Picking and choosing what you follow? Why?

[KathleenElsie]

In the few years I have been following CAF I have observed that both the ultra-conservatives and the ultra-progressives each pick and choose what they think they must follow in Church teaching.

So is the cafeteria style of pick and choose alive and well in both extremes? Or is it alive and well through the entire Catholic Church?

I am someone that is more comfortable with the EF of the Mass. That being said I go mostly to the OF as that is what is available in my parish. I believe that both are valid as are the other changes made since 1962. I prefer the old but will follow what Holy Mother Church has decided is proper for now.

I am the odd person in our parish as I cover for Mass.

About 25% of us receive on the tung and there is no problem with doing both. In fact when I have a cold I will receive in the hand just so the priest does not spread my germs . But this is the exception.

I also believe that all the arguing is silly. We are one Holy Catholic Church and need to remember this fact.

 

[catharina]

In the few years I have been following CAF I have observed that both the ultra-conservatives and the ultra-progressives each pick and choose what they think they must follow in Church teaching.

So is the cafeteria style of pick and choose alive and well in both extremes? Or is it alive and well through the entire Catholic Church?

I am someone that is more comfortable with the EF of the Mass. That being said I go mostly to the OF as that is what is available in my parish. I believe that both are valid as are the other changes made since 1962. I prefer the old but will follow what Holy Mother Church has decided is proper for now.

I am the odd person in our parish as I cover for Mass.

About 25% of us receive on the tung and there is no problem with doing both. In fact when I have a cold I will receive in the hand just so the priest does not spread my germs . But this is the exception.

I also believe that all the arguing is silly. We are one Holy Catholic Church and need to remember this fact.

Yes, KE, I do believe that the “ultra” folks do pick and choose on a daily basis as to what’s “believable/supportable” in their “opinion.” In fact, I suggested that this very thing is really THE crisis in the Church: extremists who forego “one in the Spirit” to drum up support for their own vested interests. One group denies Papal authority entirely to the point of becoming deniers of the Pope’s actual existence; the other denies the holiness and proper authority of Popes and bishops by mocking them as irrelevant old men. Either way, it is God Who is insulted.

You and I were raised within a Church (childhood, young adults) that emphasized the leadership of the Pope as an absolute to the Catholic faith. No doubt, this helped us think clearly in a nation that is (and has always been) heavily Protestant. It’s very difficult and very saddening to hear Catholics at the extremes sounding like Protestants.

 

[michaeldaniels]

It has been my experience that what you call ultra-conservatives are just very faithful and devout Catholics trying to hold fast to traditions and practices that were common place for several hundred years. We do not pick and choose what Church teachings to follow…we adhere to all of the Church’s teachings and are in complete union with The Holy See…we do however indulge ourselves when permitted…for instance, I believe both the Tridentine Mass and the Novus Ordo are completely valid…however, since I can freely choose which one I would rather attend, I choose the Tridentine…however, I still find myself at the Novus Ordo quite often. Secondly, the Church has relaxed the rules regarding fast and abstinence, however the old rules have never been abrogated, therefore I choose to follow them…etc…on the other hand, the progressives keep trying to invent things and inject them into the Mass that do not belong and were never approved…they have simply just become acceptable because so many Catholics today, due to poor catechesis, just allow them to happen and even join in on it.

In the few years I have been following CAF I have observed that both the ultra-conservatives and the ultra-progressives each pick and choose what they think they must follow in Church teaching.

So is the cafeteria style of pick and choose alive and well in both extremes? Or is it alive and well through the entire Catholic Church?

I am someone that is more comfortable with the EF of the Mass. That being said I go mostly to the OF as that is what is available in my parish. I believe that both are valid as are the other changes made since 1962. I prefer the old but will follow what Holy Mother Church has decided is proper for now.

I am the odd person in our parish as I cover for Mass.

About 25% of us receive on the tung and there is no problem with doing both. In fact when I have a cold I will receive in the hand just so the priest does not spread my germs . But this is the exception.

I also believe that all the arguing is silly. We are one Holy Catholic Church and need to remember this fact.

 

[KathleenElsie]

It has been my experience that what you call ultra-conservatives are just very faithful and devout Catholics trying to hold fast to traditions and practices that were common place for several hundred years. We do not pick and choose what Church teachings to follow…we adhere to all of the Church’s teachings and are in complete union with The Holy See…we do however indulge ourselves when permitted…for instance, I believe both the Tridentine Mass and the Novus Ordo are completely valid…however, since I can freely choose which one I would rather attend, I choose the Tridentine…however, I still find myself at the Novus Ordo quite often. Secondly, the Church has relaxed the rules regarding fast and abstinence, however the old rules have never been abrogated, therefore I choose to follow them…etc…on the other hand, the progressives keep trying to invent things and inject them into the Mass that do not belong and were never approved…they have simply just become acceptable because so many Catholics today, due to poor catechesis, just allow them to happen and even join in on it.

I fall into the same situation that you do. When I say ultra-conservatives I am referring to those that don’t or refuse to follow teaching from Holy Mother Church after some date in time they chose.

 

[michaeldaniels]

Oh…I hear you…completely understand

I fall into the same situation that you do. When I say ultra-conservatives I am referring to those that don’t or refuse to follow teaching from Holy Mother Church after some date in time they chose.

 

[kleary]

In the few years I have been following CAF I have observed that both the ultra-conservatives and the ultra-progressives each pick and choose what they think they must follow in Church teaching.

So is the cafeteria style of pick and choose alive and well in both extremes? Or is it alive and well through the entire Catholic Church?

I am someone that is more comfortable with the EF of the Mass. That being said I go mostly to the OF as that is what is available in my parish. I believe that both are valid as are the other changes made since 1962. I prefer the old but will follow what Holy Mother Church has decided is proper for now.

I am the odd person in our parish as I cover for Mass.

About 25% of us receive on the tung and there is no problem with doing both. In fact when I have a cold I will receive in the hand just so the priest does not spread my germs . But this is the exception.

I also believe that all the arguing is silly. We are one Holy Catholic Church and need to remember this fact.

This is totally out of line. “Ultra Traditionalists” DO NOT pick and choose the “doctrines” that a Catholic must believe in order to be a Catholic. If they do happen to not believe something required for belief then they are excommunicated ipso facto- the same way a "liberal cafeteria “Catholic” would be.

I can dissagree with someone about communion in the hand, ext. mins of holy communion, mass facing the people- and still remain in the fold. This is quite the opposite to those cafeteria folks who do not believe in Purgatory, confession to a priest or Transubstantiation.

Ken

 

[catharina]

This is totally out of line. “Ultra Traditionalists” DO NOT pick and choose the “doctrines” that a Catholic must believe in order to be a Catholic. If they do happen to not believe something required for belief then they are excommunicated ipso facto- the same way a "liberal cafeteria “Catholic” would be.

I can dissagree with someone about communion in the hand, ext. mins of holy communion, mass facing the people- and still remain in the fold. This is quite the opposite to those cafeteria folks who do not believe in Purgatory, confession to a priest or Transubstantiation.

Ken

Both Kathleen Elise and I have been exposed to a number of folks on this site who do indeed claim to be “Traditionalists” while also claiming to have separated themselves from Rome (among other things). Perhaps your own experience has not included contact with them.

 

[ac_claire]

This is totally out of line. “Ultra Traditionalists” DO NOT pick and choose the “doctrines” that a Catholic must believe in order to be a Catholic. If they do happen to not believe something required for belief then they are excommunicated ipso facto- the same way a "liberal cafeteria “Catholic” would be.

I can dissagree with someone about communion in the hand, ext. mins of holy communion, mass facing the people- and still remain in the fold. This is quite the opposite to those cafeteria folks who do not believe in Purgatory, confession to a priest or Transubstantiation.

I think maybe the OP is referring to sedevacantists and the SSPX, as well as the Catholics who completely reject Vatican II (the council itself, not just the supposed “spirit of…”) and the new Catechism. As reflected in some recent activity on these boards.

 

[Lhhs]

So is the cafeteria style of pick and choose alive and well in both extremes? Or is it alive and well through the entire Catholic Church? .

Well it’s a big chruch - lots of humans populate it

There are probably some of all kinds in all groups, however you wish to designate categories. .

 

[latinmasslover]

I think maybe the OP is referring to sedevacantists and the SSPX, as well as the Catholics who completely reject Vatican II (the council itself, not just the supposed “spirit of…”) and the new Catechism. As reflected in some recent activity on these boards.

Whoa, SSPX does not belong there. Sedevacantists pick and choose and elect their own popes. SSPX is a bit different. They disagree, but do not deny validity, unlike sedevacantists.

 

[Thomas58]

It seems that most are laying the charge of picking and choosing one’s own individual beliefs on the Traditionalists and “ulta-Traditionalists”.

I would recommend a little book called the Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II, by Kenneth C. Jones, a Catholic lawyer. Also a book titled American Catholics Today, Rowman & Littlefield, 2007. In them you will find the trends of adherence of Catholic doctrine by self-identified mainstream (not traditionalists, not SSPX, not “ultra-Traditionalists”) Catholics in the Church today.

A poll by the National Catholic Reporter shows that 77 percent believe a person can be a good Catholic without going to Mass every Sunday.

65 percent believe good Catholics can divorce and remarry [without an annulment].

53 percent believe Catholics can have abortions and remain in good standing.

Only 10 percent of lay religion teachers accept Church teaching on artificial birth control, according to a 2000 University of Notre Dame poll.

A New York Times/CBS poll revealed that 70 percent of Catholics age 18-44 believe the Eucharist is merely a ‘symbolic reminder’ of Jesus.”

The March 9, 2007 National Catholic Reporter (NCR) reported on two recent sociological surveys of Catholics.

One survey, conducted by Vincent Bolduc at St. Michael’s College in Colchester, Vermont, collected data on more than 1,600 students at five Catholic colleges. According to NCR, “Bolduc said young Catholic students he studied are steeped in a national culture that often regards the Catholic sexual prohibitions against premarital sex, artificial birth control, abortion, divorce, women priests and homosexual behavior as antiquated.”

They found that, among highly committed young Catholics, 62 percent support priestesses.

In part, this is a longitudinal study of pre-Vatican II Catholics (ages 65 and older), Vatican II Catholics (ages 45-64), post-Vatican II Catholics (ages 26-44), and Millennial Catholics (ages 18-25).

Those Catholics were asked to respond to this statement: “[You] can be a good Catholic without attending Mass every week.” Agree: Pre-Vatican II Catholics, 69 percent; post-Vatican II Catholics, 76 percent; Millennials, 95 percent.

“Individuals [as opposed to the Church hierarchy] have final say on abortion.” Agree: Pre-Vatican II Catholics, 31 percent; post-Vatican II Catholics, 44 percent; Millennials, 77 percent.

“[You] can be a good Catholic without obeying the church’s opposition to abortion.” Agree: Pre-Vatican II Catholics, 44 percent; post-Vatican II Catholics, 59 percent; Millennials, 89 percent.

“Catholicism contains a greater share of truth than other religions do.” Agree: Pre-Vatican II Catholics, 61 percent; Millennials, 44 percent. (No data on post-Vatican II Catholics given.) However, in the Bolduc survey, among college Millennials, only 19 percent agree.

In 2005, 43 percent of pre-Vatican II Catholics said they have a “high” commitment to the Catholic Church, 12 percent said they have a “low” commitment, and 46 percent a “medium” commitment. Seventeen percent of post-Vatican II Catholics said they have a “high” commitment to the Catholic Church, 16 percent said they have a “low” commitment, and 67 percent a “medium” commitment. Amazingly, zero percent of Millennial Catholics said they have a “high” commitment to the Catholic Church, 27 percent said they have a “low” commitment, and 73 percent a “medium” commitment.

This is the future of the Post Vatican II Church in America.

In Europe it is worse.

But, hey, there’s not a problem in the “New Springtime” of the Post Vatican II Church, right? Just keep telling yourself that the Emperor has on clothes.

Thomas

 

[Sure]

It seems that most are laying the charge of picking and choosing one’s own individual beliefs on the Traditionalists and “ulta-Traditionalists”.

I would recommend a little book called the Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II, by Kenneth C. Jones, a Catholic lawyer. Also a book titled American Catholics Today, Rowman & Littlefield, 2007. In them you will find the trends of adherence of Catholic doctrine by self-identified mainstream (not traditionalists, not SSPX, not “ultra-Traditionalists”) Catholics in the Church today.

A poll by the National Catholic Reporter shows that 77 percent believe a person can be a good Catholic without going to Mass every Sunday.

65 percent believe good Catholics can divorce and remarry [without an annulment].

53 percent believe Catholics can have abortions and remain in good standing.

Only 10 percent of lay religion teachers accept Church teaching on artificial birth control, according to a 2000 University of Notre Dame poll.

A New York Times/CBS poll revealed that 70 percent of Catholics age 18-44 believe the Eucharist is merely a ‘symbolic reminder’ of Jesus.”

The March 9, 2007 National Catholic Reporter (NCR) reported on two recent sociological surveys of Catholics.

One survey, conducted by Vincent Bolduc at St. Michael’s College in Colchester, Vermont, collected data on more than 1,600 students at five Catholic colleges. According to NCR, “Bolduc said young Catholic students he studied are steeped in a national culture that often regards the Catholic sexual prohibitions against premarital sex, artificial birth control, abortion, divorce, women priests and homosexual behavior as antiquated.”

They found that, among highly committed young Catholics, 62 percent support priestesses.

In part, this is a longitudinal study of pre-Vatican II Catholics (ages 65 and older), Vatican II Catholics (ages 45-64), post-Vatican II Catholics (ages 26-44), and Millennial Catholics (ages 18-25).

Those Catholics were asked to respond to this statement: “[You] can be a good Catholic without attending Mass every week.” Agree: Pre-Vatican II Catholics, 69 percent; post-Vatican II Catholics, 76 percent; Millennials, 95 percent.

“Individuals [as opposed to the Church hierarchy] have final say on abortion.” Agree: Pre-Vatican II Catholics, 31 percent; post-Vatican II Catholics, 44 percent; Millennials, 77 percent.

“[You] can be a good Catholic without obeying the church’s opposition to abortion.” Agree: Pre-Vatican II Catholics, 44 percent; post-Vatican II Catholics, 59 percent; Millennials, 89 percent.

“Catholicism contains a greater share of truth than other religions do.” Agree: Pre-Vatican II Catholics, 61 percent; Millennials, 44 percent. (No data on post-Vatican II Catholics given.) However, in the Bolduc survey, among college Millennials, only 19 percent agree.

In 2005, 43 percent of pre-Vatican II Catholics said they have a “high” commitment to the Catholic Church, 12 percent said they have a “low” commitment, and 46 percent a “medium” commitment. Seventeen percent of post-Vatican II Catholics said they have a “high” commitment to the Catholic Church, 16 percent said they have a “low” commitment, and 67 percent a “medium” commitment. Amazingly, zero percent of Millennial Catholics said they have a “high” commitment to the Catholic Church, 27 percent said they have a “low” commitment, and 73 percent a “medium” commitment.

This is the future of the Post Vatican II Church in America.

In Europe it is worse.

But, hey, there’s not a problem in the “New Springtime” of the Post Vatican II Church, right? Just keep telling yourself that the Emperor has on clothes.

Thomas

All of that was caused by poor catechesis. Nowhere in Vatican II did the Council fathers call for weakened catechesis. Secular materialist society claimed that religious practice was not important and sadly, many Catholics bought in. But Vatican II did not cause those Catholics to buy in.

 

[Thomas58]

From the same book - “Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II”, by Kenneth C. Jones, a Catholic attorney and father of seven children.

Priests. After skyrocketing… to 58,000 in 1965, the number of priests in the United States dropped to 45,000 in 2002. By 2020, there will be about 31,000 priests — and only 15,000 will be under the age of 70.

Ordinations. In 1965 there were 1,575 ordinations to the priesthood, in 2002 there were 450, a decline of 350 percent.”

Priestless parishes. About 1 percent of parishes, 549, were without a resident priest in 1965. In 2002 there were 2,928 priestless parishes, about 15 percent of U.S. parishes. By 2020, a quarter of all parishes, 4,656, will have no priest.”

Seminarians. Between 1965 and 2002, the number of seminarians dropped from 49,000 to 4,700 — a 90 percent decrease…. There were 596 seminaries in 1965, and only 200 in 2002.”

Sisters. 180,000 sisters were the backbone of the Catholic education and health systems in 1965. In 2002, there were 75,000 sisters, with an average age of 68…. In 1965, 104,000 sisters were teaching, while in 2002 there were only 8,200 teachers.”

Religious Orders. The religious orders will soon be virtually non-existent in the United States. For example, in 1965 there were 5,277 Jesuit priests and 3,559 seminarians; in 2000 there were 3,172 priests and 389 seminarians…. Every major religious order in the United States mirrors these statistics.”

High Schools. Between 1965 and 2002 the number of diocesan high schools fell from 1,556 to 786. At the same time the number of students dropped from almost 700,000 to 386,000.”

Parochial Grade Schools. There were 10,503 parochial grade schools in 1965 and 6,623 in 2002. The number of students went from 4.5 million to 1.9 million.”

“Sacramental Life.… In 1965 there were 126,000 adult baptisms — converts — in 2002 there 80,000. In 1965 there were 352,000 Catholic marriages, in 2002 there were 256,000. In 1968 there were 338 annulments, in 2002 there were 50,000.”

Mass attendance. A 1958 Gallup poll reported that 74 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1958. A 1994 University of Notre Dame study found that the attendance rate was 26.6 percent. A more recent study by Fordham University professor James Lothian concluded that 65 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1965, while the rate dropped to 25 percent in 2000.”

But of course none of this was caused by Vatican II. It’s just a coincidence.

Thomas

 

[Graing]

Thomas,

Is this more a commentary on the state that the USCCB was in at and after Vatican II? I do believe that Pope John Paul II confided that he felt he should have been more of a disciplinarian.

Regardless of that trial, I think Pope Benedict XVI has had a difficult path laid out for him but appears to be doing a great job. Based on what I have seen and heard from our youth, and the number of new seminarians, and the fact that our leaders aren’t afraid to eschew political correctness to present the truth of the Church (not in all cases I’ll grant you, but it’s getting a lot better) - I really do think we are entering a springtime for the Church.

 

[Thomas58]

Craig,
I am glad that you are so optimistic for the future, but with all do respect after reading the results of these surveys, I can’t really share in that optimism. They show a steady progressive erosion in fundamental Catholic belief.

our leaders aren’t afraid to eschew political correctness to present the truth of the Church

As far as our leaders eschewing political correctness, again I must take exception to that as well. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) approved a new document on November 14, 2007, to guide Catholic voters in the upcoming elections. In this document they place racism, immigration policy, and lack of health on the same immoral plane as the abortion, the death penalty, unjust war, and war crimes, which involve the direct taking of life. The bishops’ inclusion of racism, immigration policy and health care only serves to dilute the moral imperative to defend human life.

The bishops even go so far as to say, “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil such as abortion or racism…” (#34). The bishops are drawing an equivalence between abortion, the violation of the fundamental right to life that has resulted in over 50 million abortions in the U.S. since 1973, and racism, a term they neglect to define and which really isn’t a major theme in this election.

Political correctness abounds.

Thomas

 

[KathleenElsie]

I think maybe the OP is referring to sedevacantists and the SSPX, as well as the Catholics who completely reject Vatican II (the council itself, not just the supposed “spirit of…”) and the new Catechism. As reflected in some recent activity on these boards.

Thank you. The upturn in posts about the SSPX is what made me post this thread. See I think ultra-traditionalists are not helping turn the Church back to its roots. I believe they are placing many roadblocks to the return of those that felt disenfranchised after Vatican II’s poorly explained changes. The “spirit of Vat II” is not what Vatican II was all about. But it became in many cases a “free for all” and a “do what feels good” confusion of our Faith.

 

[catharina]

Thank you. The upturn in posts about the SSPX is what made me post this thread. See I think ultra-traditionalists are not helping turn the Church back to its roots. I believe they are placing many roadblocks to the return of those that felt disenfranchised after Vatican II’s poorly explained changes. The “spirit of Vat II” is not what Vatican II was all about. But it became in many cases a “free for all” and a “do what feels good” confusion of our Faith.

KE, glad you checked back in - and I agree with you. It seems that many ultras are doing no good in helping bring about modification of changes - esp where things went to that free-for-all place. I consider myself very much a tradiitionalist but in no way do I match up with the shared demands of so many who call themsleves Traditionalists on this site. If I were much younger I’d have almost certainly been scandalized by the types of things that have been said, especially about Church Teachings and some of our Popes.

 

[KathleenElsie]

KE, glad you checked back in - and I agree with you. It seems that many ultras are doing no good in helping bring about modification of changes - esp where things went to that free-for-all place. I consider myself very much a tradiitionalist but in no way do I match up with the shared demands of so many who call themsleves Traditionalists on this site. If I were much younger I’d have almost certainly been scandalized by the types of things that have been said, especially about Church Teachings and some of our Popes.

So true. I and my family also consider ourselves traditional and Conservative. We home school, love the EF Mass and try with Gods grace to follow the teachings of Holy Mother Church faithfully. But the reforms that still need to be made must be prayed about and fought over.

 

[catharina]

So true. I and my family also consider ourselves traditional and Conservative. We home school, love the EF Mass and try with Gods grace to follow the teachings of Holy Mother Church faithfully. But the reforms that still need to be made must be prayed about and fought over.

Well, I’d like to skip the fighting as much as possible and I’m sure you would too. It would be wonderful if everyone said “Thanks be to God!” or “Good news” or “Deo gratias!” over such things as the extension of the TLM rather than “Hey, we won.”

(Really - yuck.)

 

[KathleenElsie]

Well, I’d like to skip the fighting as much as possible and I’m sure you would too. It would be wonderful if everyone said “Thanks be to God!” or “Good news” or “Deo gratias!” over such things as the extension of the TLM rather than “Hey, we won.”

(Really - yuck.)