Do you agree with everything in the Magisterium?

  • Thread starter Thread starter alphonsus1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well you tell me what a Cafeteria Catholic is? I just made that as a joke, no ill intent. But other posters did not like it, so it has been removed. People don’t like my humor (sad).

But what is a Cafeteria Catholic? Do they disagree with issues of Faith (the Trinity, the resurrection)? Do they disagree with issues of Morals? Is it just disagreements to the non-infallible Magisterium, like whether or not lying to Nazis is moral (if someone does not have the right to know)? What is it?
 
Last edited:
alphonsus1 said:
I removed the line from my comment about Cafeteria Catholicism, since it was misinterpreted and was taken in a way that I did not intend. Is my comment good as it stands?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I understand you didn’t mean it that way. My bad for misinterpreting.

I’m not really interested in yet another discussion along these lines, so I’ll be bowing out, but I get that you were just making a joke.
 
There are things that the Church teaches in morals that don’t line up with my sense of right and wrong and if I was not Catholic would likely have different views about.

However, I believe that the Church is the true Church and trust that she is correct so I obey her teachings and pray that I will come to agree on those issues as readily as I do the teachings I agree with.
 
Same here. My moral intuition would be way off, on certain things, without the Catholic Church! But that’s not a sin, we cannot control our intuition. And I love loyalty. I think obedience is key! And it is important to flee from temptations to sin (to disagree with the infallible Magisterium). Prayers.
 
Last edited:
“Cafeteria Catholic” is a common term (at least among certain (more traditional?) Cahtolic circles) referring to people who pick and choose doctrines as if they were getting lunch, just as you joked. It’s generally used in a fairly demeaning and overly dismissive way. That would be why people are taking your joke as having certain connotations you may not actually have intended.

I personally accept all infallible teachings on principle. I can’t think of any non-infallible teachings that I don’t accept, but I don’t feel bound to do so in the same way. I do see the Church as having more authority and knowledge on these issues than I do, and so they’re probably more likely to come to an accurate conclusion.

The trust to accept the Church’s teachings in either of these areas, though, does often rely a lot on time spent digging into specific teachings and understanding why the Church teaches what she does. I still don’t understand all the things I believe, but I know that in every issue I’ve really looked into in good faith, the Church’s position has ended up making the most sense. It took time to develop that, and the Church doesn’t ask that we have blind faith (we could just as well have blind faith toward, say, Hinduism, had we happened to be born into that religion). It is a journey, and that’s just reality - but that also means it’s a journey and we can’t stay in one place forever just because that place is okay to be temporarily.
 
Um. . .in my statement I do not believe that I mentioned anything whatsoever about doubt or even obedience. . .so I fail to understand why you addressed your post to me. Perhaps you felt that in my reminiscence of the Hook, Line, and Sinker club I was somehow rejecting any doubt? If so, you misunderstood what I said.
 
Last edited:
alphonsus1 said:
Same here. My moral intuition would be way off, on certain things, without the Catholic Church! But that’s not a sin, we cannot control our intuition. And I love loyalty. I’m think obedience is key! And it is important to flee from temptations to sin (to disagree with the infallible Magisterium). Prayers.
Click to expand...
Reading your comments I got the impression that you’d think I’m a heretic. I assume when people say disagree but obey they mean what I wrote.
 
Well, even if you disagreed, I do not want to judge individual people and say “you are a sinner.” I want to say “X is a sin” … not judging since God is the only judge… and lead people to Truth (assuming the Truth is said at the right time, in the right place, and with the right person). And you said you trust and believe and agree with all the infallible teachings, there is nothing more the Church can ask in this area (with a little more nuance I’m leaving out with the non-infallible Magisterium).

It is not a sin to have temptations to doubt. And neither you nor I can control that our Moral intuitions may be way off.

All I’ve been saying in my posts are “flee, flee, flee, from temptations to sin” (true statement as well).
 
Last edited:
I believe in what is true, except when I make a mistake and believe a lie. But my hope is to believe what is true.

I also believe that God guides the Magisterium to teach what is true, sometimes providing a special guidance for the good of the Church. What the Magisterium teaches guides my faith in what is true.

I do not believe in “every letter, every comma” because those express the object of faith, but that object of faith is more than that. Something may be expressed differently, and still be expressing the object of faith. I believe in the Assumption, not the Dormition, but those who believe in the Dormition share my faith, for example.

I do not believe that every teaching that this or that person teaches as having been infallibly taught has been infallibly taught. I listen and consider what Popes and bishops teach, but rely on God, whom I meet in my conscience to help me discern what is true and what is not.

I believe in listening to others and considering what they say and what they believe. I do not believe in fleeing from them unless I have a good reason to fear them.
 
I agree 100% with the infallible teaching of mother Church. However, I think many people would say the same and then disagree on what the teaching is on any certain topics. Especially when it comes to sexual stuff. Sometimes I wish The Church was more clear about certain things. But I use my best judgement and rely on the wisdom of men who are much smarter and Holier then me to form my conscience.
 
I refer to myself as a cafeteria Catholic. I don’t find it demeaning, at all. It is an accurate description of how I approach my faith.

I believe in certain things the Church teaches. Other things, not so much. So I pick and choose, according to my conscience of what is right and wrong. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and that is the way I approach it.
 
Why ‘Catholic’ and not Eastern Orthodox, if it were not for the Pope’s authority to teach on Faith and morals?

Why is one religion the one true faith, and not a combination of the Truth claims in different religions that do not contradict each other, but not one religion is completely correct?

I can answer these questions, but that is another topic.

If you throw out Jesus giving Peter the authority to teach on Faith and morals, and the Magisterium, then you throw out the entire logical reason to be Catholic in the first place and not something else.

That is why you shouldn’t be a Cafeteria Catholic (on the infallible Magisterium).
 
Last edited:
Once again, with what? The infallible, or non-infallibile Magisterium?
 
Infallible. You need to define the non infallible magesterium.
 
alphonsus1 said:
If you throw out Jesus giving Peter the authority to teach on Faith and morals, and the Magisterium, then you throw out the entire logical reason to be Catholic in the first place and not something else.
Click to expand...
That is the way you see it, I guess. I see it differently. I am also a “cafeteria- (fill in the blank with many other religions)” and also have some new age beliefs. I identify more, though, with my cafeteria Catholicism as I was raised in a devout, Catholic family.

I think I will bow out, now. You asked, and I answered.
 
Last edited:
No, I do not. The nuances of what is infallible and not infallible is not my question (that is another topic).

The question is:

GIVEN you know something is part of the infallible Magisterium, would you ever voluntarily and deliberately obstinately doubt its Truth? (That is the very definition of heresy in the Cathechism).

GIVEN you know something is part of the non-infallible Magisterium, would you ever doubt it’s Truth (there can be very limited disagreement to the non-infallible Magisterium, but you must form your conscious well and make an argument from Tradition, Scripture, or the Magisterium).
 
Last edited:
The definition matters here immensely. The answer to number one is obvious. If you believe something to be part if an INFALLIBLE magesterium the of course you agree with it. It is infallible. Non infallible is tricky especially in modern times and that is why you must define it. What is the non infallible magesterium? Is it the current teaching of the Church? Snd how is that communicated to the faithful?
 
Hoosier-Daddy said:
What is the non infallible magesterium? Is it the current teaching of the Church? Snd how is that communicated to the faithful?
Click to expand...
I think it’s often defined as “writings and sayings of saints and theologians that support my position.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top