C
- Status
C
catsrus
Guest
True! This past weekend I had a discussion with my daughter concening my grandaughter’s relationship with her boyfriend of 5 years.
Granddaughter (age 23) was baptised and confirmed into Holy Mother Church this Easter Vigil past.
Seems she and the boyfriend are having some problems because granddaughter has refused to have any further intimate contact with boyfriend until they are married. She has explained that her entry into The Church compels her to live her faith.
This from a 23 year old! I’m so proud of her moral stance.
C
Catholic4aReasn
Guest
Wooooooo hooooooo!! I don’t even know your grandaughter and I’m proud of her!
Maybe she should consider finding herself someone who isn’t going to expect her to sin mortally so he can be sexually satisfied. Marriage is about self-giving and self-denial for the sake of your spouse. Your spouse is your cheerleader as you journey toward heaven. They’re not supposed to be throwing obstacles in your way.
Marriages of mixed faiths/moral standards are hard. I’m in one.
May God bless your grandaughter.
In Christ,
Nancy
A
allhers
Guest
Penny Plain:
Well, I guess I don’t fit into that catagory either, because I happen to be a very devout Catholic who does believe everything the Church teaches and I happen to believe it based on faith. I believe faith is a gift from God, it isn’t that I am anyone special, I have just been given a great gift. I appreciate God and all His gifts, I believe all good things come from God. I also believe that if everyone who claimed to be Catholic did believe all the Church teaches, that they would find Jesus in all things, even in one another more rapidly. I think to be faithful to HIM in all things is where it’s at.
L
Lonevoice
Guest
:clapping: :clapping:
M
Mijoy2
Guest
carol marie:
A person hears a false teeaching such as the one your sister in law heard and they want it to be true. So they acccept it on face value without thier own investigation. Then to make matters worse, they pass it on as truth.
All relatively innocent, but wrong.
My theory on how this happens is this;Unfortunatly I agree. In a discussion about contraception, my cradle Catholic sister in law told me that “the no birth control rule has been done away with…that was our parent’s generation but we don’t have to follow that one anymore.” She said it was just like the no meat on Friday thing…
A person hears a false teeaching such as the one your sister in law heard and they want it to be true. So they acccept it on face value without thier own investigation. Then to make matters worse, they pass it on as truth.
All relatively innocent, but wrong.
P
Penny_Plain
Guest
Oddly, even some of us cafeteria Catholics strive to find Jesus in all things, including one another. Sometimes, we even succeed.
G
Genesis315
Guest
Church Militant:
Sure, they think they can consecrate bishops, priests and offer Mass according to a certain Missal (or attend Masses offered by such priests and bishops) even when the pope says no which violates the First Vatican Council:
- Wherefore we teach and declare that,
- by divine ordinance,
- the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
- this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
- episcopal and
- immediate.
- Both clergy and faithful,
- of whatever rite and dignity,
- both singly and collectively,
- are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
- not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
- but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.
- In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd [50] .
- This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. "
E
Eileen_T
Guest
Heresy is the Greek word [hairesis], the Biblical definition of which means, “choosing to depart from the truth.”
The cafetaria Catholics just don’t want to admit this is what they have done.
The cafetaria Catholics just don’t want to admit this is what they have done.
T
thistle
Guest
There is an interesting website: www.concernedcatholics.org
I took the following from it on cafeteria catholics.
QUOTE
Cafeteria Catholics use Vatican II as an excuse stating that things have changed in the Catholic faith and that it is their prerogative to do as they wish. Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith states clearly in the book “The Cardinal Ratzinger Report,” that it is absolutely incorrect to refer to Pre-Vatican Council II and Post-Vatican Council II, as if there were changes in the Church’s position in matters of faith and morals. The only changes in that respect have sprung from erroneous interpretations of the Council. Pope John Paul II stated in his talk to the Bishops in Los Angeles in 1987:
“It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church on a number of questions, notably sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage. Some are reported as not accepting the clear position on abortion. It has to be noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church’s moral teaching. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the magisterium is totally compatible with being a “good Catholic,” and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching of the Bishops in the United States and elsewhere.”
UNQUOTE
In short unless you believe and accept the teaching of the Catholic Church in its entirety then you are not a Catholic. The faith of cafeteria catholics can only be described at best as lukewarm. We should all pray for them to see the light and come back home.
I took the following from it on cafeteria catholics.
QUOTE
Cafeteria Catholics use Vatican II as an excuse stating that things have changed in the Catholic faith and that it is their prerogative to do as they wish. Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith states clearly in the book “The Cardinal Ratzinger Report,” that it is absolutely incorrect to refer to Pre-Vatican Council II and Post-Vatican Council II, as if there were changes in the Church’s position in matters of faith and morals. The only changes in that respect have sprung from erroneous interpretations of the Council. Pope John Paul II stated in his talk to the Bishops in Los Angeles in 1987:
“It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church on a number of questions, notably sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage. Some are reported as not accepting the clear position on abortion. It has to be noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church’s moral teaching. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the magisterium is totally compatible with being a “good Catholic,” and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching of the Bishops in the United States and elsewhere.”
UNQUOTE
In short unless you believe and accept the teaching of the Catholic Church in its entirety then you are not a Catholic. The faith of cafeteria catholics can only be described at best as lukewarm. We should all pray for them to see the light and come back home.
P
Penny_Plain
Guest
That’s not what your quote says. It’s contrary to doctrine. And … it’s nonsense.
T
thistle
Guest
Penny Plain:
What is contrary to Doctrine?
T
thistle
Guest
Penny Plain:
Also what is nonsense? The two paragrapghs quoted or my remarks about cafeteria catholics being lukewarm. Thats my own words for what the Pope said. You cannot be a good Catholic if you don’t accept ALL the teachings of the Church.
I pressed the submit button too quickly. Let me expand on my question to your comment that the quote is contrary to Doctrine. How can it be contrary to Doctrine when the first paragraph was written by Pope Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger) and the second paragraph was written Pope John Paul II. Are you saying they don’t know the Church Doctrine better than you?
Also what is nonsense? The two paragrapghs quoted or my remarks about cafeteria catholics being lukewarm. Thats my own words for what the Pope said. You cannot be a good Catholic if you don’t accept ALL the teachings of the Church.
F
fix
Guest
N
ncjohn
Guest
While not wanting to get into the specifics of this fray one way or another, if you believe what you wrote here, then you are a Cafeteria Catholic as you are not accepting all the teachings of the Church.
My understanding is that someone who has been baptized as a Catholic is objectively Catholic, whatever their beliefs or practices, even if they were to practice a non-Christian religion. That is the teaching of the Church.
You are free to classify them as non-practicing Catholics or lukewarm Catholics if you feel a need to apply labels, but they are just as much Catholic objectively as the Pope.
Also, there are many teachings of the Church that are open to debate and disagreement that wouldn’t even put one in one of the classifications above. While much teaching has been made definitively, not all has, and many areas have room for disagreement, for example capital punishment. As such, it would appear that even qualified to say that one is not a “good” Catholic if they don’t accept all church teaching, the statement would not be correct. I have no problem with the quote as it stood, only with the paraphrasing of it.
I am not saying any of this to be personally critical of anyone, but this sort of terminology gets thrown around a lot, causing a lot of “heat without light” so it is best left out to encourage discussion based on the merits.
Peace,
T
thistle
Guest
You are correct. I simply exaggerated to make a point. What both Popes said really required no embellishment from me as what they said was clear enough that cafeteria catholics can understand the point.
My understanding of cafeteria catholics, though, from what I’ve read in different websites is that they (but not necessary all of them) disagree with the Church on a broad range of things.
My own personal view is that as Catholics we must accept all the Church teachings and we should not simply accept what is easy and convenient to us and reject what we don’t like. Jesus told us to take up our cross and follow him. He did not say it would be an easy road to travel.
N
ncjohn
Guest
I don’t disagree with you there at all, but I can say this from my experience with “Cafeteria Catholics:” THEY are not a homogeneous group that you can lump together.
There are those at one end of the spectrum who reject teachings of the church, knowingly and without caring, with or without knowledge of why the teachings exist to begin with. This may be a result of lack of catechesis, lack of understanding of what the teaching actually means or why, bad personal experience of a multitude of types, or any other number of reasons. There are those who have examined the teachings thoroughly and either reject or struggle with them for a multitude of reasons. There are those who are just flat out unfamiliar with the teachings and express opinions as to what they think the teachings are if someone asks them, and those who don’t know and don’t care at all. Before “classifying” them or trying to work with them, you really need to know what their situation is if you want to have a clue how to approach it. Additionally, as I’ve said in other places, if you’re going to take their eternal souls in your hands, it had better be both with a total love of God and with a total sincere concern for their wellbeing as a child of that God.
I am fully aware that the Church calls us to full assent based on faith; I am also fully aware that for numerous reasons, including the Church’s own history of wrongfully condemning people, or even being a postion of having been personally hurt by the Church, that many are not able to put their full faith in the Church. I have family members and friends who fall into those categories.
In the gospel, Jesus poses the question of which is better, the person who agrees to do the will of the master and then doesn’t, or the one who says no and then does it anyway. I would re-pose that question in a slightly different form: Which is better, one who believes they know the master’s will and doesn’t do it, or one who rejects what they’ve been told but does their best to live up to what they understand the master to really mean?
I don’t pretend to know how God will judge us in the end, as he continually shows that he does not think like we do, but my logical mind says that we are required to live up to what we profess to believe and that that is how we will be judged. To me, that is the only way to justify the Church’s teaching that “good” Buddhists or “good” Muslims can be saved–that we are judged on our desire to do God’s will as we understand it.
Thus, it becomes quite dangerous in classifying the “Cafeteria Catholic” who may be doing a much better job of living what they perceive God’s will to be, especially if we are failing to live what we profess to believe. That to me is what the “removing the beam from my eye before attempting to remove the splinter from my brother’s eye” is really all about.
Since we all fail and fall short of the glory of God, I don’t believe we’re doing ourselves or anyone else any service in trying to compare whose sin is “greater” nor do I believe that either Church teaching or scripture will defend that idea.
Peace,
P
Penny_Plain
Guest
John: You get it. Thanks for expressing it so eloquently. There are teachings of the Church – the Church into which I was baptized, the Church in which I was raised, and the Church in which I am raising my children – that I cannot accept in good conscience. Some of them affect me directly; others do not.
The point is this, I think. I believe that Jesus established the Catholic Church. I don’t know if He established others or not. I think many of the things that we dispute with our Protestant bretheren really don’t matter very much. I also think that many of the things we dispute with our other bretheren --Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and everyone else really may not matter very much to God either.
The point is this: I think that John is right and that God calls us to live according to our consciences. Many are comfortable with delegating the functions of conscience to an authority, whether that authority is the Magisterium, the Talmud, or the Imam who lives down the street.
I can’t do that. God gave me an individual conscience, and I think He did that because he expects me to use it. I fully expect to be called to account for my errors in doing so, but I would rather make my own mistakes than try to defend myself before the Throne by saying, “Yeah, it felt wrong to me, but the Magisterium SAID…” That never worked when I was a kid (“Daddy, Jan SAID it was okay…”), and I can’t imagine it working now.
The Catholic Church does many things right, far more than the world gives it credit for. It also has done some things wrong, and it will continue to do so because it is a human institution full of fallible human beings. One of the things it has done wrong, in my view, (perhaps the biggest thing) is to claim that it is always right on matters of faith and morals.
Some Catholics compound that error by going from that position to the position that full agreement (or “assent,” whatever that means) is necessary for a person to be Catholic at all. Even the Church does not make that claim, and it gets my hackles up. Who are they to tell me that I am not a Catholic because (chooses example at random) I believe that gays should be able to marry in civil ceremonies?
Please.
I am sure that someone will speculate on my reasons for that position, whether openly or in private. Let me answer a few of the accusations in advance. I am a married woman with three children who loves her husband and has no desire to leave him for another man, and certainly not for a woman. I grew up in a Catholic family. I was educated in a Catholic grade school and a Catholic high school (neither in North American nor Europe, and no, I’m not telling where). I know the Church’s teachings on homosexuality. I do not own a copy of the catechism, but I know where to find it on-line, and sometimes I consult it. I have prayed about this matter. I have discussed it with wiser Catholics than I, as well as wise people of other faiths.
In this matter, I am not ignorant. I am not poorly educated. I am not motivated by my own base desires. I have studied the matter. I have prayed on it. I have consulted. My conscience says the Church’s teaching is wrong, and so I disagree with it. What would you have me do?
The views of “cafeteria Catholicism” expressed by folks like Eileen, MiJoy, and TNT bear no relationship to my religious path or that of many of the other so-called “cafeteria Catholics” that I know. If you want to understand us, you’re going to have to get past your contempt for us first.
If you don’t want to understand us, that’s fine, too. I am not asking for your understanding; I am asking only that you realize that your Church may be a little bigger than you think because of the people like me that you hold in contempt. We’re here.
We’re not leaving.
The point is this, I think. I believe that Jesus established the Catholic Church. I don’t know if He established others or not. I think many of the things that we dispute with our Protestant bretheren really don’t matter very much. I also think that many of the things we dispute with our other bretheren --Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and everyone else really may not matter very much to God either.
The point is this: I think that John is right and that God calls us to live according to our consciences. Many are comfortable with delegating the functions of conscience to an authority, whether that authority is the Magisterium, the Talmud, or the Imam who lives down the street.
I can’t do that. God gave me an individual conscience, and I think He did that because he expects me to use it. I fully expect to be called to account for my errors in doing so, but I would rather make my own mistakes than try to defend myself before the Throne by saying, “Yeah, it felt wrong to me, but the Magisterium SAID…” That never worked when I was a kid (“Daddy, Jan SAID it was okay…”), and I can’t imagine it working now.
The Catholic Church does many things right, far more than the world gives it credit for. It also has done some things wrong, and it will continue to do so because it is a human institution full of fallible human beings. One of the things it has done wrong, in my view, (perhaps the biggest thing) is to claim that it is always right on matters of faith and morals.
Some Catholics compound that error by going from that position to the position that full agreement (or “assent,” whatever that means) is necessary for a person to be Catholic at all. Even the Church does not make that claim, and it gets my hackles up. Who are they to tell me that I am not a Catholic because (chooses example at random) I believe that gays should be able to marry in civil ceremonies?
Please.
I am sure that someone will speculate on my reasons for that position, whether openly or in private. Let me answer a few of the accusations in advance. I am a married woman with three children who loves her husband and has no desire to leave him for another man, and certainly not for a woman. I grew up in a Catholic family. I was educated in a Catholic grade school and a Catholic high school (neither in North American nor Europe, and no, I’m not telling where). I know the Church’s teachings on homosexuality. I do not own a copy of the catechism, but I know where to find it on-line, and sometimes I consult it. I have prayed about this matter. I have discussed it with wiser Catholics than I, as well as wise people of other faiths.
In this matter, I am not ignorant. I am not poorly educated. I am not motivated by my own base desires. I have studied the matter. I have prayed on it. I have consulted. My conscience says the Church’s teaching is wrong, and so I disagree with it. What would you have me do?
The views of “cafeteria Catholicism” expressed by folks like Eileen, MiJoy, and TNT bear no relationship to my religious path or that of many of the other so-called “cafeteria Catholics” that I know. If you want to understand us, you’re going to have to get past your contempt for us first.
If you don’t want to understand us, that’s fine, too. I am not asking for your understanding; I am asking only that you realize that your Church may be a little bigger than you think because of the people like me that you hold in contempt. We’re here.
We’re not leaving.
F
fix
Guest
Some of this is really a matter of semantics. Through baptism and confirmation our souls are ontologically changed. That cannot be erased. However, rejecting the authority of the Pope is rejecting the faith. The reasons, and degree of cuplability, may vary.
In the end, this is a very serious issue and all too common.
M
Mijoy2
Guest
Penny Plain:
As I understand it there are Dogma we *must *believe as Catholics. Although in many controversial areas the church does not necessarily maintain a definative stand. On these issues the Catholic is certainly called upon to use her/his conscience as a guide.
Part of the definition of being a Catholic is to accept the authority of the church on matters where the Church does indeed take a stand. We can, and I suppose should, question the rightness of these dogma but we cannot deliberatly deny or not be obiedient to these dogma and still call ourselves in communion with the Church. I suppose out of ignorance we can. But to be Catholic is to accept Catholicism.
It’s really a simple and elementary concept. This does not imply a Catholic can not disagree with Catholic teaching. She/He ceratinly can. However the educated Catholic must accept the teaching.
Penny,
As I understand it there are Dogma we *must *believe as Catholics. Although in many controversial areas the church does not necessarily maintain a definative stand. On these issues the Catholic is certainly called upon to use her/his conscience as a guide.
Part of the definition of being a Catholic is to accept the authority of the church on matters where the Church does indeed take a stand. We can, and I suppose should, question the rightness of these dogma but we cannot deliberatly deny or not be obiedient to these dogma and still call ourselves in communion with the Church. I suppose out of ignorance we can. But to be Catholic is to accept Catholicism.
It’s really a simple and elementary concept. This does not imply a Catholic can not disagree with Catholic teaching. She/He ceratinly can. However the educated Catholic must accept the teaching.
- Status