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!
"This cry always reminds of the definition of a racist:
A racist is a conservative that is winning the debate with a liberal."
___________________________________________
Well said!
Don't forget that when confronted with SCRIPTURAL errors Roman Catholics will cry "Catholic Bashing, Catholic Bashing."
Don't forget that when confronted with SCRIPTURAL errors Roman Catholics will cry "Catholic Bashing, Catholic Bashing."
The best one I liked on this thread was "poor exegesis of Matthew 16:18" without offering an alternative...Typical liberal (fact-starved) response.
Or the one cursing Catholics for saying that the Canon of the NT was fixed by the Church...all without demonstrating HOW it was fixed, if not by the Church.
Yeah, those ProtestantsLiberals are so whiny.
Don't be ignorant - I never said that never even implied it. Your offer to alleviate me of my ignorance has still not been taken up. Clearly we are told to pray for one another. We are not told, however, to pray to each other.
16Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for (not to) each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.
So teacher - please point to where any of the apostles prayed to someone who was deceased. Please show me where they instructed others to pray to the deceased.
Amazing how you can leave God out of the equation. You believe that God needed your Church or any individual to convey his Holy Word to His people? Did Peter and Paul, did Luke or John write without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Was the Catholic Church Paul's proof reader, his editor?
They weren't quite sure HOW Jesus was going to provide His flesh to eat. He answers His Apostles' questions on this at the Last Supper when He took a piece of bread in His hand and said "THIS IS my Body". They then, through faith, understood that by eating the bread, they were eating Christ. Certainly, they didn't fully understand this until after the Holy Spirit came to them on Pentecost. But we see another hint of this in the story of the disciples on the road to Emmaus. It was not until during the Breaking of the Bread (Eucharist) when the recognized the Lord. It is because we come closest to Him during the Eucharist - He abides in us.
BTW when did transubstantiation become dogma in the Roman Catholic Church?...etc.
Again, this is inconsequential. Here is why. When did the Church declare that Jesus was God as dogma? At the council of Nicea in 325 AD. Nearly 300 years after Christ's death, correct? Does that mean that the Church DID NOT already believe this? Of course it did! Jesus was worshiped during the liturgy. People prayed to Him during their daily prayers and through their actions. The Church already KNEW that Jesus was God - the Church DEFINES that He was God infallibly based on the guidance of the Spirit ALREADY AT WORK in the Church. The Church defines dogma to authoritative say what we believe, just like it did with the contents of Scripture. The Church already had a good idea of what it was, but now, they had an authoritative decision. Same with all of your other questions.
I would love to see your SCRIPTURAL basis for these positions the Roman Church takes.
You have been on FR for well over a year. You have certainly seen all the arguments... If you are seriously open to Catholicism and what it believes, then I will address it. Otherwise, I have no intention of writing several pages to a person who has no intention of considering our point of view. There are other people more open to God's Word that I can approach. Did Christ continue to argue with the Pharisees after they were proven to be closed-minded?
Regards
Don't hold your breath - there is no scriptural basis for much of this mythology. The early years of Christianity was marked by a battle with paganism and the early Church theologians understood that what they were fighting was not standing armies, but the spiritual hosts of darkness, paganism. The early Church understood the nature of the Lord's supper as shown below. As pagan custom crept into the Roman Church, beginning during the Constantine era, the ritual of transubstantiation crept in.
Justin Martyr (110-165 AD)
"Now it is evident, that in this prophecy allusion is made to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks." Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, cap. lxx
Tatian (110-172 AD)
"...It is not we who eat human flesh - they among you who assert such a thing have been suborned as false witnesses; it is among you that Pelops is made a supper for the gods, although beloved by Poseidon, and Kronos devours his children, and Zeus swallows Metis." Tatian, Address to the Greeks, cap. xxv
Theophilus of Antioch (115-181 AD)
"Nor indeed was there any necessity for my refuting these, except that I see you still in dubiety about the word of the truth. For though yourself prudent, you endure fools gladly. Otherwise you would not have been moved by senseless men to yield yourself to empty words, and to give credit to the prevalent rumor wherewith godless lips falsely accuse us, who are worshippers of God, and are called Christians, alleging that the wives of us all are held in common and made promiscuous use of; and that we even commit incest with our own sisters, and, what is most impious and barbarous of all, that we eat human flesh." Theophilus, To Autolycus, Lib. III, cap. iv
Eusebius (260-341 AD)
"And there was one energy of the Divine Spirit pervading all the members, and one soul in all, and the same eagerness of faith, and one hymn from all in praise of the Deity. Yea, and perfect services were conducted by the prelates, the sacred rites being solemnized, and the majestic institutions of the Church observed, here with the singing of psalms and with the reading of the words committed to us by God, and there with the performance of divine and mystic services; and the mysterious symbols of the Saviour's passion were dispensed. At the same time people of every age, both male and female, with all the power of the mind gave honor unto God, the author of their benefits, in prayers and thanksgiving, with a joyful mind and soul. And every one of the bishops present, each to the best of his ability, delivered panegyric orations, adding luster to the assembly." Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Lib. X, cap. iii-iv
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.