The Protestant Meltdown

[SpiritMeadow]

Getting back to the topic at hand. Of course, it’s of no interest unless we discuss why this is happening. And it isn’t just because Protestants are not in communion with Rome (although I agree that without the charism of infallibility it was bound to happen in time).

I think it’s more general than that. Jesus said as he was carrying his cross: “If they do these things in the green wood, what will they do in the case of the dry” (Lk. 23:3).

The world in general has lost faith to secularism and other isms of its kind. In Jesus’ day governments were intimately tied to religious belief. Not so any more. Countries around the world are adopting the Enlightenment principle of the separation of church and state. When thus divided the moral code of civilization goes down the tubes, along with religious practice.

I don’t know if the Enlightenment founders had this in mind, but it’s the effective it has wrought nonetheless, especially amongst our Protestant brethren whose denominations embrace society’s principles as if they were God given.

If it weren’t for the protection of the Holy Spirit and the promise of Christ to his Church, we Catholics would be headed the same way. We have no right to crow, only to be saddened by this reality and say: “There but for the grace of God go we.”

I agree with you that the real story is that more and more people are turning away from organized faith. That is the issue, and an important one. I don’t think secularism is the issue, that is just people who wish religion kept separate from government basically.

Is it really your opinion that religion is better off being tied to government? That of course means state sanctioned church doesn’t it? Society would be chaos if it allowed all manner of religious activity in all government and public arenas don’t you think.

I would think that the RCC would be first in claiming that things are definitely better for it when it is not the “religion of the state”. All too many popes were controlled by the emperor as it were.

Perhaps I missed something in your statement. ?

 

[bbarrick8383]

And people turn to Islam, secular humanism, wicca, and all the others because?

They have lost their marbles?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

give or take a few billion???

i always thought it was 6 billion…

I suspect you might want to recheck YOUR figures. ND’s point is well taken. I know tons of “RC’s” who haven’t practiced as such for years, and don’t intend to.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

well, i can’t agree or disagree without an example… I don’t have time and others don’t either… to go through all his/her posts…

i mean, just one example would be sufficient…

If you were reading the posts you would know that I did cite another example. “Evangelicals will be extinct within a decade” up and running now. And mores to the point, this study actually contradicts that thread completely. So it’s clear the OP is merely shopping for stuff she can through up to disparage Protestants.

A few weeks ago she has a post of innocuously as “What are you doing for Lent?” She posted it in Non Catholic forum. Claimed she didn’t believe Protestants observed lent, (from the 8 she knew) and asked if we would like her to instruct us on what it meant… Now the obvious question is why post it in the NonCatholic section at all. She seemed quite bewildered when non-RC’s actually talked about their Lenten practices.

Those are 2 examples. There have been others, you need only run her name for threads.

I see no point to her tactics.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

But Catholics have increased both in numbers and as a percentage. I am not surprised that New England has seen a decline. The area is scarcely a bastion of Christian ideology

Still, the idea that Protestantism is on the way is absurd. While the percentages decreased, the total numbers have increased. It’s hard to go down when you are going up.

My point, is that the survey was written about in a number of forums, blogs and other more mainstream media. All to a one, thought the story was about the decrease in faith across the board. More people are declaring no faith. To pick out a minor point and elevate it to put down a specific group is about what it is about.

The Catholic increase, as the survey details comes about in the SW, actually more in California of all places and is tied to increases in Hispanics who are traditionally RC. The survey spoke of the decrease in NE as “stunning”. If you just look here at CAF, you would assume that most Catholic converts are coming from traditional fundamentalist Protestant denominations–not surprising that they are converting to the more ultra orthodox part of Roman Catholicism.

I have no quarrel that in percentages, mainline Protestantism is decreasing, but as you note the actual numbers increase. Still, the real issue is what is happening to organized religion across the board.

My only reason for posting is that the OP has a pattern of such abusive Protestant bashing. All her recent threads have been designed to start a disagreement regarding who is better, Catholic or Protestant. Some of us actually do want to engage in real substantive discussion without always hearing the old "we were first, you use our bible, our creeds, etc. That is divisive, subject to much dispute factually, and been done forever. Enough is enough.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I can’t worship God inside a Baptist, Pentecostal, Mormon or court house just as well as I can inside a Catholic Church, because He is not truly Present, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity in any of those other places.

I am truly sorry for you. To say that God is not present anywhere but one’s own church is horrifying. God is everywhere, closer than your breath. I suspect you mean more than just presence, perhaps the “real presence” but truly I don’t think that those who don’t accept that premise are apart from God as you believe. I can relate that I feel something special in the Eucharist, that I wish everyone could experience, but I would never deny that others can be as near to God without it if they so believe. God judges hearts not practices.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The bittererness toward your faith declining is truly understandable. I will pray for you. These are facts my friend it has nothing to do with me personally. You just twisted my info around. Just accept it and move on.

Thanks for your prayers. They are always much desired regardless the source. Your attempt to twist this conversation around to me is a tad too late. A number here got it already. I have twisted nothing. I cited the source, and everyone is free to read the real story here. Your attempt to take glee at declines in Christianity are noted, and you have been outed.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The number of mainline going down at joining the ranks of evangelicals and the nonreligious growing is bad news for Catholics. Mainline folks tend to have the most positive attitude towards Catholics. The nonreligious and evangelicals are not exactly supporters of Catholicism. It also seems the percentage of Catholics is fluctuating
26.2
24.5
25.1

The number of Christians going down as a percentage is bad news…I would THINK all of us Christians would think so:shrug:

amen to that:thumbsup:

 

[Della]

I agree with you that the real story is that more and more people are turning away from organized faith. That is the issue, and an important one. I don’t think secularism is the issue, that is just people who wish religion kept separate from government basically.

And people want to keep religion separate from government because of secularism, one of the children of the Enlightenment.

Is it really your opinion that religion is better off being tied to government? That of course means state sanctioned church doesn’t it? Society would be chaos if it allowed all manner of religious activity in all government and public arenas don’t you think.

Society is in chaos because religion has been marginalized due to it’s being hounded out of the public square by those pushing a radical version of separation of church and state. I see government’s job as supporting and abetting religion for the greater good of society, which is the way it used to be when this country was founded. If the Founding Fathers could see how far the country has devolved from what they assumed it would be they would be appalled.

I would think that the RCC would be first in claiming that things are definitely better for it when it is not the “religion of the state”. All too many popes were controlled by the emperor as it were.

Perhaps I missed something in your statement. ?

Emperors and kings certainly did their best to try to run the Church–to get control of it, but they never really succeeded. In the long run their governments failed and the Church is still here. A proper Catholic state would never set up a secular ruler with any control over the Church. But men being fallen they can’t help but try to control a force so powerful as religion. That’s why it didn’t work, not because the state ought not to support the Church Christ founded.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

That’s a good point. Wheather there is a magisterium or not, in an atmosphere of religious voluntarism and pluralism, the individual is the one that determines what happens.

Anglicans are not necessarily “sola scriptura” in the Protestant/Evangelical sense. I’ve visited an Anglican church a few times and studied some of the history- it’s not exactly Protestant, and it is not Roman Catholic, though it retains more Catholic traditions. It is more like Orthodoxy in some ways, a national church, but it also has latitudinism- respect for theological differences, and a prominent role of conscience and reason. Even the Anglo-Catholics or ritualists are mostly against the concept of a Magisterium or infallibility, seeing it as an authoritarian tendency that is not renconciled with Anglicanism (also, Anglo-Catholicism tends to embrace married clergy, and there is even a wing of that which supports the ordination of women).

I think you have stated the point well. I would say that the one thing any Anglican/Episcopalian could not tolerate is a Magisterium. We by design don’t wish concentrations of power because it leads to the excesses and wrongness that we believe results from authoritarian infrastructure.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

How come Baptists aren’t on that list? I am pretty sure they are the largest Protestant denomination in the world aren’t that? As a former baptist, I can admit, in our church, we were growing rather large, like: Some churches have just a bunch of old people (my grandpa’s church before he died) was all old people, like 5 kids, my church is kinda opposite. Out of the like 150 people, I’d estimate: 30 (41-90), 100 (20-40), 20 (0-18), and their are about 5-6 women that are pregnant, usually always lol, its rather funny, most of the people at our church know exactly what to do if she complains about a pregnancy thing, we’ve had to do all kinds of **** there, but anyways, ya, our church is growing, I’d say it will be larger by the time I am 18, then it is now, by probably 30-50 people at the minimum.

Because according to the survey, Baptists are increasing in numbers as are Evangelicals. The OP left that out because it is contrary to her argument and very contrary to her other thread wherein she argues that evangelicals will be gone within a decade.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Last year was the first year in my 30 years that I had ever stepped foot in a Catholic Church. My area is predominately Baptist, which I call the easy way out religion. Just from my experience, sorry if you take offense. I really enjoyed the Church and can not wait to begin RCIA classes. But after talking to the priest there I will not step foot back in that Church until he is gone. He was downright rude to my wife and I, while we were holding our newborn in front of the crowd. He embarrased us completely. So, we have a few more options in this area that will require a 30 minute plus drive, but it will be worth it.

What a mature spiritual attitude! One person can sour you on a faith certainly, and that would be tragic. If Roman Catholicism is the right faith for you, then it will be worth it having to travel further to find a welcoming place. However it turns out for you, blessings, and let God guide you to where you need to be. I drive 45 min. to my church…lol.

 

[pnewton]

I am truly sorry for you. To say that God is not present anywhere but one’s own church is horrifying. God is everywhere, closer than your breath. I suspect you mean more than just presence, perhaps the “real presence” but truly I don’t think that those who don’t accept that premise are apart from God as you believe.

I am sure that is what was meant. Correctly, you point out that we can still worship anywhere. I would think this would be obvious and will assume this was a simple misunderstanding based on difference in meaning of terms.

It is also possible to be in the physical presence of the Lord and *not *worship. The Pharisees were experts at this. Even the disciple Martha missed this lesson once.

 

[look3467]

The church physical can be equated with a seed. The seed shell (church physical) must die so that new life may be born.
Cr 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] ye are.
1Cr 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

If the Spirit of God rests in the temple of our hearts, then what temple speak ye of a necessity to belong to?

Blessings, AJ

 

[pismopal]

But what about the Orthodox?

I think “Protestant” is a term we must continue to use. The denial of the word by many distant descendants of the Reformation is part of their general denial of history. And if we are to be faithful to them, we must continue using the word even if they don’t like it (just as I sometimes have to say “Roman Catholic” even though some in communion with Rome don’t like that term). On the other end of Protestantism, many Anglicans claim not to be Protestants. Catholics need to understand that in both cases (Anglicans or radical/nondenom Protestants) the word “Protestant” doesn’t best describe how people see themselves theologically. But in both cases it says something important historically and you can’t let us get away with denying it (Anglicanism exists as a separate communion because of the Reformation, and much of Anglo-Catholicism is a massive and elegant attempt to deny this clear historical truth).

Edwin

Well…I get your point but they aren’t Catholic and they darn sure are not protestant either so…I think Orthodox is good. I think religions should be called what they wish to be called so unless I am corrected…

 

[NDfan]

People today are coming to Christ because of the truths of the Catholic church in which he founded.

And plenty of people are leaving the Catholic church today because they feel the RCC has twisted the truth. I also see plenty of people coming to Christ that have no idea what the RCC teaches. Then you see people leave non-RC churches because they feel they don’t have the right truth. There are plenty of combinations out there today with regard to people switching denominations/churches for whatever reason seems to suit them. But the most important thing is to give your life to Christ period and let GOD be the judge. Stop ranting and raving the ridiculous notion that Protestant churches won’t exist in the future. Protestant churches have always existed and always will since the day Jesus built HIS church.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

And people want to keep religion separate from government because of secularism, one of the children of the Enlightenment.

Secularism is not a religion. It’s simply the appellation of those who wish to keep religion and government strictly separate.

Society is in chaos because religion has been marginalized due to it’s being hounded out of the public square by those pushing a radical version of separation of church and state. I see government’s job as supporting and abetting religion for the greater good of society, which is the way it used to be when this country was founded. If the Founding Fathers could see how far the country has devolved from what they assumed it would be they would be appalled.

My point is that if we allow religion into the public square, then we must let all of them in, and the expense on the government would be enormous. I believe that the evidence supports that we are a faith based nation, started by men and women who for the most part were faith based themselves. But their experiences in their own states convinced them that there should be a clear demarcation between faith and the state. The 1st amendment did not in fact address the practices of the state. Many of the original colonies did in fact continue to favor religion in their state governments after the adoption of the Constitution. Catholics particularly were denied the right to own property, hold office, and in a couple of states were ridden out of state. The other major groups who were persecuted were Baptists and Jews. When the 14th amendment was adopted, it was held that that the entire constitution was applicable to the states through the constitution and these practices were stopped. I’m sure you appreciate that they were.

Washington would not allow even a benediction at his inaug. so concerned was he about mixing politics with religion. Madison was the most clear on the issue, as was Franklin and Jefferson. Adams was a bit less enthusiastic, but came around.

It is a mark of distinction that at the Constitutional convention, there were representatives of all faiths I believe. So we can say that we are a nation started by mostly Christians of one type or another, but that our Founding Fathers understood that it was required that there be a safe demarcation between faith and government.

An excellent book on the subject is: Founding Faith: Providence, Politics and the Birth of Religious Freedom in America. by Steven Waldman. You can find a review of the book at my blog, under book reviews in the categories on sidebar.

Emperors and kings certainly did their best to try to run the Church–to get control of it, but they never really succeeded. In the long run their governments failed and the Church is still here. A proper Catholic state would never set up a secular ruler with any control over the Church. But men being fallen they can’t help but try to control a force so powerful as religion. That’s why it didn’t work, not because the state ought not to support the Church Christ founded.

Indeed you are correct, kings did their best and succeeded for periods of time. Governments failed and became mostly democracies which keep those matters separate as you would agree. I know that theoretically you are most correct that a “proper” Catholic state wouldn’t do such a thing, but of course, the world is peopled by all too fallible men and women.

I am sure you don’t mean that the any state should support a particular church? even one you believe Christ founded? Of course, I suspect that if that theological debate started, there would never be an end would there? I’m not sure that even Catholic theologicans would claim that that argument would be won by the RCC. I respect what you believe, but I would suggest that it is largely theologically untenable.

 

[Della]

Secularism is not a religion. It’s simply the appellation of those who wish to keep religion and government strictly separate.

I think we are misunderstanding one another on this point. I wasn’t trying to say that secularism is a religion. I apologize for any confusion.

My point is that if we allow religion into the public square, then we must let all of them in, and the expense on the government would be enormous. I believe that the evidence supports that we are a faith based nation, started by men and women who for the most part were faith based themselves. But their experiences in their own states convinced them that there should be a clear demarcation between faith and the state. The 1st amendment did not in fact address the practices of the state. Many of the original colonies did in fact continue to favor religion in their state governments after the adoption of the Constitution. Catholics particularly were denied the right to own property, hold office, and in a couple of states were ridden out of state. The other major groups who were persecuted were Baptists and Jews. When the 14th amendment was adopted, it was held that that the entire constitution was applicable to the states through the constitution and these practices were stopped. I’m sure you appreciate that they were.

Washington would not allow even a benediction at his inaug. so concerned was he about mixing politics with religion. Madison was the most clear on the issue, as was Franklin and Jefferson. Adams was a bit less enthusiastic, but came around.

It is a mark of distinction that at the Constitutional convention, there were representatives of all faiths I believe. So we can say that we are a nation started by mostly Christians of one type or another, but that our Founding Fathers understood that it was required that there be a safe demarcation between faith and government.

An excellent book on the subject is: Founding Faith: Providence, Politics and the Birth of Religious Freedom in America. by Steven Waldman. You can find a review of the book at my blog, under book reviews in the categories on sidebar.

Thank you for such a detailed responses, but again, I’m afraid we’re passing each other by instead of communicating, for which I take all the “blame”. What I mean by the public square is the current efforts by some in the secular and political world to get people of faith to “sit down and shut up”. Something that, as you so rightly pointed out, would never have been tolerated by the Founding Fathers.

Indeed you are correct, kings did their best and succeeded for periods of time. Governments failed and became mostly democracies which keep those matters separate as you would agree. I know that theoretically you are most correct that a “proper” Catholic state wouldn’t do such a thing, but of course, the world is peopled by all too fallible men and women.

I am sure you don’t mean that the any state should support a particular church? even one you believe Christ founded? Of course, I suspect that if that theological debate started, there would never be an end would there? I’m not sure that even Catholic theologicans would claim that that argument would be won by the RCC. I respect what you believe, but I would suggest that it is largely theologically untenable.

Correct, I mean that the Church would be supported as would all religious beliefs for the overall benefit of society. Sorry, once again, to have misled you.

 

[Contarini]

Well…I get your point but they aren’t Catholic and they darn sure are not protestant either

Who are you talking about? Anglicans? Orthodox? Radical Protestants (by my definition) who have forgotten that they are Protestants?

Only the Orthodox are “darn sure not protestant.” Anglicans are historically Protestants.

I think Orthodox is good.

I’m not sure what you mean by that. My point was that if you make a generic “non-Catholic” category you will be lumping the Orthodox together with the rest of us, which seems weird and which the Orthodox would rightly consider insulting.

I think religions should be called what they wish to be called so unless I am corrected…

I think that religious groups should normally be called what they wish to be called. But sometimes nomenclature is adopted for apologetic or polemical purposes, and you have to ask whether you can go along with it without tacitly accepting premises you don’t believe in.

The premise of much “non-Catholic” Christianity today is that they simply take their views from the Bible without owing any debt to historic Protestantism (or to Catholicism). Letting them assert this without challenge is giving up any hope of correcting their errors.

Edwin

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I think we are misunderstanding one another on this point. I wasn’t trying to say that secularism is a religion. I apologize for any confusion.

Thank you for such a detailed responses, but again, I’m afraid we’re passing each other by instead of communicating, for which I take all the “blame”. What I mean by the public square is the current efforts by some in the secular and political world to get people of faith to “sit down and shut up”. Something that, as you so rightly pointed out, would never have been tolerated by the Founding Fathers.



I thank you Della for your kind replies. I think we agree on terms now to a better extent. I do agree, I would not be in favor of anyone being told to be quiet as to faith. We probably disagree as to the degree of public/faith involvement, but we can agree that the FF would not have supported anyone being denied the right to practice their faith and to speak openly about that. Where that can be done might be a different issue for us. I would urge you to read the book I mentioned. It favors neither the extreme right that claims that we were set up to be a Christian nation and have a right to express that, nor the extreme left which claims that religion played no part in our founding. It has been upheld as a pretty darn good work of research by critics.

Correct, I mean that the Church would be supported as would all religious beliefs for the overall benefit of society. Sorry, once again, to have misled you.