Does this make me a "cafeteria Catholic"?

[AlanFromWichita]

Well Alan - I can understand this to a point, but I suggest that you have a look at Matthew 18:15-18 and see who we are to listen to and what sort of penalty might be expected for not listening…And this from Jesus own lips.

Just food for thought.

Peace
James

Thank you. There are several ways I can think of trying to apply that passage to this situation. That said, I’m not sure what church Jesus was talking about. And I’ve never thought about this before, but it seems strange for Him to say “treat him like a Gentile or a tax collector.” The way Jesus treated a tax collector was to make one His apostle! Surely the idea of Jesus empowering people to kick people out of the church, while He Himself condoned sinning against the same church. (I’m assuming we’re talking about Jesus’s church here.)

Oh well, I guess to me it doesn’t matter a whole lot if I am to be called this or that. My beliefs do change as my understanding of things change, so what I am called might change. But I am the same human being, even though with a different persona, as I was before.

Alan

 

[JRKH]

Thank you. There are several ways I can think of trying to apply that passage to this situation. That said, I’m not sure what church Jesus was talking about. And I’ve never thought about this before, but it seems strange for Him to say “treat him like a Gentile or a tax collector.” The way Jesus treated a tax collector was to make one His apostle! Surely the idea of Jesus empowering people to kick people out of the church, while He Himself condoned sinning against the same church. (I’m assuming we’re talking about Jesus’s church here.)

Oh well, I guess to me it doesn’t matter a whole lot if I am to be called this or that. My beliefs do change as my understanding of things change, so what I am called might change. But I am the same human being, even though with a different persona, as I was before.

Alan

Alan - your joking right??
Yes Jesus made a “Reformed” Tax collector his apostle. I doubt that Matthew kept his job after getting up and walking off to follow Jesus.
And Jesus never condoned anyone sinning.
Yes He ate with sinners…To get them to do precisely what He is suggesting in Mt 18:17…Listen to Him (and we to His Church). To reform their lives so that they might be saved.

He came to “Call Sinners”, not to condone them.

Peace
James

 

[thistle]

Thank you. There are several ways I can think of trying to apply that passage to this situation. That said, I’m not sure what church Jesus was talking about. And I’ve never thought about this before, but it seems strange for Him to say “treat him like a Gentile or a tax collector.” The way Jesus treated a tax collector was to make one His apostle! ** Surely the idea of Jesus empowering people to kick people out of the church, while He Himself condoned sinning against the same church.** (I’m assuming we’re talking about Jesus’s church here.)

Oh well, I guess to me it doesn’t matter a whole lot if I am to be called this or that. My beliefs do change as my understanding of things change, so what I am called might change. But I am the same human being, even though with a different persona, as I was before.

Alan

That is absolute nonsense. Jesus NEVER condoned sinning!

 

[PRmerger]

I think whether you are “cafeteria Catholic” is entirely subjective.

I like to go beyond the labels and get into specifics. I’m not impressed with labels.

By what I’ve read in this thread, I would probably qualify as “cafeteria Catholic.”

I think CC should mean, “there is a veritable cafeteria of devotions to be chosen from – just use the ones you like.”

This is fine, provided that you are not creating a god in one’s own image.

Belief in God demands conformity of our own beliefs to that of Gods. No one would argue with this, yes?

Thus, if we’ve created some sort of comfortable theology which segues quite nicely with all that we like, all that we believe, and have not changed a single viewpoint/belief/moral imperative because, "God wouldn’t say " then we’ve created a church of the Almighty Self, no?

 

[PRmerger]

It doesn’t make sense to me to say the Church is perfect but is run by imperfect humans.

It appears that you are under the misapprehension that the Church states she is perfect.

She does not.

Rather, from our Catechism: "“The Church on earth is endowed already with a sanctity that is real though imperfect.” CCC 825

 

[AlanFromWichita]

It appears that you are under the misapprehension that the Church states she is perfect.

She does not.

Rather, from our Catechism: "“The Church on earth is endowed already with a sanctity that is real though imperfect.” CCC 825

Thank you for the information. You are the first of many I’ve encountered in this topic discussion who has quoted this passage. You’d think it would be front and center.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

This is fine, provided that you are not creating a god in one’s own image.

Belief in God demands conformity of our own beliefs to that of Gods. No one would argue with this, yes?

Thus, if we’ve created some sort of comfortable theology which segues quite nicely with all that we like, all that we believe, and have not changed a single viewpoint/belief/moral imperative because, "God wouldn’t say " then we’ve created a church of the Almighty Self, no?

I actually think that asking me to sign a spiritual “contract” that I WILL believe any and all of what some authority says, under threat of eternal punishment, is in itself creating a God in man’s image. I saw an interesting quote once, “you know you have made God in your own image, when it turns out God hates all the same people you do.”

This almighty self will one day stand before The Almighty, and I am prepared to take full responsibility for whatever takes place. If I was wrong, whether I was trying to align with the Church or not, I was wrong. This does not concern me, because I honestly believe I am doing my best by God. And one of them is priorities. I am much more concerned about building my ability to love, forgive, comfort, and otherwise minister to other people, then whether I fully understand and agree to some academically rigorous argument about every possible thing I might or might not ever encounter. I spend some time trying to learn, and some time trying to actually do the work of the Lord instead of arguing about the details and the what-ifs.

Alan

 

[PRmerger]

I actually think that asking me to sign a spiritual “contract” that I WILL believe any and all of what some authority says, under threat of eternal punishment, is in itself creating a God in man’s image.

Huh? Who has asked you to do this?

I saw an interesting quote once, “you know you have made God in your own image, when it turns out God hates all the same people you do.”

'zactly.

And a corollary to that would be, “You know you have made God in your own image, when it turns out that all practices and moral imperatives you like are the same ones God has apparently ‘decreed’ as well.”

 

[AlanFromWichita]

That is absolute nonsense. Jesus NEVER condoned sinning!

OK, let me be precise. Jesus defended his friends and scolded those who rightly found them to be breaking the clearly stated rules of the Church.

Apparently breaking the rules of the Church must not be a sin, or Jesus would have at least told His friends, “you know he’s right. You really should have washed that cup,” or “should not have picked grain on the sabbath.” No He didn’t. He said the people who were taking notice of their breaking the rules were hypocrites – he called them “whitewashed tombs.” And all this to protect His friends who are objectively breaking the rules.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Alan - your joking right??
Yes Jesus made a “Reformed” Tax collector his apostle. I doubt that Matthew kept his job after getting up and walking off to follow Jesus.
And Jesus never condoned anyone sinning.
Yes He ate with sinners…To get them to do precisely what He is suggesting in Mt 18:17…Listen to Him (and we to His Church). To reform their lives so that they might be saved.

He came to “Call Sinners”, not to condone them.

Peace
James

James, I’m not joking, but I’ll try to get back to you soon on this. Now my wife is trying to get my attention away from the computer.

Alan

 

[PRmerger]

OK, let me be precise. Jesus defended his friends and scolded those who rightly found them to be breaking the clearly stated rules of the Church

No, Alan. Firstly, you are confusing the Law of Moses with the CC.

Secondly, Jesus did not give us permission to disobey any rules. In fact, he commanded us to obey our leaders.
[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 23:1-3[/BIBLEDRB]

not to mention this, from the Scriptures:

[BIBLEDRB]Hebrews 13:17[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[PRmerger]

This almighty self will one day stand before The Almighty, and I am prepared to take full responsibility for whatever takes place. If I was wrong, whether I was trying to align with the Church or not, I was wrong. This does not concern me, because I honestly believe I am doing my best by God. And one of them is priorities. I am much more concerned about building my ability to love, forgive, comfort, and otherwise minister to other people, then whether I fully understand and agree to some academically rigorous argument about every possible thing I might or might not ever encounter. I spend some time trying to learn, and some time trying to actually do the work of the Lord instead of arguing about the details and the what-ifs.

Alan

Fair enough.

I have a question for you though, Alan. Is there some belief/moral imperative/practice that you have changed because God, through His Church, (which is, incidentally, really the only way you can know what God has decreed) has commanded it?

In fairness, I will offer you one of mine: I have conformed my belief to Christ’s in which he says that “if you divorce and marry another, you commit adultery.” How I would LOVE it if I could attend my many, many friends’ 2nd weddings and say, “Congratulations! Best wishes on your 2nd chance at love!”. However, sadly, I cannot do that. I cannot edit God’s words, no matter how much I would love to be able to celebrate my friends’ second marriages.

If I were ruler of the world, that’s one of the things I would proclaim: “All 2nd marriages are NOT adultery!”

So is there something that you’ve changed your position on, that if you were “ruler of the world” you’d have it one way, but because you know God has said otherwise, you say, “As you wish, Lord.”

 

[JRKH]

AlanFromWichita Said:
I think CC should mean, “there is a veritable cafeteria of devotions to be chosen from – just use the ones you like.”

I agree with this in terms of “devotions” but this is something different than “teachings”.

AlanFromWichita Said:

Originally Posted by PRmerger
It appears that you are under the misapprehension that the Church states she is perfect.

She does not.

Rather, from our Catechism: "“The Church on earth is endowed already with a sanctity that is real though imperfect.” CCC 825

Thank you for the information. You are the first of many I’ve encountered in this topic discussion who has quoted this passage. You’d think it would be front and center.

One needs to be very careful in how to apply this. It cannot be read in isolation. Remember the reference to Canon 750 that Jim Dandy Posted and you responded to in post 20.
“The Church” is imperfect, because people are imperfect, but does this mean that the teachings of the Church are “imperfect”?
Consider…
You work for a company that makes very high quality products. You are charged with investigating customer complaints and rejections. Generally you don’t have a lot to do due to the company’s high quality standards.
Then comes a rash of complaints on a new product line. Immediately you gather the complaint information and all the pertinent instructions, material requirements etc for the product. A review of all of these shows no problem. Next you go down to the assembly line and there you discover that the supervisor is ignoring parts of the work instructions and has rearranged the order of assembly. This has led to the problems and complaints.

In the above case, “The Company” is perfect in it’s “teachings”. All of the Engineering, the processes the instructions etc. are carefully designed, reviewed and tested. If everything is faithfully executed the end result is a high quality product. However, “The Company” is composed of imperfect humans. If these imperfect humans take a “perfect teaching” (instruction) and either misapplies it, or ignores it altogether, the output is of a lesser quality, which reflects badly on “The company”

Now – substitute “Church” for “Company” and consider the effect of imperfect application on perfect teaching…

Food for thought.

Peace
James

 

[Jocko_VT]

Is there some belief/moral imperative/practice that you have changed because God, through His Church, ***(which is, incidentally, really the only way you can know what God has decreed) ***has commanded it?

Is this correct? Does not God “speak” directly to us? Are we not capable of being open to the Holy Spirit? Is there not truth in non-Catholic religions–truth that was obviously not delivered through the Church?

If I were ruler of the world, that’s one of the things I would proclaim: “All 2nd marriages are NOT adultery!”

This really seems to me to get at the heart of the matter. This expresses a serious level of disagreement with the Church and a conscious submission of one’s own will. That this does not make one a “cafeteria catholic” gets right at the OP’s question, I think.

What else does this principle apply to? Immaculate Conception? Virgin Birth? Bodily resurrection?

 

[JRKH]

I actually think that asking me to sign a spiritual “contract” that I WILL believe any and all of what some authority says, under threat of eternal punishment, is in itself creating a God in man’s image.

“Will Believe” is the starting point. It is part of what allows us to identify as “Catholic”.

This almighty self will one day stand before The Almighty, and I am prepared to take full responsibility for whatever takes place. If I was wrong, whether I was trying to align with the Church or not, I was wrong.

It is good that you consider this. I sometimes think that too few really do think about having to answer to God.

This does not concern me, because I honestly believe I am doing my best by God. And one of them is priorities. I am much more concerned about building my ability to love, forgive, comfort, and otherwise minister to other people,

Amen Amen to this Brother. We must Always start from Love and work our way out from there.

then whether I fully understand and agree to some academically rigorous argument about every possible thing I might or might not ever encounter. I spend some time trying to learn, and some time trying to actually do the work of the Lord instead of arguing about the details and the what-ifs.

I agree with this. There is much in Catholic teaching that has little “rubber meets the road” effect on the “Catholic in the pew”. That is fine. each of us deals with those things we need to deal with and leave the rest.
But - We need to always work from a position of we believe, we accept what the Church teaches. In this way, should we ever need, or desire to dig into a subject more deeply, we are confident that we can go to Church documents and be properly led.

I certainly don’t understand all of the Church’s teachings. Heck I don’t even know all of the teachings and all of the “what if’s”…Like you, I begin at Mt 22:36-40 and sort of work out from there…
BUT - I do say this…I accept as True, All that the Church proposes for belief.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

OK, let me be precise. Jesus defended his friends and scolded those who rightly found them to be breaking the clearly stated rules of the Church.

Apparently breaking the rules of the Church must not be a sin, or Jesus would have at least told His friends, “you know he’s right. You really should have washed that cup,” or “should not have picked grain on the sabbath.” No He didn’t. He said the people who were taking notice of their breaking the rules were hypocrites – he called them “whitewashed tombs.” And all this to protect His friends who are objectively breaking the rules.

Alan

This is an interesting perspective…But I think takes too narrow a view since it ignores what Jesus said in Mt 23:1-12.
Yes Jesus defended his followers, and called those accusing hypocrites…But the question is WHY did he call them hypocrites. The answer is in this passage…Because they did not DO as they taught. And even more importantly, they were more concerned with the letter of the law and with it’s spirit. A tomb has no living heart. Thus Jesus called them "Whitewashed tombs.

And maybe - just maybe - privately - Jesus DID mention to the disciples that they should have washed the cup. After all we do know that not everything was written down.

Peace
James

 

[TrueLight]

And maybe - just maybe - privately - Jesus DID mention to the disciples that they should have washed the cup. After all we do know that not everything was written down.

Peace
James

Ooh. Good point!

 

[PRmerger]

But, despite having known lots of Catholics, I’d never heard of the God I read about in the Catechism.

Yes, sadly, the biggest barrier to people coming to know the truths of Catholicism is, well, Catholics. :sad_yes: Please do not base your yes! or no! to Catholicism on how you see Catholics live and practice.

Rather, keep posting here, Jocko, and reading the Catechism, and studying and questioning!

I also suggest you read the magnificent encyclical, Fides et Ratio. Oh, and Veritatis Splendor, as well.

 

[PRmerger]

Is this correct? Does not God “speak” directly to us?

Yes, God does indeed “speak” to us–through the Scriptures, through the Liturgy, through the Sacraments, and even through other folks.

I used the phrase “what God has decreed” in a nuanced manner, and I apologize if this causes any confusion. By “decree” I am talking about theology–our attempt to apprehend the numinous.

And if our understanding of God’s whispers to us (through the Scriptures, coincidences, people’s comments, things we read) contradicts that which God has decreed, then we are commanded to re-evaluate our viewpoint and conform it to what God has decreed (i.e. Church teaching.)

Is there not truth in non-Catholic religions–truth that was obviously not delivered through the Church?

Yes, there is much truth in non-Catholic religions–however, it is only truth in that it conforms to Catholicism. IOW: all truth is Catholic truth, Jocko. So if a non-Catholic religion professes, “Jesus was born of a virgin!” then it is proclaiming truth–a Catholic truth. If a non-Christian religion proclaims, “There is only One God!” then it is professing a truth, but it still remains a Catholic truth.

 

[PRmerger]

This really seems to me to get at the heart of the matter. This expresses a serious level of disagreement with the Church and a conscious submission of one’s own will. That this does not make one a “cafeteria catholic” gets right at the OP’s question, I think.

What else does this principle apply to? Immaculate Conception? Virgin Birth? Bodily resurrection?

I am sorry, but I am not understanding the question. Could you re-phrase?