Cafeteria Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter John_of_Woking
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
severinus:
My question for CCs is: How many beliefs of the Church can I reject and still consider myself Catholic? Or is there no limit?
Just curious.
If you want to know the teaching of the Church on these matters, unlimited.

When I became Catholic I couldn’t even speak English. The Church infallibly teaches (afa I know according to aaa apologists) that once Catholic always Catholic.

Therefore I can reject all her teachings, become officially excommunicated, and I am still Catholic in fact, even if not in my heart.

Opinions do not change that reality, but unfortunately many self-described defenders of Church teachings contradict that by saying that any one teaching is enough to falsify our claim to be Catholic. They deny the Church teachings in the same sentence they accuse us of doing so.

Therefore the technical answer is, it is unlimited.

That is, if you wish to fully assent to Church teachings.

Those who do not follow the Church call me non-Catholic. They get all offended if I say anything at all that they think is not taught by the church (even though they are sometimes only partly right themselves) and tell me I should not consider myself a Catholic, which is to suggest I commit a mortal sin.

It’s strange. I’m tired of fighting it, and I don’t think I’m doing any good except to make more people mad and post uncharitable comments. I think I’ll change my profile from CC to agnostic, to defend against endless false statement about the fact I claim to be Catholic when I’m “really” not in their offended opinion. Really if I’m offending people, then the truth matters less because I can be whatever I need to be to win them over, like Paul.

Alan
 
MikeinSD said:
22 Slaves, obey always your secular masters. Do not render them mere external service, as if you had only men to please. Perform your duties with sincerity of heart and with fear of God.
23 Whatever your task may be, carry it out heartily, as if you were doing it for the Lord and not for men

One of the most basic and repeated teachings of the Catholic Church in the pre-Civil War South. And yes, religious orders had slaves as well.

What happened to St. Paul’s teaching? Or is the Catholic Church in the US one big cafeteria since 1865?

Could you please tell me where this is from?

Malia
 
From the Bible:

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Or as put in another version: Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

God expectsus to put to the test various doctrines and beliefs presented to us by those claiming authority and to only accept those with adequate evidence. Kind of rules out blind faith. If some of us reach different conclusions or are at different places in our walk where we haven’t come to a certain place, it doesn’t necessarily mean we have to reject everything.
 
Feanaro's Wife:
Could you please tell me where this is from?

Malia
Went on Google. Typed in “saint paul” and “slavery.” this came up. I think, but not sure, from King James version of the bible.
 
Here is an interesting thread from the AAA forum. I urge all of you to read the article from “This Rock” that is referenced in the answer. I would love to discuss your views on this after you have read it.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=65155&highlight=catholic

an exceprt from the article:

As the Pharisees failed to recognize God in Jesus Christ, a significant number of Catholics fail to recognize Jesus in the Church.

Many have yet to apprehend what was so plain to Joan of Arc: “About Jesus Christ and the Church I simply know they’re just one thing, and we shouldn’t complicate the matter” (Acts of the Trial of Joan of Arc; cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 795).

The union of Christ with his Bride is so profound that when Saul persecuted the Church, our Lord asked: “Why do you persecute me?” (Acts 9:4). To those who disregard the teachings of the Church today, might not Jesus ask: "Why do you disregard me?"

**Malia

**
 
Another exceprt from the same article that seems to be very clear on our duty to be obedient to the Church.

“When a Catholic fails to accept the authority of the Church to teach in the name of Christ, he has in effect adopted the underlying rule of Protestantism as his divining rod: his own personal judgment. Rather than humbly accepting the truth—that deposit of faith entrusted to the Church—he makes himself the judge over truth: ‘I’ll accept this, but I won’t accept that.’”

Malia
 
Feanaro's Wife:
Another exceprt from the same article that seems to be very clear on our duty to be obedient to the Church.

“When a Catholic fails to accept the authority of the Church to teach in the name of Christ, he has in effect adopted the underlying rule of Protestantism as his divining rod: his own personal judgment. Rather than humbly accepting the truth—that deposit of faith entrusted to the Church—he makes himself the judge over truth: ‘I’ll accept this, but I won’t accept that.’”

Malia
So, in other words, the Bible is lying when it says to test everything to discern truth.
 
40.png
mumto5:
From the Bible:

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test everything. Hold on to the good.
It seems to me that St.Paul is speaking to discerning if a prophesy is true. 1 Thessalonians 5:20 says:

“Do not despise prophetic utterances.”

Earlier in the chapter he says: (verse 12 and 13)

“We ask you, brothers, to respect those who are laboring among you and who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you, and to show esteem for them with special love on account of their work. Be at peace among yourselves.”

I take this to mean to give respect to those who have authority over us in the Church.

Of course we should test everything we are told to believe… but test it against what? We need a truth to test it against.

God speaks to us through His Church and we are to test all things through it. If it is supported by Church teachings then it is true. If it contradicts Church teachings it must be false.

The bible is very useful in leading us to the truth. But without the Church, we would not even have the bible as we know it. The Church interprets the bible infallibly and should be the ultimate authority over all things.

“you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth. (1 Timothy 3:15)”

Malia
 
40.png
ekim61:
What is a Cafeteria Catholic?
It is a term sometimes used to describe a Catholic who **willfully **rejects Church teachings that they decide are wrong, or not applicable to themselves.

It is NOT a description of someone who struggles to know and understand the faith…that is ALL of us.

It is mostly a description of attitude (opposed to knowledge/understanding) towards Church authority.

Malia
 
MikeinSD said:
22 Slaves, obey always your secular masters. Do not render them mere external service, as if you had only men to please. Perform your duties with sincerity of heart and with fear of God.
23 Whatever your task may be, carry it out heartily, as if you were doing it for the Lord and not for men

One of the most basic and repeated teachings of the Catholic Church in the pre-Civil War South. And yes, religious orders had slaves as well.

What happened to St. Paul’s teaching? Or is the Catholic Church in the US one big cafeteria since 1865?

Peace be with you!

The Church has never condoned slavery based on race. The type of slavery it said was not unjust–for lack of being able to think of a different word; it’s late–was slaves made in war or if they were criminals.

In Christ,
Rand
 
Peace be with you!
40.png
mumto5:
Yes, I will watch out for it.

As far as Bible teaching goes - to me the Catechism is only good where it is in harmony with the teaching of the Bible. The Bible is the foremost authority where everything else has to be measured by. Otherwise we may as well look to the Book of Mormon. There is nothing in the Catechism that is not in harmony or that is contradictory to the Bible. I would place the challenge before you to name something.

Sadly, most Catholics have no idea about what is in the Bible outside of the Gospels. Makes it hard to discuss topics I’d love to have a heart to heart on with a Catholic and I am disappointed that this is the case. Considering that the Catholics who don’t read the Bible still hear a reading from the OT and one of the Epistles every week, I’d say that most Catholics do know what’s outside of the Gospels. Especially the Catholics on this website. And speaking of outside the Gospels, I’m sure you are familiar with the sin of Onan?

And don’t tell me to talk to a priest. I’ve talked to 6 of them and five said we should use birth control. And like I said, if a priest, let alone five of them, told you that you should use birth control they are in conflict with Church teaching and should be reported to their bishop.
In Christ,
Rand
 
40.png
mumto5:
So, in other words, the Bible is lying when it says to test everything to discern truth.
Did you read the article it came from? It is very insightful and may help you out quite a bit. Please let me know your thoughts on it when you read it.

you say: to me the Catechism is only good where it is in harmony with the teaching of the Bible. The Bible is the foremost authority where everything else has to be measured by.

The bible comes from the Church. Unfortunately, you are still thinking like a sola scriptura protestant. How can the bible be the foremost authority when so many people have so many different interpretations of it? Please help me to understand your postion.

And, if you wouldn’t mind, could you share with us why you came back to the Catholic Church if you don’t seem to believe in it’s ultimate truth? I am confused.

Malia

Malia
 
Here are some excerpts that comes from a rather lengthy writing on Holy Obedience from this page at a Catholic apostolate, Opus Sanctorum Angelorum. Consider reading the entire writing. There is much reference to Scripture. They break down obedience by type and explain why it is even necessary to obey secular authorities and under what context they must be obeyed.

opusangelorum.org/English/Obedience.html

Humanly speaking obedience often appears so pragmatic, so cut and dry - a ‘do this’ and a‘don’t do that!’ Sacred Scripture reveals obedience’s nobler pedigree in friendship with God, which was lost by the disobedience of Adam. Ever since, obedience regularly wears work clothes, for it is in toil and the sweat of his brow that man eats his bread. By the obedience of Christ, the new Adam, we were redeemed; friendship with God was restored. He, the Servant of God, the Child of the Father, imbued obedience with love. Obedience is the felicitous lot of the child and the lover as well: “Your wish is my command!” Related to God, it becomes a beatitude precisely for those who thirst for justice, for they shall be satisfied (cf. Mt 5:6).

As a virtue obedience falls under the cardinal virtue of justice, whereby we have a perpetual and constant will to give each one their due (cf. Summa theol. II-II. 58.1,c). Supernaturally, we are ‘justified’ by Christ’s obedience, for His grace makes it possible for us to render worthily to God that which we owe Him: faith, veneration and obedience. “‘The obedience of faith’ (Rom 16:26; cf. Rom 1:5; 2 Cor 10:5-6) must be given to God Who reveals, an obedience by which man entrusts his whole self freely to God” (Dei Verbum, 5). By devotion, the principal act of the virtue of religion we readily pay to God the reverence and worship due His Name. And by holy obedience, we submit ourselves to His majesty and authority, that is, to His laws, whether coming directly from Him or from those who exercise authority in His name, be it in the Church or in society.

Significantly, our submission of obedience to the divine will is the guarantee that our religion be holy and pure. King Saul was rejected because he failed in this respect and did not execute God’s command. Samuel chided him: “Obedience is better than sacrifices, and to heed [the word of God] better than to offer the fat of rams. For it is like the crime of witchcraft to rebel and like the crime of idolatry, to refuse to obey” (1 Sam 15:22f). This is why St. Thomas reckoned pious self-will among the worst faults: under the appearance of religion and obedience, one does that which is their opposite.

Reverence for Authority

While not setting aside the hope of reward and fear of punishment, the formal motive for supernatural obedience is the reverence we have for the Divine Majesty and authority and for those persons who share in this authority. The formal fault of disobedience, accordingly, lies precisely in irreverence and contempt for authority, for which reasons St. Thomas numbers disobedience among the mortal sins. However, he adds that most disobedience is really only a material disobedience (Summa theol. II-II, 105). Now, what do he mean by “formal disobedience” and “material disobedience”? It comes down to this: when the reason why someone disobeys a law is to be sought in some other apparent good the sinner is seeking, then we speak of “material disobedience” . Such material disobedience is not a mortal sin against obedience, though it may be a mortal sin against another virtue. Adulterers, for example, commit a grievous sin against the 6th commandment, but not against obedience.

Disobedience which aims at expressing rebellion and contempt for authority is called “formal disobedience” and is a grievous fault. In their rebellion, the fallen spirits did not think that they could find happiness outside the will of God, their only ‘happiness’ was in their exercise of contempt for God, slapping Him in the face with their “Non serviam!”

Turning things around, we also find souls who externally (materially) submit and ‘obey’, while their hearts are full of criticism and contempt for the person in authority. Clearly, by this contempt such souls sin formally against obedience! **Very often, this corroding sin is neither repented nor confessed. Moreover, without deep humility it is difficult to avoid this fault, for just as humility disposes to reverence for authority, pride breeds contempt. **Humble reverence, which lends wings to obedience, should animate the members of the Work of the Holy Angels.
 
Realistically speaking, if one does not accept an authority, then to what avail is it to persist in using that authority as a weapon of persuasion?

Who is it that is totally obedient in heart, mind, and soul?

When does loving instruction end and judgment begin?
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
Realistically speaking, if one does not accept an authority, then to what avail is it to persist in using that authority as a weapon of persuasion?

I personally don’t see how anything said so far is being used as a weapon of persuasion. I see statements of fact.

Belief (or non-belief) does not change the fact that Catholics are required to submit to the authority of the Church.

Once given the knowledge, each Catholic then has to make a decision about what they will do with that knowledge.

Who is it that is totally obedient in heart, mind, and soul?

I’m not sure what your point is. I’m not even sure of your definition of obedience.

In my definition, I believe that I am totally obedient in heart, mind, and soul. That does not mean that I understand everything (I understand very little) or that it is easy to be obedient. Is it perfect obedience? No. But hopefully I will keep getting better at it as I continue to learn and grow in the faith.

When does loving instruction end

To me, loving instruction is what we are doing here. We are called to admonish the sinner (and correct me if I am wrong, heresy is a sin) heresy:
dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member.

My goal in my efforts on this thread is to help fellow Catholics. I expect the same for myself. There are many issues that I need help with, and I enjoy coming to these forums and learning from all of the members.

and judgment begin?

Judgement to me is when we presume to know the state of another’s soul. What does judgement mean to you?

I am sincerely enjoying this discussion and look forward to hearing more views on the subject. I am learning alot from this, and for that, I thank all of you.

malia
 
Rand Al'Thor:
Peace be with you!

The Church has never condoned slavery based on race. The type of slavery it said was not unjust–for lack of being able to think of a different word; it’s late–was slaves made in war or if they were criminals.

In Christ,
Rand
Thanks Rand. But the Catholic church did not speak out against racial slavery in the American South. Or in Europe. Or in South America. Religious orders had slaves. Catholic families had slaves. Right up to 1865 in the US. Later in Brazil. Hindsight is 20/20. And Catholics in the South were a small minority. But Catholics (like Protestants) justified slavery by St. Paul’s teachings on obedience to slave masters. When did his teaching get superseded? Ignoring this clear teaching by a founding saint of the Faith seems like “cafertia catholicism.”

Or maybe, the Catholic faith changes over time. Happens to all institutions.
 
mumto5,
It seems to me that you are somewhat defensive, and with good reason. From what you have posted it seems that you have resigned yourself to being or at least being categorized as a “cafeteria Catholic.”
First, I would like to say that you have posted personal information that is more than any of us have the right to know. I sense that the CC label pains you. Let me say this, from what you have given as to your personal medical situation, there is no way to call you a cafeteria Catholic on the issue of contraception. I have both Humanae Vitae and Evangelium Vitae on my computer and have read them and I defy anyone to show me from those documents that creating life involves suicide.

I agree that there is such a thing as a Cafeteria Catholic in the area of reproductive choices. Statistically we know it. But in reality all we can do is inform Catholics as to what the Church teaches and why and pray that God will speak to their hearts.

The label is perhaps thrown around a little too liberally. It is one thing to know the teaching of the Church and have doubts and questions. It is still a long way from there to dissent. And indeed there are dissenters, and vocal dissenters. But that is a matter of Church discipline and instruction.

Church teaching and dogmas don’t come out of thin air. There is a rationale for everything that does go back to the teachings of Jesus Christ, those that are recorded in the New Testament and those that were received directly from Christ to the Apostles but not written down at the time.

That is what I like about the CCC. It is an organic whole. It flows naturally from the beginning of faith through the sacraments and on to Christian life and prayer. If many so-called Cafeteria Catholics were to read it, I think many of their objections would fade in seeing the doctrines of the Church in their proper context.

But ultimately, we are talking here about a faith, not in a set of rules and dogmas first, but in the person of Jesus Christ. The CCC speaks of the conversion of heart that is necessary to follow Christ, as does Vatican II. From that flows the desire to be obedient to Christ through his Church, and those given the authority to guide the faithful.

By all means, test what you hear. But how do you do that? By what measure? That is the real question. If you use your reason alone, regardless of how intelligent you are, you will have the same problem as the Protestants. They have followed that standard for years and agree less and less as time goes on.
 
40.png
Lux_et_veritas:
I’m sorry, I thought this was the Catholic Church we were talking about, not some Christian denomination that relies strictly on the Bible.

As to your question about the Know, Obey, and Understand, please watch the “Ask an Apologist” for a thread I am posting to them. I am willing to let it undergo their scrutiny as to alignment with church teaching.
That sounds like an interesting question for them. While the Catholic Church does not rely strictly on the Bible, I should also hope that she doesn’t change the “flavor” of Christ’s teachings by adding to them or modifying them. For example, Christ’s two great commandments, the command to owe nothing to another man except the debt to love him, and the Pauline teachings on how “love” is a separate issue than knowing all scriptures, to me gives the flavor that love is a more basic necessity than “Know, Obey, and Understand” in that knowledge should flow from love, rather than trying to define love with theological poetry. The greatest love is to give up your life for your friends; I believe that transcends any issues of “full mental assent.”
However, there are alternatives that allow the unitive end of the marriage act to be fulfilled, while not introducing pregnancy.
Yes, but they induce blindness. :rolleyes: (just kidding – really. I only need glasses but I’m not blind)
I may not be able to respond for a time as I may be away, so do watch that thread in the Apologist section.
I’ll try, but somehow reading that forum acts as a sedative for me so if anyone else notices it, could you please alert my lazy self? (Not that you owe it to me of course.)

Thank you very much.

Alan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top