Protestants no longer the majority in U.S.

For the first time in its history, the United States does not have a Protestant majority, according to a new study. One reason: The number of Americans with no religious affiliation is on the rise.

The percentage of Protestant adults in the U.S. has reached a low of 48 percent, the first time that Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life has reported with certainty that the number has fallen below 50 percent. The drop has long been anticipated and comes at a time when no Protestants are on the U.S. Supreme Court and the Republicans have their first presidential ticket with no Protestant nominees.

Among the reasons for the change are the growth in nondenominational Christians who can no longer be categorized as Protestant, and a spike in the number of American adults who say they have no religion. The Pew study, released Tuesday, found that about 20 percent of Americans say they have no religious affiliation, an increase from 15 percent in the last five years.

Scholars have long debated whether people who say they no longer belong to a religious group should be considered secular. While the category as defined by Pew researchers includes atheists, it also encompasses majorities of people who say they believe in God, and a notable minority who pray daily or consider themselves "spiritual" but not "religious." Still, Pew found overall that most of the unaffiliated aren't actively seeking another religious home, indicating that their ties with organized religion are permanently broken.

It's kinda funny reading through your rebuttals to SR's post. You sound like you have been following Biden's tactic to deny, mock, calling points myths, saying that they are not true and overall offering nothing substantial to counter but your own preconceived ideas and fabricated "history". A few that came to mind:

Not so. They are authoritative because they are Church Councils. The only thing backing them is the magisterium and the pope.

If you read the texts from the earliest councils, they rely upon Scripture almost exclusively to prove the conclusions they make. What makes, or SHOULD make, anything binding upon a Christian is doctrine derived from Holy Scripture. It has always been considered God-breathed truth, so it has preeminence. As SR stated, doctrines that have come from later councils, that contradict Scripture or which make binding on one's salvation belief in a doctrine NOT Scripturally proven, are NOT binding upon a Christian. You seem to make total obedience to whatever the "Magesterium" deems de fide a prerequisite to eternal life. I've read the convoluted wording of the various canon laws that attempt to lay it all out, but I don't have a Juris doctorate to decipher it. Here's a link to a few that will help you see what I'm talking about: http://www.catholicplanet.com/CMA/heresy-infallibility.htm. An excerpt:

Canon 751: “Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

The Catechism echoes Canon 751:

“Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same….” (CCC, 2089)

Now there are two types of teachings of the Magisterium: infallible teachings of the Sacred Magisterium, and non-infallible teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium. And consequently there are two types of assent to those teachings: the assent of faith (sacred assent), and the religious submission of will and intellect (ordinary assent). Heresy involves the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt of infallible teachings, which require the assent of divine and catholic faith (sacred assent). This includes all truths taught by the Magisterium under any of the three ways that the Magisterium teaches infallibly.

However, one can also be a heretic by obstinately denying or doubting certain teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium, namely, those necessary and essential to salvation. For even though the Ordinary Magisterium is non-infallible, it cannot err in such a way as to lead the faithful away from the path to salvation. Most of the heresies in the early Church were of this type, since there were not many magisterial pronouncements at that time.

A teaching falls under the Universal Magisterium (i.e. the ordinary universal Magisterium) when the Bishops of the Church “…even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.” (Lumen Gentium, n. 25)

All other teachings of the Magisterium, other than those that fall under one of the three modes of infallibility, are, without exception, ordinary and non-infallible, and are subject to the possibility of error, even on matters of faith and morals, but never to such an extent that any error, or set of errors, could lead the faithful away from the path of salvation.

These teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium are referred to by then Cardinal Ratzinger, with particular wording, as “the non-infallible teaching of the Magisterium” and “non-irreformable magisterial teaching,” in the document issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith called 'The Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian,' n. 28 and 33. This wording demonstrates Cardinal Ratzinger's understanding that not all Magisterial teachings are infallible or irreformable.

In the same Address to the U.S. Bishops cited above, Pope John Paul II said: “With respect to the non-infallible expressions of the authentic magisterium of the Church, these should be received with religious submission of mind and will.” Clearly, the term religious submission of will and intellect refers to the ordinary non-infallible teachings of the Magisterium and is a different degree and type of assent than the divine and Catholic faith due to infallible teachings.

Therefore, the Magisterium can teach both infallibly and non-infallibly. Heresy is the denial or obstinate doubt of the infallible teachings and also of those ordinary teachings which are essential to salvation; heresy is a refusal to give the full assent of faith due to those teachings. The denial or doubt of non-infallible teachings in general might also be sinful and culpable, but the sin is not generally the sin of heresy and is a lesser matter, because the assent required is a lesser degree of assent.

So, though you assert that Apostolic Succession and Papal Primacy go hand in hand with "infallibility", a closer look at the actual sidesteps and caveats, not to mention the contradictions SR noted between Vatican I and Vatican II WRT anathema/not anathema and other historical events, you really do not have such a nice neat little package called the "unity" of the Catholic Church. Even Trent could not get everyone to agree on the Canon of Scripture, so there was no unanimous consent on that either. If you care to look into that, here is another informative link for your reading pleasure: http://thesearewritten.blogspot.com/2007/08/cardinal-cajetan-on-biblical-canon.html.

I will address the rest of your points tomorrow. Have a good night.

“your arguments all alike proceed from the tacit assumption that modern Rome owns the original copyright on all the key creations of early Christianity”

It all proceeds from Apostolic Succession, from which you have relentlessly evaded. I don’t really see any need to proceed further without you addressing Apostolic Succession.

“Rome you think you see there in the shadows of the first three centuries did not come into being until much later”

Again. Not so. I am making the argument that there exists an unbroken chain of bishops extending from St. Peter onwards. It would be great if you would address my actual arguments, and not the strawmen you prefer.

“as evidenced by the late innovation of transubstantiation”

As opposed to the real presence which is what you are actually talking about? You’ve denied the Real Presence, and the two are not the same thing. You’ve actually said nothing on transubstantiation, demonstrating that the issue isn’t the actual doctrine, but the fact that the way you use the terms is not the same way as the Catholic church uses them.

“no primary evidence from the proto-Christian era”

You argued that there exists a bible from this era which is the forerunner for the Protestant bibles which emerge 1200 years later, and yet isn’t the forerunner to the Vulgate, et al. When pressed for evidence that said bible exists, you cite that there is a fragment of a verse dating to the first century. Which proves just the opposite, that we do not have a ‘protobible’ per se - and you assuming that it just magically justifies the much later bible is not something we can actually show from the data that we do have.

The more sensible (and logical position), is that the Catholic church used these early bibles in the production of the Vulgate and the protestant bibles were developed from the Vulgate. Which is what actually happened. Rather then being independent from Rome - they are very much dependent upon Rome for the texts that they do have.

“there is much evidence for the existence and use of the Scriptures during that same period, despite your claims to the contrary.”

A fragment is not a bible. Something like Codex Vaticanus is what I am looking for here. Do you have it? No? Then the evidence isn’t there to support the conclusions you are drawing.

Now for the rest of it.

“why Protestants themselves consider the doctrines of those councils true, and you cannot speak to that without referring yourself to Protestant opinion”

They wish to have the Councils without the Church, the Bible without the Church, and the magisterium and the priesthood without the Church, the sacraments without the Church, and we’re supposed to take at face value that they are not in fact dependent upon the Catholic church for significant doctrine? Nonsense.

I would argue that at least with the traditional protestants, something around 75-80 percent of the total doctrine is no different between Catholics and these traditional protestants. Less so in more recent times, where the more modern ones would be around 40 or so. Yes, that’s right, there is actually greater diversity of doctrine between individual protestant denominations then between the traditional protestants (evangelicals et al), and Rome.

“as nothing more than a breach from the Roman church in the 15th Century, how can you possibly lose with such a strategy?”

That is the historical reality. The protestants have more in common with Arius than with Athanasius, and are just one of many churches that all make the same argument. They believe that Chalcedon is wrong. Or Nicaea is wrong and they break away from the Church based on their disagreement with that particular council, and go their own way.

“you plant your Roman flag in Athanasius”. Do you not think that Athanasius would examine which churches have abandoned Christ for homosexuality and abortion and draw different opinions here? If the Protestant churches are really the original deal - why then have they fallen away? Christ himself promises that the “Gates of Hell shall not prevail against his Church”, and yet you would have me believe that with the ELCA, the Anglicans, etc that indeed, the gates of Hell have prevailed?

“then why is it wrong for Protestants, speaking their own mind and not the mind of Rome, to say they find not only merit in his argument, but a model for the Protestant use of Scripture?”

Because you’ve chosen the Lutheran tradition. That is why. The scripture that Athanasius is using is not the same as what you use, ergo, the conclusions that you draw from that scripture are untrustworthy, for the same reasons as the constitutional lawyer sans the 2nd and 10th amendments.

“that they might believe not only in what was visible in Him, but in what was invisible”.

Yet you, yourself, insisted that ‘transubstantiation has never truly been proven to occur’. By what means? Empirical investigation? You see the visible yet refuse to acknowledge the spiritual, that His body and Blood are the wafer and the wine.

Remember how Jesus multiplied the loaves? Were not the loaves nourishing? If Jesus could multiply the loaves, why then would he have difficulty supplying us his true body and blood through the working of the same Holy Spirit as before? Are you arguing that Jesus would be limited in how much he could provide? Or is it that Jesus’s spirit is one with his flesh?

as for Aquinas:

“the substance of Christ’s body would not cease to be under the species...”

You realize what he is saying here? He is saying that Christ is truly present in the bread and in the wine. Do you accept this to be true or do you reject it with all the other Romanisms that for whatever reason you resent.

Save your time and don’t bother. Since you’ve labelled me as “Biden”, I see no need to persue discussion with you any further. :) Treat me with respect and you get respect. Treat me with disrespect, and I will simply ignore you.

You might want to examine why you are being so sensitive to those who disagree with you. I said you were applying "Biden" tactics with your side of the argument between you and Springfield Reformer. What did Joe Biden do to EVERY one of Paul Ryan's assertions? That's what you were doing, too. Simply saying "wrong", "not true", "that's a myth", is NOT evidence nor does it do anything to bolster your case against what SR states WITH documentation. You insist upon "respect", and you have been shown ample respect. Go back and OBJECTIVELY read your own posts, then decide if you have been "respectful" or not. My Biden reference was done in humor, much like your ;) & :) after nearly every one of your rebuttals. It was not meant disrespectfully.

I get it why you would want to ignore comments that you cannot refute...it takes a humble spirit to admit when wrong. Though you may desire to cease our "discussion", I can't let this point remain unanswered.

You insist that "Protestants" are indebted to the Roman Catholic Church for the Bible we have and you extrapolate that to mean we should give up the protest and "come home". Well, I do not agree for a number of reasons. Least of all is that you have a false narrative no doubt taught you by those to whom you obey and believe. I learned that this is not always the best street to journey down, but, by examining the actual objective historical facts, a better way is found. We have God's word because GOD deemed we should. From the link Are the Biblical Documents Reliable, we learn:

Papyrus and Parchment

During the early Christian era, the writing material most commonly used was papyrus. This highly durable reed from the Nile Valley was glued together much like plywood and then allowed to dry in the sun. In the twentieth century many remains of documents (both biblical and non-biblical) on papyrus have been discovered, especially in the dry, arid lands of North Africa and the Middle East. Another material used was parchment. This was made from the skin of sheep or goats, and was in wide use until the late Middle Ages when paper began to replace it. It was scarce and more expensive; hence, it was used almost exclusively for important documents.

Examples

1. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Siniaticus
These are two excellent parchment copies of the entire New Testament which date from the 4th century (325-450 A.D.).{5}

2. Older Papyrii
Earlier still, fragments and papyrus copies of portions of the New Testament date from 100 to 200 years (180-225 A.D.) before Vaticanus and Sinaticus. The outstanding ones are the Chester Beatty Papyrus (P45, P46, P47) and the Bodmer Papyrus II, XIV, XV (P46, P75).

From these five manuscripts alone, we can construct all of Luke, John, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, and portions of Matthew, Mark, Acts, and Revelation. Only the Pastoral Epistles (Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy) and the General Epistles (James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1, 2, and 3 John) and Philemon are excluded.{6}

3. Oldest Fragment
Perhaps the earliest piece of Scripture surviving is a fragment of a papyrus codex containing John 18:31-33 and 37. It is called the Rylands Papyrus (P52) and dates from 130 A.D., having been found in Egypt. The Rylands Papyrus has forced the critics to place the fourth gospel back into the first century, abandoning their earlier assertion that it could not have been written then by the Apostle John.{7} 4. This manuscript evidence creates a bridge of extant papyrus and parchment fragments and copies of the New Testament stretching back to almost the end of the first century.

Versions (Translations)

In addition to the actual Greek manuscripts, there are more than 1,000 copies and fragments of the New Testament in Syria, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic, and Ethiopic, as well as 8,000 copies of the Latin Vulgate, some of which date back almost to Jerome's original translation in 384 400 A.D.

A further witness to the New Testament text is sourced in the thousands of quotations found throughout the writings of the Church Fathers (the early Christian clergy [100-450 A.D.] who followed the Apostles and gave leadership to the fledgling church, beginning with Clement of Rome (96 A.D.). It has been observed that if all of the New Testament manuscripts and Versions mentioned above were to disappear overnight, it would still be possible to reconstruct the entire New Testament with quotes from the Church Fathers, with the exception of fifteen to twenty verses!

In his book, The Bible and Archaeology, Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, former director and principal librarian of the British Museum, stated about the New Testament, "The interval, then, between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."{8} To be skeptical of the twenty-seven documents in the New Testament, and to say they are unreliable is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as these in the New Testament.

B. F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, the creators of The New Testament in Original Greek, also commented: "If comparative trivialities such as changes of order, the insertion or omission of the article with proper names, and the like are set aside, the works in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly mount to more than a thousandth part of the whole New Testament."{9} In other words, the small changes and variations in manuscripts change no major doctrine: they do not affect Christianity in the least. The message is the same with or without the variations. We have the Word of God.

The Anvil? God's Word.

Last eve I passed beside a blacksmith's door
And heard the anvil ring the vesper chime:
Then looking in, I saw upon the floor
Old hammers, worn with beating years of time.

"How many anvils have you had," said I,
"To wear and batter all these hammers so?"
"Just one," said he, and then, with twinkling eye,
"The anvil wears the hammers out, you know."

And so, thought I, the anvil of God's word,
For ages skeptic blows have beat upon;
Yet though the noise of falling blows was heard,
The anvil is unharmed . . . the hammer's gone.

Author unknown

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.