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!

[Cronos]

now you've gone and confused them -- they were all against what they thought (and were taught) was the eeveil Roman Catholic Church and now they find that the Latin rite is but one of the Catholic Churchs and the others have their own patriarchs and church organisation. What will the anti-Catholic brainwashed ones do now?

[Cronos]

some have really led to making each man his own super-pope -- completely infallible on everything. So many evangelicals I've known keep using the term "I will wipe the dust off my feet" ad-nauseum

[tenn2005]

No, but I wouldn't believe that he was not capable of error either. He was human, wasn't he?

[Cronos]

yes -- just as we both (incorrectly) accused the Monophysites of being, well, Monophysites and being heretical. Language CAN be very tricky, eh!! Especially when one uses words like hypotheosis etc. :)

[tenn2005]

Islam is in now way or manner Christian.

[tenn2005]

I believe that it is the Catholic church that has said, "Give me a child until he is 6 and he will be a catholic forever." Would this come under your heading of brainwashing chldren?

[tenn2005]

So the Pope's knowledge and authority depend on where he is sitting?

[Cronos]

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

JK: 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.

Well, actually, the Catholic Church encourages us to read and to question and to read the questions that have been asked before and the thoughts of the various Church fathers on things.  Say, you wonder why we believe in the Trinity (it's not directly visible in the scriptures) and you do not read the early Church ponderings on this, you could then become a Unitarian.

I've read up on the Bible and some Church fathers -- many debating points here and there and guess what -- the Church is right on the matters.  Why is it right?  Because God leads His Church.  Yes, individuals can make mistakes -- if God explains to me His entire majesty, I would NOT be able to comprehend all of it -- thanks to God I may understand a teensy-weensy bit.  Take that as the "bible only" groups comprehension.  But God's teaching THROUGH HIS SON and through the thousands of souls in The Church is that much infallible.

Individual interpretation, even those inspired by the Holy Spirit can help us only so far -- due to our own (and not God's) limitations.  He could control us and use us just a megaphones with us not comprehending anything but He doesn't -- for some reason, He respects His creation -- I don't know why, but He does.

[Cronos]

The fact of the matter is that the Bible is so straigntforward and understandable that to misunderstand it you must have the help of a Priest, Rabbi, or Preacher."

REally, then what was YOUR interpretation about Christ's "brothers and sisters" and why do you believe in the Trinity? And didn't the ECUMENICAL COUNCILS determine what was in the Bible (before the Protestants gen 1 removed the Apocryphea)?

[Cronos]

Because they listen to and follow the teachings of Priest, Rabbis and Preachers rather than studying the Bible for themselves.

And those Priests, Rabbis, Preachers etc. aren't inspired, so the founders of the Baptist, Methodist etc. movements were wrong, eh?

[tenn2005]

Perhaps there is a message there for you that you are missing.

[Cronos]

agreed -- but you said that the Apostolic Church does not consist of Both the Catholic and Orthodox churchs. That was a wrong statement. While we may be heterodox to each other, we still acknowledge each other's distinction as Apostolic Churchs.

[kosta50]

By that definition, perhaps some aspects of the EO churches would be heterodox to us RCs

Actually, in schism. But, what most people don't understand is that the RCC does not see the Orthodox laity as schismatic; but only their Bishops. I would say the EOC treates the RC laity the same way. Schism between the East and the West is a profoundly ecclasiatical one, mixed with theology derived from different eclassiatiocal traditions.

For an Ecumenical Council to take place, it is absolutely necessary to reconcile the role of papal jurisdiction first (so that the Bishop of Rome can actually call for such a Synod). And, as was always the case, such Councils were convened when there were theological disputes. So, this VIII one would be no different.

[tenn2005]

No they weren't inspired and neither is the Pope. And yes, they could have been wrong just as the Pope could be.

[tenn2005]

Christ brothers and sisters were his half brothers and sisters. Is that hard for you to understand. The trinity can be established in several ways but I like the scene of all three members of the Godhead being present at the Baptism of Jesus. As to Ecumenical councils, they are an invention of the Catholic church with no basis in scripture. Don't point me to the council at Jerusalem concerning circumcission. That was attended by apostles (Plural). Thought totally in error, the catholic church claims only one successor to the apostles, the Pope and he was not present at ano of the Councils decididing on the contents of the Bible. Incidently the seven extra books contained in the Catholic Bible were not there until placed there by the Catholic Church in 1521.

[Cronos]

No, but I wouldn't believe that he was not capable of error either. He was human, wasn't he?

So were the mortal authors of Scripture. They wrote down God's word. While the Word will never be wrong, would you then doubt the words of these human authors?

[Cronos]

Islam is in no way or manner Christian

Aha, again, you show a lack of knowledge -- Islam borrows and corrupts a number of details from Judaism and Christianity -- for instance, the recent Id-ul-fitr commemorates the time when, according to the Koran, Abraham was about to sacrifice his sone Ishmael to God and was stopped by God and sacrified a goat instead. Sound familiar?

Or, how about the tale about how Mohammed fell asleep near Jerusalem (supposedly) and dreamt of a ladder to heaven.

Or, the Koranic tale about the Birth of Christ -- Mo says that Christ was born in the desert and Mary was alone. Sounds like he mixed up revelations and the Gospels.

Isslam is a mix of the Arian heresy, Gnostic ideas, Judaic ideas, Zoroastrian ideas and pre-Isllamic arab pagan ideas.

[tenn2005]

Based on their distortion of scripture it appears to me that they are much closer to the Catholic church than to the Christian church.

[Cronos]

So the Pope's knowledge and authority depend on where he is sitting?

Again, your knee-jerk tendency is preventing you from seeing or hearing anything. Do you understand WHY there was the need for the clause -- in case of ecumenical disputes with no possible sign of an agreement, the Pope is expected to be the person through whom the Holy Spirit guides The Church to reach a decision. So, the Church mandates that the Pope becomes the instrument of God and ONLY IN THOSE RESTRICTED CASES. It curtails this to prevent any human frailities -- the Pope does make an infallible statement when not ex cathedra and is not considered infallible on things like -- who will win the next super bowl...

[tenn2005]

No, they were inspired. Theologians including Catholic theologians and the Pope are not.