Not all Innovations are Protestant!

[Imperator]

There is a corollary to this. Don’t bash things simply because they were born (actually developed) within Protestantism.

An example is the Anglican-use Mass within the Latin Rite of the Church. It’s impossible to attack its beauty or orthodoxy, yet some Catholics attack it because it’s based on the work of Thomas Cranmer an Anglican.

They seem to forget that Cranmer’s work was based on the Tridentine Mass and with revisions the Church has officially approved the Anglican-use Mass. Their position is that it comes from Protestantism therefore it has to be wrong. That’s simply ignorant and/or hateful.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I think you are misunderstanding what I said. My point was that IF it is a protestant innovation then it is not wrong to denounce such an innovation. IF an innovation has its origin in protestantism then it should be treated with derision and scorned for being a protestant innovation. Sorry for any confusion.

And that is absurd philosophically (and the Church never opposes reason). It is the error of genesis, that is to say, that something is wrong because of its origin. It is either wrong or it is not, true or not, sinful or not, regardless of its origin.

Besides, much of what “traditionalists” denounce as Protestant innovations have their antecedents in the CATHOLIC Church, not in the reformation era Protestant ecclesial communities. The original posters point is well taken: I grew up Protestant and much of what “traditionalists” label as “protestant” would have been foreign to my experience. The Catholics were holding hands before the Anglicans, and I never received Holy Communion standing in either the Baptist, Anglican, or Methodist Holy Communion/Lord’s Supper. And my Baptist forebears would laugh at the notion that the dreck that passes for music today in the Catholic Church came from them, while my Anglican brothers and sisters would generally turn their noses up at it in disdain. No, we as Catholics are responsible for our own liturgical messes.

 

[snhs]

And one again, I will state that since you don’t live in the United States, you have no idea what I am talking about.

Also, please stop using hyperbole. Prancing around the altar eating pizza? Have you honestly heard people on this Board, like me, suggest such things?

And once again I will say that English is English wherever it is spoken, have a look in a decent dictionary, even the American ones should provide the correct definition. I do know what I’m talking about actually, my English comprehension is quite good, perhaps you should try not to be so insulting.

I wish I was but I’m not using hyperbole, unfortunately, videos exist of ‘Catholic’ Masses where they have had the Priest prancing around with a book of the Gospels (and it wasn’t a case of legitimate inculturation either). No doubt they were enthusiastic about it, and wherever they had got the idea, that doesn’t make it appropriate for the Mass.

Not all innovations which are inappropriate for Catholic Liturgy are Protestant, but a lot of them do have, or are likely to have initially had, some associations with Protestant groups of one variety or another. If we have to watch out for what well meaning Catholics, who should know better when it comes to the Liturgy, are doing off their own back then how much more should we be cautious and circumspect of those practices coming from Protestant groups and other spheres which have little if any experience of full Communion with the Catholic Church and Her traditions?

There is a corollary to this. Don’t bash things simply because they were born (actually developed) within Protestantism.

…

They seem to forget that Cranmer’s work was based on the Tridentine Mass and with revisions the Church has officially approved the Anglican-use Mass. Their position is that it comes from Protestantism therefore it has to be wrong. That’s simply ignorant and/or hateful.

Interesting point. To my mind there is a difference between more conservative Anglicans, particularly Anglo-catholics, and a lot of the Protestant groups that exist today who have often splintered from a group which splintered from a group which splintered from the Catholic Church, or whatever degree removed.

A lot of the traditional Anglican elements etc originate or trace their roots directly from the Sarum Mass and Catholic England at the time of the reformation, for example. And some of the great Sacred Music composers for the early Anglican church who established their musical tradition were Catholics, either publically or secretly, which is a something they’ve retained to this day, perhaps most visibly in the boy choirs in many of the Cathedrals. In short a development which comes more or less directly from Catholic practices is different from one which comes from a practice which has developed from a group whose practices, however distantly, began in the Catholic Church.

I happen to like the juxtiposition of the Mass and pizza. In fact, I think I’ll go out for pizza Sunday after Mass.

As long as it’s after the Mass I couldn’t agree more.

 

[Cat]

And once again I will say that English is English wherever it is spoken, have a look in a decent dictionary, even the American ones should provide the correct definition. I do know what I’m talking about actually, my English comprehension is quite good, perhaps you should try not to be so insulting.

I wish I was but I’m not using hyperbole, unfortunately, videos exist of ‘Catholic’ Masses where they have had the Priest prancing around with a book of the Gospels (and it wasn’t a case of legitimate inculturation either). No doubt they were enthusiastic about it, and wherever they had got the idea, that doesn’t make it appropriate for the Mass.

Not all innovations which are inappropriate for Catholic Liturgy are Protestant, but a lot of them do have, or are likely to have initially had, some associations with Protestant groups of one variety or another. If we have to watch out for what well meaning Catholics, who should know better when it comes to the Liturgy, are doing off their own back then how much more should we be cautious and circumspect of those practices coming from Protestant groups and other spheres which have little if any experience of full Communion with the Catholic Church and Her traditions?

Interesting point. To my mind there is a difference between more conservative Anglicans, particularly Anglo-catholics, and a lot of the Protestant groups that exist today who have often splintered from a group which splintered from a group which splintered from the Catholic Church, or whatever degree removed.

A lot of the traditional Anglican elements etc originate or trace their roots directly from the Sarum Mass and Catholic England at the time of the reformation, for example. And some of the great Sacred Music composers for the early Anglican church who established their musical tradition were Catholics, either publically or secretly, which is a something they’ve retained to this day, perhaps most visibly in the boy choirs in many of the Cathedrals. In short a development which comes more or less directly from Catholic practices is different from one which comes from a practice which has developed from a group whose practices, however distantly, began in the Catholic Church.

As long as it’s after the Mass I couldn’t agree more.

See bolded above. Surely you realize that a word can be used in popular culture to mean something very different than the dictionary definition. When a teenager in the U.S. says, “That’s so GAY!” he/she is NOT saying, “That is so happy.” Or when a teenager in the U.S. says, “She’s so ghetto,” he/she is not referring to where the subject of their comment resides. You can go ahead and believe what you wish about American slang.

I personally am extremely offended when a Catholic says, “That’s Protestant.” I mean, boiling offended. Honkin’ offended. I would probably have to walk away from a real-life person who made such a comment to me. Thankfully I’ve never heard a Catholic say such a thing.

First of all, the Catechism says that the non-Catholic Christian ecclesial bodies do have a portion of the Gospel, and that a person who has been baptized is a Christian, even if they are in a Protestant fellowship.

Secondly, if an insult is not intended, why not say, “That is a Protestant practice, isn’t it?” (This gives the Protestant or ex-Protestant the opportunity to say, “No way! Where’d you get that idea?”

Thirdly, what is the point of ascribing an origin to an improper practice? Big deal. If it is incorrect, it’s incorrect, and it doesn’t matter where it came from. Just clamp your mouth shut and fix it.

Finally, it’s hurtful. I loved my Protestant churches growing up, and I still miss the people and the fellowship. Although I love being Catholic and know Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, I do NOT consider Protestants “heretics” nor do I think they should be treated badly by Catholics. The Bible says that if you know everything and have no love, you have nothing. Some of you hurl “corrections” all around and call it love. No, it isn’t. There is a loving way to help Protestants find their way home to Catholicism, and there is a very prideful, self-seeking way that only drives them further away. Making fun of their church, their worship, their music, their prayers, their practices only drives them further away from Catholicism. And it also drives Catholics away. I personally would not associate with people who denigrate Protestants and sneer at their ways.

 

[A.Pelliccio]

Just using the Word Protestant is not derogatory, my grandmother was form the Co. Cork, Ireland there are a litany of adjectives used to described those who are Orange.

 

[snhs]

Surely you realize that a word can be used in popular culture to mean something very different than the dictionary definition. When a teenager in the U.S. says, “That’s so GAY!” he/she is NOT saying, “That is so happy.” Or when a teenager in the U.S. says, “She’s so ghetto,” he/she is not referring to where the subject of their comment resides. You can go ahead and believe what you wish about American slang.

I personally am extremely offended when a Catholic says, “That’s Protestant.” I mean, boiling offended. Honkin’ offended. I would probably have to walk away from a real-life person who made such a comment to me. Thankfully I’ve never heard a Catholic say such a thing.

First of all, the Catechism says that the non-Catholic Christian ecclesial bodies do have a portion of the Gospel, and that a person who has been baptized is a Christian, even if they are in a Protestant fellowship.

Secondly, if an insult is not intended, why not say, “That is a Protestant practice, isn’t it?” (This gives the Protestant or ex-Protestant the opportunity to say, “No way! Where’d you get that idea?”

Thirdly, what is the point of ascribing an origin to an improper practice? Big deal. If it is incorrect, it’s incorrect, and it doesn’t matter where it came from. Just clamp your mouth shut and fix it.

Finally, it’s hurtful. I loved my Protestant churches growing up, and I still miss the people and the fellowship. Although I love being Catholic and know Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, I do NOT consider Protestants “heretics” nor do I think they should be treated badly by Catholics. The Bible says that if you know everything and have no love, you have nothing. Some of you hurl “corrections” all around and call it love. No, it isn’t. There is a loving way to help Protestants find their way home to Catholicism, and there is a very prideful, self-seeking way that only drives them further away. Making fun of their church, their worship, their music, their prayers, their practices only drives them further away from Catholicism. And it also drives Catholics away. I personally would not associate with people who denigrate Protestants and sneer at their ways.

So if some group decides to start using the word ‘Church’ to refer to Brothels we should all change the name of the place where we hold Mass to ensure it doesn’t conflict?

The Dictionary definition is the dictionary definition of the word for a reason, because that is what the word means. The very fact that so many supposedly intelligent people have fallen for a politically driven agenda from a small lobby is ridiculous. Call a spade a spade and a homosexual a homosexual already.

So now you’re a mind reader as well? My goodness you have a lot of hidden talents don’t you Cat .

I have, I’ve made a few myself actually. We don’t get offended when referring to Catholic practices, there’s no logical reason why making references to Protestant practices should be done in any other way.

Incorrect. They must have been Baptised by a proper fomula, and the person Baptising must share the intent of the Church, I think water may also be required. Although many Protestant groups are viewed as meeting those requirements not all of them do by any manner of means.

Because if something is something it is, if we know something is a Protestant practice then there’s no sense feigning ignorance over it. In addition as there are so many Protestant groups very few, if any, people can definitively say that a practice is not Protestant in origin.

It matters because it determines how we should react to it. If a practice evolves from a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching/practices then it may be an indication that we need to explain to those people more clearly the view of the Church. If however it originates outwith the Church then it is a matter of stopping such things from happening in future.

A heresy is defined as “an introduced change to some system of belief, especially a religion, that conflicts with the previously established canon of that belief.”. You may not wish to hear it but almost all Protestant beliefs which are not in accord with the teachings of the Church fall into that definition. You may not like the term, but it is by definition valid.

You seriously think it is loving to watch someone continue to do something wrong rather than correcting them? It is loving to correct someone in such a case, and I’m fairly certain that is what the Church teaches, even if it may not be what Cat says.

 

[Cat]

So if some group decides to start using the word ‘Church’ to refer to Brothels we should all change the name of the place where we hold Mass to ensure it doesn’t conflict?

The Dictionary definition is the dictionary definition of the word for a reason, because that is what the word means. The very fact that so many supposedly intelligent people have fallen for a politically driven agenda from a small lobby is ridiculous. Call a spade a spade and a homosexual a homosexual already.

So now you’re a mind reader as well? My goodness you have a lot of hidden talents don’t you Cat .

I have, I’ve made a few myself actually. We don’t get offended when referring to Catholic practices, there’s no logical reason why making references to Protestant practices should be done in any other way.

Incorrect. They must have been Baptised by a proper fomula, and the person Baptising must share the intent of the Church, I think water may also be required. Although many Protestant groups are viewed as meeting those requirements not all of them do by any manner of means.

Because if something is something it is, if we know something is a Protestant practice then there’s no sense feigning ignorance over it. In addition as there are so many Protestant groups very few, if any, people can definitively say that a practice is not Protestant in origin.

It matters because it determines how we should react to it. If a practice evolves from a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching/practices then it may be an indication that we need to explain to those people more clearly the view of the Church. If however it originates outwith the Church then it is a matter of stopping such things from happening in future.

A heresy is defined as “an introduced change to some system of belief, especially a religion, that conflicts with the previously established canon of that belief.”. You may not wish to hear it but almost all Protestant beliefs which are not in accord with the teachings of the Church fall into that definition. You may not like the term, but it is by definition valid.

You seriously think it is loving to watch someone continue to do something wrong rather than correcting them? It is loving to correct someone in such a case, and I’m fairly certain that is what the Church teaches, even if it may not be what Cat says.

Bolded above–you go right ahead, snhs. Enjoy your visits to the U.S., OK, now? Be careful out there.

What are you referring to–mind reader? I don’t get it?

I do not think you are correct when you say that the person baptizing must share the intent of the Church. Paragraphs 1213-1284 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church make it clear that Baptism is a work of grace of the Lord and does not depend on humans. The only “requirement” that I find in the Catechism for a baptism to be valid is the Trinitarian formula, which most Protestant churches (evangelical) use. Of course there are those that baptize in the Name of Jesus only, but most invoke the Trinity at baptism. We’re talking about the United States, OK.

What Cat says matters nothing. OK? OK? Got it, snhs? Please stop assuming that I think I know better than Holy Mother Church. I do NOT think this at all. It is mean-spirited of you to continue to rub my face in dirt and make me out to be some kind of radical reformer liberal complainer. I am truly the most docile of Catholics when it comes to obeying my Superiors in the Church. That is the main reason I became Catholic–because I fully accept the Authority of Jesus Christ and His Church and wish to place myself entirely under their protection. I obey my Church, regardless of my personal preferences.

Got it? We good? We friends? OK.

I would appreciate a citation of the references in the Catechism or other documents validating your statement that says the we are correct someone who is wrong.

Here is what I find in the Catechism (1829) * The fruits of charity are joy, peace, and mercy; charity demands beneficience and fraternal correction: it is benevolence; it fosters reciprocity and remains disinterested and generous; it is friendship and communion.*"

Fraternal correction does not involve baiting people or insulting them or accusing them of thinking that they are better than the Church.

Jesus says to take the plank out of our own eye and then we’ll be able to see clearly to take the speck out of someone else’s eye. He also said we are to be wise as serpents and gentle as doves. There is a balance. Sometimes correction is appropriate, and other times, holding our tongues is more appropriate.

And then there’s always that passage: I Timothy 5: 1 and 2.

And right before it: I Timothy 4: 12. This is good verse for any young person. “Let no one despise your youth, but set the believers an example in speech and conduct, in love, in faith, and in purity.”

 

[snhs]

I do not think you are correct when you say that the person baptizing must share the intent of the Church.

…

Here is what I find in the Catechism (1829) * The fruits of charity are joy, peace, and mercy; charity demands beneficience and fraternal correction: it is benevolence; it fosters reciprocity and remains disinterested and generous; it is friendship and communion.*"

Fraternal correction does not involve baiting people or insulting them or accusing them of thinking that they are better than the Church.

Jesus says to take the plank out of our own eye and then we’ll be able to see clearly to take the speck out of someone else’s eye. He also said we are to be wise as serpents and gentle as doves. There is a balance. Sometimes correction is appropriate, and other times, holding our tongues is more appropriate.

And then there’s always that passage: I Timothy 5: 1 and 2.

And right before it: I Timothy 4: 12. This is good verse for any young person. “Let no one despise your youth, but set the believers an example in speech and conduct, in love, in faith, and in purity.”

Are you talking about the Compendium or the full Catechism? In any event you’re actually incorrect. But in all charity I’ll correct you, and I’ll even refer you to an article with the relevant Canon, see here.

" What we can find in Canon 849 is the explicit reference of the juridical elements to the requirements for a valid baptism:** a washing with water **accompanied by the proper verbal formula. Two other requirements for validity not mentioned directly in Canon 849 are the proper intention of the baptizing minister and, in the baptism of an adult, the proper intention of the one being baptized. It appears that the canon simply takes the presence of both of these intentions for granted. However, these two other elements are mentioned in Canon 869 §2:"

As you’ll see the intention of the person baptising is relevant. In addition even if a formula is used which invokes the Trinity it is not always considered valid if the correct names are not used or if the group’s understanding of the Trinity is too different from the Catholic, for the first case see the case from Australia where ‘Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier’ was recently ruled to be invalid.

Actually I think the term Protestant is not confined to the US, the term refers to all Protestants, unless of course you only take exception when people refer to practices as Protestant when they come from the U.S…

I don’t see what’s mean spirited about it. If at least some of their beliefs are not heretical (from a Catholic perspective) then either the Church has it wrong or they’re Catholic. But you said “I do NOT consider Protestants “heretics””, so if that is the case then are they actually Catholics or is the Catholic Church wrong? As far as I’m concerned the Catholic Church does not have it wrong, and Protestants because of the faith they profess are most certainly not Catholic. I’m guessing you share that view, so you must also accept that Protestant teachings are in some cases and on some levels heretical. You might not like it, and you might not like calling a spade a spade but it is the case.

Would the Bible do? St Paul stood up to St Peter when he had it wrong. Alternatively, I believe in one of the letters of St Paul, there is an instruction that if they see one of their brothers doing something wrong they’re to speak with them about it, if they do not change then they are to get a group together and they are to confront them over it, or words to that effect. If we are accept that Protestants, in many cases have a valid Baptism which many of the main groups do then they come under that definition as far as I understand it.

And I think for the most part I manage to avoid it. I study Maths, to me it makes far more sense to bring someone to an understanding of a point by showing them a proof, and it’s even better if they can understand each step. One of the key methods of proof is by contradiction. We take a statement say ‘X says the Catholic Church will fall’ and then reduce it until we get a contradiction, in this case perhaps ‘But Jesus said that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church, hence either Jesus told a lie, the Catholic Church is not the True Church of Christ or X is wrong’, ‘Jesus wouldn’t lie and the Catholic Church is accepted by both X and I as the true Church, hence, by contradiction, X is wrong’. Others may see that as baiting, but I think it is as legitimate a method of making a point.

True, but when it comes to fundamental truths it is most often appropriate to correct them. If an old lady were sitting in a pew and for whatever reason was getting the words of the Hail Mary wrong then it probably wouldn’t merit correction, but if someone were persisting in sin, heresy etc and there was some possibility of getting through to them that it is wrong then it is worth the effort.

Yet we also have the example of the Saints, many of whom had to take and stand to argue a point on something. Most of the time it’s not recorded whether the people they spoke to initially thought them lacking in love, faith, charity, although there’s a fair chance at least a few did. I’m sure at times to other people they may have appeared to fail in their conduct, perhaps by ignoring the pleas of their family to not risk their lives, there’s certainly a few cases in the Martyrology where we hear about mothers who tried to persuade their child to take an easier way out than standing their ground on something.