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!

[markomalley]

(Sigh) Well, it's obvious where you get your information.

Various Bishops developed lists of inspired books:
Mileto, Bisop of Sardis c 175AD
St. Ireaneus, Bishops of Lyons 185AD
Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea c AD325
Pope Damasus AD 382
Council of Hippo AD393
Council of Carthage AD397
Pope St. Innocent AD405 approved and closed the canon.

SHHHHHH!!!

Remember, that's supposed to be one of the harlot of Babylon's deepest secrets...sheesh...now you've gone and done it.... ;)

[markomalley]

Thanks.

[magisterium]

It seems to me that there is, generally, an unspoken understanding here that threads and side-issues between Catholics and Orthodox are conducted with a little more decorum and palpable mutual respect. This comes from the fact that we have much more in common with each other than found in any Catholic/Protestant or Orthodox/Protestant scenarios. In short, there's much less to get hot under the collar about and, relatively speaking, the issues that do divide us are on a second tier compared with some of the docrtinal debates here between us and the Protestants. It also derives, I believe, from an understanding that we have at least some real chance at reunification during our natural lifetimes.

Let's not muck things up between us with such harsh language and cheap-shot attacks. Believe it or not, there ARE comparable things that Catholics could bring up. I know for a fact that I and several others here try to act with respect and restraint here on the Catholic side, and nearly everyone on the Orthodox side of the ledger seems to be equally respectful and disinclined to use invective. Couldn't you do the same?

[x5452]

Historically Rome/The Pope hasn't been the one to call councils.

[magisterium]

That's it! BOTH of you report immediately to the Holy Office, basement level four, Vatican Secret Archives Building. See the guard named Tomas. You DARE to betray our super-secret canon fudging methods! It's the rack and iron maiden for you! Now, GO!!

[redgolum]

Maybe, but I am not sure if it wouldn't improve the thread :)

Seems like everyone is going in circles again.

[markomalley]

Historically Rome/The Pope hasn't been the one to call councils.

How about Nicea I? Constantinople I? (The first was called by Constantine I, emporer of Rome. The second by Theodosius I)

Chalcedon was not called by Rome, but was presided by Paschanius, who was the Pope's legate.

[x5452]

Constantinople is generally regarded as the eastern empire. Constantine was never the bishop of Rome. In fact the Catholics still don't accept all the canons of some councils specifically because the Bishop of Rome had so little involvement.

[x5452]

(Constantinope I from NewAdvent.org)

"The Greeks recognize seven canons, but the oldest Latin versions have only four; the other three are very probably (Hefele) later additions.

The first canon is an important dogmatic condemnation of all shades of Arianism, also of Macedonianism and Apollinarianism.
The second canon renews the Nicene legislation imposing upon the bishops the observance of diocesan and patriarchal limits.
The fourth canon declares invalid the consecration of Maximus, the Cynic philosopher and rival of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, as Bishop of Constantinople.
The famous third canon declares that because Constantinople is New Rome the bishop of that city should have a pre-eminence of honour after the Bishop of Old Rome. Baronius wrongly maintained the non-authenticity of this canon, while some medieval Greeks maintained (an equally erroneous thesis) that it declared the bishop of the royal city in all things the equal of the pope. The purely human reason of Rome's ancient authority, suggested by this canon, was never admitted by the Apostolic See, which always based its claim to supremacy on the succession of St. Peter. Nor did Rome easily acknowledge this unjustifiable reordering of rank among the ancient patriarchates of the East. It was rejected by the papal legates at Chalcedon. St. Leo the Great (Ep. cvi in P.L., LIV, 1003, 1005) declared that this canon has never been submitted to the Apostolic See and that it was a violation of the Nicene order. At the Eighth General Council in 869 the Roman legates (Mansi, XVI, 174) acknowledged Constantinople as second in patriarchal rank. In 1215, at the Fourth Lateran Council (op. cit., XXII, 991), this was formally admitted for the new Latin patriarch, and in 1439, at the Council of Florence, for the Greek patriarch (Hefele-Leclercq, Hist. des Conciles, II, 25-27). The Roman correctores of Gratian (1582), at dist. xxii, c. 3, insert the words: "canon hic ex iis est quos apostolica Romana sedes a principio et longo post tempore non recipit."

[Diego1618]

Since Herodotus' works aren't in scripture, would you say that all his historical details are false, JUST BASED ON THAT?

How about "Josephus".....would he be given your consideration also?

[magisterium]

"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."


Wow. There's so much stuff in here that's blatantly wrong I don't have time to address it all. Let's pick out one thing for now and let it serve as representative of how completely ignorant you are of the Church you rail-on against.

"Thought totally in error, the catholic church claims only one successor to the apostles, the Pope"

ALL Catholic bishops are successors to the Apostles. That's what we've said as a Church all along. Nothing could be clearer, even if you don't agree with it.

The rest of this stuff I don't have time for. But the "Christ's brothers issue," the "Trinity," "Ecumenical Councils," and the "Canon of Scripture," are all fully laid out for your edification by Catholic members of this board - myself and many others - in posts just spanning the last few weeks. If you're "really" interested in learning what we *really* believe, and you do not simply want to go by the caricature of our beliefs you seem to consider a primary source, dig into the FR Religion archives and start reading.

Anyone posturing as a great critic of the Catholic Church who doesn't even know that we consider our bishops successors to the apostles has a LOT of reading to do to gain any credibility.

[markomalley]

Constantine was never the bishop of Rome.

Neither was Theodosius I (Constantinople I), Theodosius II (Ephesus), Marcian (Chalcedon), Justinian (Constantinople II), Constantine IV (Constantinople III) nor Irene (Nicea II). In other words, none of the Ecumenical Councils were called by a Patriarch at all.

While I'll agree that the last five of the councils were called by the rulers of the East, my purpose was to challenge your initial assertion that Rome (not the Patriarch, but Rome) historically did not call ecumenical councils.

With due respect, of course...

[x5452]

Rome the CITY did not, Rome the EMPIRE included both EAST AND WEST.

[STD]

I agree with all you have said, but many historical events must be brought up. When did the Eastern Church sack Rome? When did the Eastern Church ignore Rome's cries for help? Did the EOC abandon the RCC to islam? We are to speak the truth in love, but first we need to speak the truth!

[Diego1618]

I've always rooted for the Patriots, unless they are playing Buffalo!

Joe....I thought you lived in the southwestern desert somewhere. How can you root for those "Northern" teams?

Good to read your posts my friend.

Diego

[magisterium]

Thank you. I just think that your response to Cronos' orininal post 462 was not directed to what he said, and simply used it as an excuse to hurl invective. I thought he was trying to be balanced; what he said was hardly some kind of anti-Orthodox screed.

If his subject matter pertained to what you wound-up saying, then what you said would be relevant, and (while I disagree with its slant) you certainly would be within your rights to defend your Church. But this seemed to come out of nowhere.

Both of us have a hard enough time trying to defend the Apostolic Faith against the invective-laced, non-sequitur filled, doctrinally and historically misinformed avalanche of posts directed at us by our Protestant brethren daily on this forum. Neither of our groups hijacks their threads as they often do ours, or has more than a trace of the malice or disingenuous feigning of "misunderstanding" they so often demonstrate to stir the pot. Let's not do the same to each other. What I say to you I also ask of all of your fellow-Orthodox and all of my fellow-Catholics. Let's rise above the undercurrent we swim in.

[markomalley]

Rome the CITY did not, Rome the EMPIRE included both EAST AND WEST.

So what's your point?
 
 
The ROMAN Emporers Constantine and Theodosius I called the first two councils. The EASTERN Emporers (the empire was divided by that time) called the last five. The Church, prior to its split, universally accepted the primacy of the the Patriarch of Rome, followed in second place by the Patriarch of Constantinople...in a collegial fashion (i.e., the first and second among equals).

Each Patriarch was responsible for his own territory and doctrinal issues that impacted areas outside of each territory were decided by Ecumenical Councils. That, my FRiend, is the point.

If you want to scratch around digging for ants as to whether or not Constantine was a Serbian or whether or not Theodosius I was a Spaniard, feel free to do so. It's really not that important to me.

[Quester]

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

That is true. But I think in each case, men are blinded by their own opinions of interpreting the Scriptures, don't you agree? People often see things through a very limited point of view and will not accept anything that is "outside the box". Thus, the "scandal to the Jews". Many could not see that the Christ had to suffer. They saw Deuteronomy's point that "those who hang from a tree are cursed". The Scriptures, then, could be used to argue EITHER point of view - that Jesus was the Christ, or Jesus was NOT the Christ. It is only the belief in the witnesses and their explanations, coupled with the Holy Spirit's imbuing one with faith, that will bring one to believe in the Word of God, Jesus the Christ.

In some sense I would agree.

For it is certainly possible to cherry-pick through the scriptures ... in order to find support for any of a variety of beliefs.

However, the christian who is open to the message of God ... will be disposed to look at all of the scriptural evidence ... and so, can be brought to faith (or a deeper understanding) through study of the scriptures, IMHO.

The Jews at Thessalonika certainly "knew" the Scriptures that they were going to use as proof-texts against Paul. Thus, they "searched" the Scriptures through their own paradigms and ideas of what the Christ would be - a glorious savior. Jesus didn't fit that description, thus, they and the Pharisees were blinded. It wasn't the Scriptures that blinded them, nor was it the Scriptures that opened the eyes of the Bereans. It was God, working with a responsive man, that enabled the faith to enter into the Bereans, but not the Thessalonicans.

And God used Paul's preaching ... and the existing scriptures ... to bring the Bereans to faith.

It is not my belief that the scriptures will have any 'magical' effect ... and convert the resistant soul.

I do believe that the scriptures ... which we both believe in BTW ... set the example for the use of the scriptures (certainly Jesus made much use of them, Himself) ... in conveying the truth of God ... to the soul which is open to hear it.

I think that the majority of the Jews of Paul's day ... were not disimilar to the majority of Christians today ... in that they do not know the scriptures as well as they should.

Consequently ... they know what they have been taught ... by their leaders. In some cases, that works out to the good, ... in others, it is a detriment.

I certainly do not get the impression that those who heard the message of Jesus, and saw His works and evident love, ... and yet, continued to oppose Him ... were, in any way, open ... to believe what God was saying at that time ... whatever the source.

I do not get the sense that these Thessalonican Jews ... who traveled to Berea to stir up sentiment against Paul ... were, in any way, ... truly searching for the truth of God.

Recall Luke 24 and the two disciples on the road to Emmaus? It was only AFTER Christ had opened their eyes to the Word in Scripture and how it applied to Jesus were they able to see all that we now take for granted. Correct?

Well ... first I think that we must agree ... that these disciples would already have possessed some undertanding and acceptance of Jesus' message.

I would then go on to say that ... the revelation which these two disciples received ... specifically regarded the recognition of the risen Christ ... and of how the Old Testament scriptures were fulfilled in Him.

Thus, the Scriptures were NOT what opened the minds of the Bereans or closed the minds of the Thessalonicans - and why I disagree with some Protestants' use of it in such a way.

In this case, no, ... and, I would say that in no case ... is it the 'scriptures alone' which effect any increased knowledge of God's truth, ... but rather, God's use of the scriptures.

Scripture is, clearly, ... a tool in the hand of God ... as is any other method of revelation which He chooses.

My view on this issue is one which is much more in line with regarding Scripture as the primary source of God's truth (i.e. in the sense of it being the final arbiter in one's search to obtain the truths of God).

And I certainly would say that God can (if He so chooses to ... and that He likely has) ... used the scriptures solely to bring one to a better understanding of His truth.

Certainly he has done so with me.

I came to Christ through the teaching ministry of those whom God placed in my life ... but I have come to a deeper knowledge of His truth by the study of the scriptures.

Brother in Christ

[jo kus]

Joe....I thought you lived in the southwestern desert somewhere. How can you root for those "Northern" teams?

I was born and raised near Buffalo, but I moved before before the "glory years" of the 1990's. I was there during the 1970's - and I was getting tired of the Steelers!

Take care, brother

[RobbyS]

We Catholics in East Texas had a saying: Where two Baptists are gathered in Christ's name, there is the potential for a fight. Neither Jews nor Christians are "peoples of the book." First there was the convenant amd then there was the book. You have more in common with Muslims than you think.