Where Have All the Protestants Gone?

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!

OK. I wrote "Roman Church", and I meant "Roman Churcn." By "Roman Church", I mean all those who consider the bishop of Rome to be the head of the Catholic Church, and are in communion with the Church of Rome. This would include some non Latin rite bodies, and would exclude some Latin rite bodies. Perhaps I have missed something, but is it not doctrine of the church headquartered at Rome that it is the Catholic Church?

Jesus Christ is the head of the Katholikos (Universasl) Church. Of that part, I am sure we agree. You will note that in the Bible, there are two usages of the word "Church" (ekklesia) -- the first refers to the universal Church; the second refers to the particular churches in each city. Each city would have their own bishop (episcopos). The bishop would then have priests (presbuteros) and deacons (diakonos) to assist him in his ministry. There are, historically, five major patriarchies in the universal Church (my Orthodox friends can feel free to help me here): Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. Out of these patriarchies, Rome was given the honor of primacy. St. Peter, the original Patriarch of Rome, was given this authority by Christ, himself, in Matthew 16:19, when Jesus gave him the keys. The significance of the keys is fully explained in Isiah 22, btw. That is what I mean by the "universal" church, or the Church, for short. When you hear the words "Vicar of Christ," it has to do with the fact that the keys belong to the Bishop of Rome, as they were given to him by Christ, himself. It means his role is like one of "prime minister," not "king."

The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

Unfortunately, the London Confession also states ... neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming. You really should have printed out Art 4 of Chap 26, it's much more fun to review. ;)

Only the Orthodox come even close to agreeing with this doctrine, and if "that disagreement is slight", it has been been a major bone of contention in a 1000 year schism. Understanding - and disagreement.

Actually, the only bone of contention that I have seen with my well informed Orthodox brethren is how the duty is executed. Again, I'm sure they can feel free to comment, but I believe that their issue is that it should be more collegial and concilliar. I further believe that the only major theological difference exists in two areas: first (the issue that caused the split), the filoque, and second, the understanding of original sin (the issue of the Immaculate Conception is necessary under the west's comprehension of Original Sin; it is unnecessary under the Orthodox's view...but that disagreement is subordinate to the understanding of Original Sin). But as far as the Primacy of the See of Peter, there is no argument. The ecumenical councils have clearly and repeatedly affirmed this (with the second place of honor going to the Patriarch of Constantinople).

No problem with comprehension. But while Orthodox, Anglican, and Old Catholic groups agree (and claim apostolic succession themselves), none of the pre-reformation, other reformation, or post-reformation groups believes that apostolic succession is necessary or even desirable. Understanding - and disagreement.

And that is simply an area where the ecclesial groups formed following the Western Schism are simply in error. Not your fault, personally, as those groups have formed their own faulty theologies to justify their error, but it is an error nevertheless. But we can discuss that back and forth for years, so I would suggest that we agree to disagree on this one and move on.

I assume you are aware that there is disagreement on the meaning of 2 Pet 1:20. Understanding - and disagreement.

2 Pe 1:20 (RSV) - First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,

I'm sorry, I don't see where there could possibly be any disagreement as to the meaning of that verse. It seems pretty clear to me. Perhaps you could explain this disagreement to me (seriously...I didn't realize that there was disagreement as to its meaning).

In regard to your quotes from 2nd Timothy, there is of course diagreement over to whom they apply.

Well, of course there is...Catholics have had that section thrown at them improperly by (could make a really nonconstructive comment here...but won't) for years. We could agree that it likely applies to Moonies and Scientologists, though, couldn't we?

Let me throw another couple of verses at you though, that are related (all rsv):

2Pe 3:15 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,

2Pe 3:16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

2Pe 3:17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.

On a personal note, there is one thing you need to recognize: I had a horrible catechesis as a child and fell victim to a group of Navigators while living in a college dorm. As a result of this, I fell into the trap of being in various fundamentalist/evangelical groups for years. About 9 years ago, I was convicted by the Holy Spirit and had to come back home (when spending about a month in a hotel that was in the shadow of St. Anthony's basillica in Padova). As this conviction grew stronger, I began to study Catholic doctrine intensely...Bible in one hand, Catechism in the other. Because I knew that if the call of the Spirit to return was genuine, I would not be able to find any doctrine that was not, at least, rooted in scripture. And I certainly would find none that was offensive to scripture...if I actually studied the doctrine and actually studied the scripture, rather than studied other peoples' take on each. And, of course, when I actually understood the doctrine, I found that most of what I was deceived with first, by the Navigators, and secondly, by a host of various fundamentalist/evangelical groups, were based on rather transparent lies.

The point is that I've been where you are in my beliefs. I was sola scriptura, sola fide 100%.At one point in my life, I had a passion for 'saving' Catholics from the whore of Babylon (God forgive me). I was wrong.

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.