Is You Is, O' Is You Ain't...A Roman Protestant?
I sure do use the phrase Roman Protestant a lot, don't I? Do I mean that as some sort of insult to Protestants? Nahhhh. I don't exactly hide my disagreements with much of what Protestants believe, but I wouldn't say that I hate or am trying to insult them.
However, who I am trying to insult with that particular phrase are the more theologically liberally minded within our own Church.
If you're unsure if the phrase "Roman Protestant" pertains to you, here are a few well aimed questions that may help. Here we go ~
If you categorize yourself as a Catholic, plus....
1. If you consider the Eucharist to be a mere symbol of Jesus, you're a Roman Protestant.
2. If you consider the primary purpose of the Mass to be that of a communal meal/gathering, you're a Roman Protestant.3. If you purposfully dress-down for Mass (shorts, flip-flops, a Led Zeppelin Houses of the Holy t-shirt), and you present yourself more like your on your way to either the beach or a barbecue vice God's House, you're not necessarily a Roman Protestant. You're just a disrespectful slob.
4. If you hold/raise your hands during the Our Father because you consider doing such "the primary a sign of unity for Catholics", you obviously don't know what the purpose of the Eucharist is. And guess what? You're a Roman Protestant.
5. If you purposfully don't go to Confession, but go to Communion every Sunday... and your rationale is "I'm basically a good person. I don't commit any REALLY bad sins, and besides, I know God loves me just the way I am", you're a Roman Protestant.
6. If you stand during the Consecration instead of kneel because standing displays "fuller participation", that doesn't mean you're a Roman Protestant. But it does mean you should consider doing calisthenics during the Consecration. Could you even imagine how "full" your participation would be then?
7. If you think that Purgatory is just something that The Church invented during The Middle Ages to bring in money, you're a Roman Protestant.
8. If you prefer On Eagle's Wings over Hail Holy Queen, that doesn't make you a Roman Protestant. That just means that you have really, really bad taste in music.
9. If you think that the pope is nothing more than just another bishop, you're a Roman Protestant.
10. If you classify yourself as "Charismatic", technically you're not a Roman Protestant, but c'mon... who ya tryin' to bullshit?
In closing, to those who call themselves "Progressive Catholics" or "Reformed Catholics", let me tell you that Catholicism already has a word for folks like that... they're called Protestants.
posted by Kevin Whiteman at
5:12 PM
36 Comments:
LOL, you left out a couple:
11. If you think you, personaly, have the power to excommunicate people who aren't 'real catholics', you're a Roman Protestant.
12. If you're sure that the appointment of your bishop was a mistake of some sort of political conspiracy, you're probably a Roman Protestant.
13. If you're convinced that liturgical taste is the #1 issue Jesus was concerned about, you're probably a Roman Protestant.
14. If you're convinced that you, secretly, are the bishop, you are probably insane.
15. If you think that Vatican II was just a temporary mistake in church history, you are probably a Roman Protestant.
Technically, the pope is the Bishop of Rome and the first among equals. That's his title. On the "Nothing More" bit I can agree with you.
Holding palms upwards during the Our Father is not just liberal 'lets hold hands'. The ancient christian mystics and so forth also used that in prayer posteurs to be open to the Holy Spirit. I suppose I can agree with you on that via the "the primary sign of unity" thing.
I have to admit, I do like the song On Eagle's Wings (I like Hail Holy Queen better). Guess I have bad taste in music--oh well at least I'm not Protestant.
I needed a good laugh! Great post!
I'm starting to love this blog more and more :)
WC,
You're right. I did leave out a couple.
1. If you think that "The Spirit of Vatican II" what the Church Fathers had in mind at the 2d Vatican Council, you're a Roman Protestant.
2. If you think the Catholic Church didn't exist prior to 1962, you're a Roman Protestant.
Raising and holding hands today has nothing to do with the past and everything to do with the praxis of certain people within the modern hertical sects, especially the "mega-churches".
Where on earth is holding and raising hands in the rubrics? It isn't there! What is particularly fascinating is that the same people who raise and hold hands are invariably the ones who completely ignore the rubrics viz profound bow at "et incarnatus est" and when receiving the Most Holy Sacrament.
LOL.
WC,
I almost forgot... RE: holding hands -- remember, I stated that if you think it's the PRIMARY...
But anyhow, if'n you do that silliness, you're not a RP, but certainly Prottie inspired.
If you go to Mass to be entertained rather than to worship Almighty God, you're a Roman Protestant.
If genuflecting to the Real Presence before you enter your pew or folding your hands as you approach to receive Holy Communion is more of an expression faith than you can muster, you're a Roman Protestant.
If you think the Catholic Church is a democracy and you should have a say about who is the Pope or your bishop, you're a Roman Protestant.
If you think the fact you have a conscience gives you absolute power to pick and choose which beliefs of the Church you will follow, you're a Roman Protestant.
Hang on FAB - in the early church Bishops were elected for a time. Election in and of itself isn't bad, though lack of obedience to the Church is.
FABbio,
EXCELLENT add-ons!! LOL!!!
WC,
in the early church Bishops were elected for a time
And why do you think that particular practice was stopped?
BTW, the election of bishops was done by fellow priests, and that was only done while the Papacy (and all it entailed) was in it's infancy. As soon as The Church got Herself squared-away, the elections of bishops ended post-haste.
The "election of bishops" in the modern sense came about due to the Protestant Revolt vomited forth by that fat, heretical son-of-a-bitch martin luther.
Hugs and kisses,
VSC
The pope is NOT "just the first amongst equals" (primus inter pares) and that is most certainly NOT "one of his titles". That is precisely the reason the Eastern Orthodox churches fell into schism 1500 years ago.
The Pope is first among bishops (as Peter was first among the apostles) but also has authority proper and exclusive to his office alone - if it were the will of the Holy Spirit, the Pope could override every bishop in the world (or, as has happened in history, every bishop in a continent). The Pope is where the buck stops, as far as earthly authority within the church goes.
The "election of bishops" in the modern sense came about due to the Protestant Revolt vomited forth by that fat, heretical son-of-a-bitch martin luther.
VSC, when you make statements like that, I wonder if we're related somehow.
"He who claims to be the universal bishop sits on the throne of the Anti-Christ."
-Pope St. Gregory the Great
I also don't see too many Orthodox bishops running a kiddie rapist ring, or parishes like St. Joan of Arc, or having to explain to Orthodox Christians why we dress up for Mass, or kneel before the Tabernacle, or the concept of Iconography-and I've had to explain all of that to Catholic nuns!
Cavey doesn't take shots at us, and neither should you.
Caveman
THis is so damn funny I could not help but forward this to my friends.
In protest to handholding at certain times of the mass, I have been known to:
1. Not let go of the hand of the person beside me when the prayer was over and
2. to wave my hands in the air like I am at a football game or rock concert to demonstrate the mirrored stupidity.
3. To hold my hands infron of me like in Star Wars when the bad buys use the dark side. Its neat you can almost see the power beams coming out of my fingers.
See ya ship mate
Qm2/ss
VSO,
I don't think that Robert was taking any shots at you or the Eastern Orthodox. He just stated a fact. The EO are in schism (from the Catholic perspective).
From the EO perspective, you guys consider us in schism. I can live with that.
Concerning the abuses that you correctly pointed out... you're absolutely right. But then again, the Patronness of this blog, Our Lady of Akita has already warned us that garbage like this would take place. So with me armed with the knowledge of such, I'm not going to damn the entire Church. Rather, I'll fight against those who are desierous to rape Her on a daily basis.
Also, concerning the quote you gave from Pope St Gregory the Great, I ask you to consider such from http://www.catholicism.org/gregory-great.html; (about 2/3's the way down the page)
Gregory called himself the "servant of the servants of God," in rebuke to the grasping Patriarch's appropriation of the title of ecumenical, for he knew that John was using ecumenical in the sense of universal, in another attempt to take for the Bishop of Constantinople the prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome, the universal Father of Christendom. And when John's friends tried to justify him and accused Pope Gregory of making too much of a "mere question of words," the Pope answered them: "A mere affair of a title, a simple question of words! That is easily said! When Antichrist calls himself God, then dare to say: A mere affair of a title, a simple question of words!"
Anyhow, my tale on the Catholic-EO rift is this... we're just a couple of squabbling brothers. Prots on the other hand, are the Prodigal Son.
QM2/SS,
Thanks Shipmate!! (I did 2 yrs on Sea Duty, so I rate to call you that!!)
Bravo! and once again Very Well Said!!
Qm2/ss
ROFL! Thanks for the ideas, I may have to try them.
"In closing, to those who call themselves "Progressive Catholics" or "Reformed Catholics", let me tell you that Catholicism already has a word for folks like that... they're called Protestants.
You forgot "Traditionalist Catholics". They're schismatic protestants too. Only they are too hypocrtical to admit their dissent most of the time. Don't get me wrong, I realize there are plenty of great trads out there who strive towards obedience and humbly submit to services that don't satisfy their tastes fully. I've read blogs of trads who truly strive towards humility whilst also longing for medeival high church.
But lets call a spade a spade. A trad is often the nastiest form of arrogant, hypocritical dissenter in the church. They place their liturguical tastes like an idol before God, and claim that their tastes are God's will. In reality they often end up serving someone else, and have no idea who the Holy Spirit is.
You forgot "Traditionalist Catholics". They're schismatic protestants too.
Does that include the FSSP and Diocesan priests who celebrate The Traditional Latin Mass?
You paint with a pretty wide brush, there WC.
Please enlighten me further about those who are nasty, arrogant and hypocritical.
Those were the words you used, right?
By the way, I couldn't help but laugh out loud concerning your "medeival high church".
Golly... did the Middle Ages really extend until Vatican II?
Sorry, WC. I'm still laughing over that one!
Both Ambrose and Augustine were elected, or appointed after a de facto election. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, it seemed a child in the crowd was the instigator of the call for Ambrose. Neither had been a priest, both were reluctant, and Ambrose was a catechumen at the time of his election. Thank God for them.
Maybe the democratic model might be an improvement. WF Buckley said something to the effect that he would find people with better judgement in the first pages of the
phonebook than he would in candidates in a given election.
Not that Ambrose or Augustine were ordinary, but maybe there's a parallel?
Just thinkin'
Hey anonymous,
finally another homo sapien in the cave!?! The cave art is beautiful. I particularly like the shades of ochre for the spears and so forth. But it is nice to hear a voice of reason and actual history.
Yes ladies and gentlemen, there was an era of democracy in the church long, long ago. And it wasn't all bad.
You can make all the claims you want to that liberalism is at fault for the priest shortage. But others might argue it is stubborness, or [GASP] mandatory celibacy for priests. Mandatory celibacy was only the rule for the first 1000 years.
And I'll also point out that there are no shortage of space-capsule building, contemporary celibate priests.
Golly gee, WC. The rest of us aren't even homo-sapiens? Little slip on your part as to how you REALLY feel, 'eh WC?
By the by, I do believe I did give historical example to the election of bishops question, did I not? But in all fairness to you, I understand that it doesn't fit your agenda... so now I realize why you ignored it.
And this may come as a shock to you, but I also, am in favor of a married priesthood. But here is where we part company --- I point to the example of Eastern Rite Catholicism. You point to the example of heretical Protestants.
Another little slip on your part?
Let the scales fall from your eyes, WC.
Protestant Catholics - don't bother trying to dialouge with the Catholics, give it up and come on over. All that apostasy stuff is just a load of propaganda - do you really think God loves Catholics more than everyone else?
Regarding the election of early church bishops, there is a fundamental difference in circumstances. At the time of the elections of the Saints Augustine and Ambrose, they were living in a vibrant and faithful community of Christians who were all very well catechised - modern Christians are for the most part abysmally ignorant of the faith.
These early elections were successful because the electors were informed and morally sound, such elections today would fail precisely because the "electors" are for the most part ignorant and morally malformed. I fully expect you to accuse me of lofty elitism, or perhaps even some kind of heresy (declaring the "sons of God" to be unequal or something), but it really doesn't matter. I just so happen to be right. Go to any Catholic church in the "old world" (as well as those countries with European cultures, such as America and Australia) and see how many people actually know anything about being Catholic. Ask them to name the seven sacraments, or even the ten commandments. Things that were once recited effortlessly by infants are now perilously impossible to recall by mature and educated, confirmed adults - adults who by virtue of their age and confirmation should have a solid catechesis, and don't. Therefore, a congregation which doesn't know anything about the faith can not possibly know who or what is best for the faith - lay elections of clergy are utterly inappropriate to the times.
LOL, you are rapidly evolving cavey, right before my very eyes. Yes, I will agree that the Eastern Rite might be a better success story. I am glad that you agree that mandatory clerical celibacy ought to be ended. Of course you do realize that that opinion makes you a fellow dissenter. A conservative dissenter, but a dissenter.
There are those in the magisterium that are trying to claim that mandatory celibacy has taken on an infallible character.
Hey, I deeply respect the charism of celibacy for those who are granted it. But those who try to make the priesthood into some kind of Peter Pan bachelor's club, that I disagree with.
In fact, that I'd say priestly marriage is the cornerstone of my dissent.
All I was getting at is that sometimes people, like the Catholic
prodigy in MD, might just be better at selecting bishops than clergy who went through a seminary where they learned I'm ok, you're ok, and we all have to love one another's okness at our communal banquet.
Trouble is, today too many overlook the facts that Jesus ate with REPENTANT sinners, or with sinners he wanted to repent, and that the object of prayer is drawing nearer to God, not to the girl in the tight top in the pew in front of you.
I acknowledge and appreciate everybody's historical references, and the only reason I brought it up was so we all could be better informed. I don't think election of bishops is a good idea anymore.
I won't drag down the levity with any more posts on this.
you are rapidly evolving cavey, right before my very eyes.
Why? Because I agree with a 2,000 year old Catholic Tradition? For the Eastern Rites, anyhow.
I am glad that you agree that mandatory clerical celibacy ought to be ended.
When did I say that? I said that I'm in favor of a married priesthood. If and when The Church of Rome changes this certain discipline, fine. In the mean-time... I ain't drinking the kool-aide and jumping on the "let's be like the Protties" bandwagon.
Of course you do realize that that opinion makes you a fellow dissenter
Being in favor of a married priesthood doesn't make anyone a "dissenter". Celebacy in The Western Church is a discipline... not a dogma. It changed once, it can change again.
Nope, I saw a vatican official dude on catholic TV just the other day say that mandatory celibcay in the priesthood has taken on an 'infallible character'.
See, there's the rub. Either you are ultramontane and drink the CDF cool-aide, or you admit some dissent and that you disagree with a point or two. Having disagreed, some folks will call you 'Martin Luther', a 'Roman Protestant', et cetera even though they themselves have at least a few things that they believe in their hearts Rome could do better.
Listen, I don't think there are many ethics at all that Rome has defined infallibly. The fact that the first Millennium of church practice wherein priests could marry is ignored is really tragic, IMHO. And it is my humble opinion.
But to the vatican right now, I would not agree that they see mandatory clerical celibacy as a 'discipline'. They see it in the same light, and with the same seriousness that they view policies on homosexuality and contraception. If you really want to press the point, I could start digging up references I suppose. But that would get boring. I think I'll just wrap it up with that.
A big part of the reason I dissent is that I don't dig the celibate tree house the Roman tradition has built for itself. When the scandals broke in Boston, I became absolute in that dissent. And I realized that all of Rome's Stoic sexaul ethic relating to unitive and procreative requirements for all sexual acts hinges upon Augustinian sexual self loathing that we should have grown out of by now.
Anon,
Excellent points!!
________________________________
WC, If you expect me or anyone else to take you and your posts seriously, you have to do a better job of citing your sources of (dis)information.
Case in point;
I saw a vatican (sic) official dude on catholic TV just the other day hardly qualifies as you pointing out official Church Teaching.
Could this "Vatican official dude" possibly be an Officer in the Swiss Guard? Maybe he's a visiting lecturer at the Ethiopian College? Maybe... just maybe... he's some minor official who is spouting off his personal opinion?
Credibility, WC..... credibility.
LOL, Fair enough VSC. It was a priest, and memory is slowly coming back to me. Now I am thinking it may have been Tim Russert's 20 minute interview with a vatican official on meet the press some time ago. In any point, like I said, one pint for the caveman and minus one for the bear on this one (until i find the referece).
Question: Are you really in that much doubt that the conservative factions in the vatican would try to say that the marriage prohibition for priests has taken on infallible character?
You know, I bet you conervative folks would be all happy and aglow if someone decided that various things you agree with were infallible-in-nature, but you really ought to realize that you could just as easily find yourself on the opposite side of that on an issue when the pendulum swings.
Here are some references. I have still not found the transcript I have in mind though Fr. Fessio's debate with Russert is interesting. To show you the nice kind of bear I am, here it is, athough it supports your argument:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7619740/print/1/displaymode/1098
And here is another article that essentially supports your argument, VSC. To me, it sonds almost as if that the mandatory-celibacy-powers within the Vatican might be guilty of the Apostolici heresy.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/688911/posts
All the Best, -B
WC,
Your credibility is getting wafer thin.
I went to that MSNBC transcripts site, and there wasn't one Vatican official.
The list of guests were as follows;
Guests: REV. THOMAS BOHLIN, U.S. Vicar, Opus Dei
JOSEPH BOTTUM, Editor, First Things Contributing Editor, The Weekly Standard
THOMAS CAHILL, Author and Historian
E.J. DIONNE, Washington Post Columnist
REV. JOSEPH FESSIO, S.J., Provost, Ave Maria University, Founder, Ignatius Press
JON MEACHAM, Managing Editor, Newsweek
SISTER MARY AQUIN O'NEILL, RSM, PhD, Director, Mount Saint Agnes Theological Center For Women
Moderator/Host: Tim Russert, NBC News
I didn't see any Vatican officials listed, did you?
You pointed out Fr. Fessio. Here's what Fr. Fessio had to say about a married priesthood --
MR. RUSSERT: Father Fessio, the Catholic Church, in fact, could alter its teaching on birth control, or use of condoms or on married priests or on female priests, true?
REV. FESSIO: Well, you put several things in that list, Tim, and the answer is three are false and one is true, and the one that's possibly true is married priests, but not on condoms, not on contraception and not on the ordination of women.
THIS is your proof of some Vatican conspiracy to have a celebate priesthood in the Western Church declared infallible!!?? Sorry, I have to lough out loud!
In all fairness, during that same interview, MSNBC showed a video from sometime in the late 1980's that had the following;
BISHOP JAMES MALONE (Past President, Conference of Catholic Bishops): Yes, that's the phenomenon that we've experienced particularly since 1968. And we find that the majority of Catholics are opposed to such teachings as our opposition to abortion, our opposition to divorce and remarriage, our opposition to the ordination of married priests.
Wow... a bishop that publically upholds a Church discipline. I'm underwhelmed.
Lastly, your Free Republic ref is from an article written by one of the Resident Heretics over at The National Catholic Distorter. You gotta do better than that if you want to be taken seriously.
Like I said, WC, your credibility is wearing pretty thin.
LOL - did I ever have credibility with you?
Fessio was on there because he authored an authoritative vatican document. He wasn't there as an independent person.
LOL - did I ever have credibility with you?
Not when you post blatantly stupid things like you just did.
Fessio was on there because he authored an authoritative vatican document. He wasn't there as an independent person.
Ahhhh.... now you state he is some sort of Vatican author? Is this yet another example of your "facts" that you pull out of thin air?
I'm just in a state of stunned amazment over your ability to play factual hopscotch.
Jump to tjhe left! Jump to the right!
Don't worry, WC. Eventually you'll give a factual statement. The Law of Averages demands it.
This is a new site to me, I'm in the UK and I don't often visit US sites so I was surprised about the aggressiveness of your comments. I appriciate heathly debate but when it comes to calling people 'stupid' - I find that unnecessarily intimidating. I think I may be a little too soft for this blog!
Anon,
I said what she posted was stupid (blatantly, at that)... not the indivudual. There's a difference.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home