Cafeteria Catholics: why don't they go to the Episcopal Church?

[ChurchSoldier]

As far as why many cafeteria Catholics don’t join the Episcopal Church I observe 2 reasons. The first is that many just don’t have faith as a very high priority in their life. They tend to be “cultural Catholics” as much as cafeteria.

Second, they have been taught that to leave the Roman church they will lose their salvation and as such choose “non-attendance” rather than “other attendance”.

Thanks for the question.

 

[seanman611]

No, I don’t have statistics, but they very well may be out there to be obtained. I can tell you that the 39 Articles, with the criticism of the Real Presence, invocation of the saints and other Romish things as fond thing is still in the BCP–never been removed here in the States (unless they have in the last five years). That is the thing–I was always a Real Presence adherent, but I was told and knew “low Church” and other Episcopalians who disagreed with me–that it was not something I had to accept as revealed truth. Whenever I would press priests on just this one topic (there were many), the end result was that I was not obligated to believe in the real presence to be a faithful Episcopalian. I was told by a bishop that we are a confessing church rather than a confessional (like the Romans) church. I happen to believe ideas have consequences and real effects in people and in Churches. I also know that in all of Christendom–both East and West–the belief in the Real Presence was always there. Only after the sixteenth century did large groups start saying that you could believe it was symbolic or not, or whatever.

The 39 Articles, as another poster pointed out, were moved to the historical documents section of the 1979 BCP. Thus, they are NOT binding on Episcopalians. If the the 39 Articles were binding, it all comes down to interpretation. The Articles are intentionally vague and broad, John Henry Newman, in Tract 90, interpreted the Articles in light of a Catholic lense.

Futhermore, regardless of the handful of priests you spoke with, the Real Presence is the official doctrine that Episcopalians believe in. I have never been to an Episcopal Church or heard of one that does not teach the Real Presence. Furthermore, I have never been to an Episcopal Church that didn’t have a tabernacle for the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament.

Also, you seem to have neglected my point of only 20% of Catholics believing in the Real Presence. You dismiss the Episcopal Church based on what you perceive as being a lack of belief in the Real Presence, but are quiet when it is shown that the majority of Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence.

 

[Blessedwithfive]

Why would they leave? Cafeteria Catholics are very much welcomed in out parish. It seems out pastor is concerned about offending someone so he is being very reluctant to say what is right or wrong. He seems happy to just have anyone come. Says he is following the Pope. I’m watching to see what happens…but it is hard as a parent to teach the “rules” when they done seem to matter anymore.

 

[esieffe]

Setting aside the comments about Episcopalians in particular (which I can understand an Episcopalian being offended by), the heart of your question seems to be why Catholics who don’t accept every teaching still stay Catholic.

This question comes up on the forums periodically and I always post a link to this article when it does:

Why I’m Still Catholic by Fr. Greely

Really, there are many different kinds of “cafeteria Catholics”. Some are lukewarm and don’t pay close enough attention to Catholic things to ever experience any sort of mental disconnect between the Profession of Faith and what they actually believe. But others are very well informed – probably more so than the majority of us CAF posters – and even work in various positions within the Catholic Church. The answer to the question “Why don’t you just leave?” is going to be different for them.

For those who are more involved, yet still question certain teachings, I think they would counter with the question: Do you leave your family just because you disagree with some of them? And the answer is: Of course not. So why leave the Catholic family? Why leave the faith that is their home?

You and I may realize that certain teachings are not going to change. But they would not see it that way. And they would see their continued presence as a witness to the change they believe needs to take place. Reform comes from within, not from without.

I think we need to be very careful about these types of conversations as the potential to offend and foster a spirit of animosity is very high. We should not be about kicking the “unfaithful” to the curb (or sending them somewhere else to be someone else’s problem). We should be about conversion of hearts and minds.

:yeah_me: Wow Joe, best response of it’s kind I have ever seen on the boards about this issue! I checked out the link, it too was a great answer to this… do we call it a dilemma or something else? I think the real term I am looking for is maturation. It is not often easy for people living in the western culture of disposable I-phones and instant gratification not to do the same thing with their spiritual lives from time to time. Maybe this is why when I was converting to Catholicism, wearing the red cord and cross, people in our congregation would smile and me and say, “Good luck with your spiritual journey!” Because that is exactly what it is, a journey!

Just for the record, I am not a cafeteria Catholic, but when I was young, I was at one time, a cafeteria Christian. Nothing will bring you back into the fold, in my estimation, than the heavy weight of sin.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

The 39 Articles, as another poster pointed out, were moved to the historical documents section of the 1979 BCP. Thus, they are NOT binding on Episcopalians. If the the 39 Articles were binding, it all comes down to interpretation. The Articles are intentionally vague and broad, John Henry Newman, in Tract 90, interpreted the Articles in light of a Catholic lense.

Futhermore, regardless of the handful of priests you spoke with, the Real Presence is the official doctrine that Episcopalians believe in. I have never been to an Episcopal Church or heard of one that does not teach the Real Presence. Furthermore, I have never been to an Episcopal Church that didn’t have a tabernacle for the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament.

Also, you seem to have neglected my point of only 20% of Catholics believing in the Real Presence. You dismiss the Episcopal Church based on what you perceive as being a lack of belief in the Real Presence, but are quiet when it is shown that the majority of Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence.

I have assumed the same, that Episcopalians firmly believe in the Real Presence, based on their worship. But when I briefly reviewed the documents on Anglican-Catholic Dialogue, it appears that the issue of the RP is still an obstacle to closer ties. Is the hesitance for proclaiming/ defining the Real Presence in these talks with Roman Catholics a reason for the limited progress in ecumenical work between Anglicans and Catholics?

 

[Della]

Also, you seem to have neglected my point of only 20% of Catholics believing in the Real Presence. You dismiss the Episcopal Church based on what you perceive as being a lack of belief in the Real Presence, but are quiet when it is shown that the majority of Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence.

I’d like to address this point and then make some other comments not related to your post. Actually, most Catholic do not deny the Real Presence, rather, through a lack of catechesis, they are confused about it. Also, the poll taken a few years ago that seems to support the idea that most Catholics don’t believe in the RP contained language so convoluted and confusing that even many theologians got the answer wrong. So, I wouldn’t go by that, either. I believe that if those Catholics who are confused were to have the doctrine clearly, and plainly explained their confusion would be resolved and they would happily embrace it. Speaking only for my parish, our priests are very clear about what it is and why we should receive it worthily, for which I am extremely grateful.

As to why people are cafeteria Catholics, I think there are a variety of factors, perhaps too many to be listed here. But in the main it falls into three basic categories:

1. Those that are ill-informed through no fault of their own. (Still, we have an obligation to be informed.)
2. Those who are more persuaded by the arguments of civil society than those of the Church.
3. Those who simply don’t care.

As I say, these are very road categories, but in one way or another all “cafeteria Catholics,” be they lay or religious, fall into one of these three categories.

 

[andrewstx]

The 39 Articles, as another poster pointed out, were moved to the historical documents section of the 1979 BCP. Thus, they are NOT binding on Episcopalians. If the the 39 Articles were binding, it all comes down to interpretation. The Articles are intentionally vague and broad, John Henry Newman, in Tract 90, interpreted the Articles in light of a Catholic lense.

Futhermore, regardless of the handful of priests you spoke with, the Real Presence is the official doctrine that Episcopalians believe in. I have never been to an Episcopal Church or heard of one that does not teach the Real Presence. Furthermore, I have never been to an Episcopal Church that didn’t have a tabernacle for the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament.

Also, you seem to have neglected my point of only 20% of Catholics believing in the Real Presence. You dismiss the Episcopal Church based on what you perceive as being a lack of belief in the Real Presence, but are quiet when it is shown that the majority of Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence.

Sorry, I am always getting the 1979 BCP and the 1982 hymnal confused. Maybe something
to do with the stroke I had?

 

[seanman611]

I have assumed the same, that Episcopalians firmly believe in the Real Presence, based on their worship. But when I briefly reviewed the documents on Anglican-Catholic Dialogue, it appears that the issue of the RP is still an obstacle to closer ties. Is the hesitance for proclaiming/ defining the Real Presence in these talks with Roman Catholics a reason for the limited progress in ecumenical work between Anglicans and Catholics?

Anglicans tend to view the “mechanism” of Christ’s real and localized presence as a mystery and many, including myself, are content with leaving it a mystery. Catholics, on the other hand, have a very precise and dogmatic view of the Eucharist.

 

[johnnyc176]

It is maddening that with one broad stoke, you (and many other posters on here) are able to judge the entire Episcopal Church as being abortion loving, homosexual approving, and a whole host of other various things you deem as liberal/heterodox.

I don’t think he is referring to the laity but what a protestant denomination actually teaches.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Anglicans tend to view the “mechanism” of Christ’s real and localized presence as a mystery and many, including myself, are content with leaving it a mystery. Catholics, on the other hand, have a very precise and dogmatic view of the Eucharist.

I guess that is the stinking point. I have been studying the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue with real interest since conclusions always speak of intercommunion between Lutherans and Catholics. Using precise language on the teaching of the Real Presence seems to be the reason for convergence and closer eucharistic hospitality. I am puzzled that Anglicans would not agree with the teachings of the Catholic faith more definitively since it would allow further ecumenical progress with the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[shawnbm]

mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa–

I now can see that my words and phrasing likely offended some here, and that was not my intention. I wished only to weigh in on the inherently speculative question of why some cafeteria Catholics choose to stay rather than leave for the Episcopal Church, in particular. I put in my two cents and maybe it is because I came to the Catholic Church as an adult that I flippantly referenced Catholics who seemed to not know their own faith. I did find more of that than I expected. As for my old Episcopal roots, I really am not as harsh on Episcopalians as perhaps my post seems upon first reading. I was not pleased with the Church polity and the House of Bishops years ago on a variety of issues. There was an intellectual smugness that began to rub me the wrong way, but most of my Episcopalian friends were not like that. Ironically, it was in going through a program to bring me further into the Episcopal Church’s lay ministry that started me on the road to conversion. So, I wish to clarify that I got a bit clunky-headed in some of what I wrote and apologize for any offense committed. I know of many (including in my family–some of which are still shocked I left) Episcopalians who are good, Christ-centered people who are fine examples of the Christian ethic. I like what Joe589 posted and think he hits the nail on the head.

 

[JackieO123]

Let me be frank; the Catholic church, and all of it’s rites is correct in it’s doctrine. It is one holy, universal, and apostolic church. Episcopals just haven’t noticed it yet. We have to remember here, that Protestants have been deceived by men from the 15th century who butchered God’s word. Martin Luther, John Calvin, etc. Christendom has fractured enormously thanks to these men. Whether the protestant ‘reformers’ had Satan whispering in their ears, or actually thought they were doing good, is up for debate. Regardless, Protestantism caused the largest schism in Christianity, and it’s been nothing but a ripple effect since then. All we can do is pray that they come into full communion with Christ and reject the heresies of their various denominations.

 

[shawnbm]

Anglicans tend to view the “mechanism” of Christ’s real and localized presence as a mystery and many, including myself, are content with leaving it a mystery. Catholics, on the other hand, have a very precise and dogmatic view of the Eucharist.

I think you are correct about a great many Episcopalians I have known, including me back then. I would say, though, that although transubstantiation as a dogma in pronouncing the reality of the real presence is part of the Catholic teaching and faith, the Catholic Church is not precise in HOW the mystery of the real presence actually comes about; i.e., the mechanism of how the LORD does what He said would do when a priest celebrates the Eucharist.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Let me be frank; the Catholic church, and all of it’s rites is correct in it’s doctrine. It is one holy, universal, and apostolic church. Episcopals just haven’t noticed it yet. We have to remember here, that Protestants have been deceived by men from the 15th century who butchered God’s word. Martin Luther, John Calvin, etc. Christendom has fractured enormously thanks to these men. Whether the protestant ‘reformers’ had Satan whispering in their ears, or actually thought they were doing good, is up for debate. Regardless, Protestantism caused the largest schism in Christianity, and it’s been nothing but a ripple effect since then. All we can do is pray that they come into full communion with Christ and reject the heresies of their various denominations.

You may find the document & link below quite contrary to what you assert regarding Martin Luther and the Catholic Church.

 

[TCEL]

The culture has a lot to do with it. The West is very relativistic.

I think what we need to try to do is affirm what is good in the desires of those who wish to stay, because they feel they are part of the family. However, we must try to reinvigorate that hell is real, and that God is good, not just nice. Controversial words to some, but that’s what re-ignited my faith. It was in coming to realize that I am a sinner, who needs to be saved from something. The culture sets up real roadblocks in coming to that realization. But hell is real, and we have free-will. We can reject God.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Seriously?
Thread closed.