sox could get back on track.

[magisterium]

Well, as far as the Sox go, "Wait'll next year!" For once, though, I'm not saying that in the usual mantra-like way we all grew accustomed to before 2004. I mean: wait till next year. They won't make it through in '06, but we have Papelbon and Hanson returning in '07 much more seasoned, and Theo will have had ample time to spin some deals.

"Believe!"

[magisterium]

Hey, I see from you FR page that you're flying a Florida flag. You from up here in MA originally?

[pegleg]

Hey, I see from you FR page that you're flying a Florida flag. You from up here in MA originally?

I'm from Beverly on the North Shore. I'll be back in Bean town this labor day for a wedding. A family friend is getting married there and as luck would have it he went to High School with Jon Paplebon. I'm groveling now for tickets. I believe Toronto is town.

[Quester]

Actually, the text says that the Berean (Jews) were more noble because they readily received the Word and searched the scriptures daily.

Brother, then can't we presume that the Thessalonicans ALSO searched the Scriptures? We can presume that they did, correct? Consider that Paul first went to the synagogue in every case when he evangelized.

Thus, we can presume that it wasn't the Scripture that determined whether the Word was accepted, as BOTH the Thessalonicans AND the Bereans would have likely searched the Scriptures, trying to determine the validity of Paul's Gospel, that was scandalous to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks.

The point is that is wasn't the mere searching that made them noble! It was their acceptance of the Word. Is that agreeable? This is why I believe this verse is overused and doesn't prove in any way Sola Scriptura.

Regards

From my reading of the surrounding test, ... it seems that the Thessalonican Jews were not so interested in searching the scriptures ... as they were in strring up a ruckus because of Paul ...

Acts 17:10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people.

It appears to me that the difference between the (majority of) the Berean Jews ... and the (majority of ) the Thessalonicans Jews ... is that the Bereans were willing to consult the scriptures ... before rashly rejecting Paul and his teachings.

Recall that Jesus counseled another group to search the scriptures (for evidence of Him) ... but that they, too, were more interested in condemning Him.

[WriteOn]

Which other person might you be referring to? St. Paul? St. Peter? St. Gregory? St. Leo?

Let's see I have the wisdom all the church fathers before me and you sit there reading the bible interpreting it for yourself. Who has authority on their side? :-)

[WriteOn]

Hi X. Just yanking your chain. ;-)

We're well. We're Indiana now. Starting a farm. Of course not giving up the day job. There's a wonderful church here that we moved for, started by the FSSP. God they are wonderfully traditional. It feels like home. Truly.

Thanks for asking.

I try to stay off the bash threads nowadays. :)

[xzins]

Yeah, I know.....EVERYBODY jerks my chain. :>)

FSSP -- First Society of Sanctified Presbyterians???

(Society of Peter?)