Should "Cafeteria Catholics" just become Protestant?

[Incomplete]

and even if 20% of Catholics believe that the Magisterium is right…it doesn’t make it so.

and so your interpretation tells you that Jesus’s promise was to the 20% and not the 80%

I would find this a lot easier to swallow if the official teaching of the CC hadn’t “developed” so much over the centuries.

To keep things in context…

Your comment about even if 20% of the Catholics believe the Magisterium is right doesn’t make it so, you’re correct about that. But that wasn’t my point. I was answering the comment that if 80% disagree with the magisterium, then the Church should change it’s teachings. My point was that an argument to change teachings based on percentages isn’t a good argument. I would also agree that you shouldn’t just believe the Magisterium because of statistics, either. Stats have nothing to do with my trust in the Church.

I also am not interpreting that Jesus only promised 20%. My comment there was that Jesus sent the Spirit to lead us to ALL truth. And that promise is, in fact, to everybody. But there has to be a deposit of truth, then, because it can’t just be in the 80% opinion that the Church is wrong…because even those 80% can’t agree on everything. And Jesus said ALL truth.

As far as developing doctrine, that is, in fact, what makes things so much easier for me to believe. Obviously to you, “developing” means changing. But I don’t see that at all. Growth and change are not the same things. In fact, doctrinal development is in the Bible as well.

 

[Incomplete]

And then I know one who paid the cash and waited six months.

Which means nothing. My husband went through the process as well. He paid cash and waited two years. Some are more complicated than others; some dioceses take longer than others.

 

[4Squarebaby]

I know a person who got an anmullment from the Church. She had 2 Children. She stayed married until the Children were 18 and then got an annulment. I use this story often because I believe it shows a very excellent point. On the outside they wree the perfect couple.She got married young and pregnant young.

Well after her 2 kids her husband admitted he was gay. She did not leave for the sake of the Children, back then it was not as acceptable as today. Then she left when they were of age to go to college and understand.

Now do you feel that in the eyes of God this man could and did live in a marriage according to the law of Christ? Do you believe that is is capable of loving her when women do not attract him physically? ANd do you feel she ever had a true marriage in any sense of the word marriage?

Now do you feel the Church should had considered this a valid marriage? I am asking your opinion? Mind you she had no clue before the Children. She was very young at time as we he.

How is it not a marriage because he found another man after 20 years but is a marriage if he found another woman after 20 years?

 

[Alexander_Roman]

How is it not a marriage because he found another man after 20 years but is a marriage if he found another woman after 20 years?

Now that is a very good point . . .

But I promised to be silent . . .

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I know a person who got an anmullment from the Church. She had 2 Children. She stayed married until the Children were 18 and then got an annulment. I use this story often because I believe it shows a very excellent point. On the outside they wree the perfect couple.She got married young and pregnant young.

Well after her 2 kids her husband admitted he was gay. She did not leave for the sake of the Children, back then it was not as acceptable as today. Then she left when they were of age to go to college and understand.

Now do you feel that in the eyes of God this man could and did live in a marriage according to the law of Christ? Do you believe that is is capable of loving her when women do not attract him physically? ANd do you feel she ever had a true marriage in any sense of the word marriage?

Now do you feel the Church should had considered this a valid marriage? I am asking your opinion? Mind you she had no clue before the Children. She was very young at time as we he.

Please, I’m not saying that annulments/church divorces are not the “right thing to do” in specific circumstances!

I’ve never said that!

I won’t comment further on the annulment process since I’ve promised to shut up.

Alex

 

[Incomplete]

How is it not a marriage because he found another man after 20 years but is a marriage if he found another woman after 20 years?

Because he didn’t represent who he was honestly.

 

[Rence]

98% of Catholic women use ABC. Many Catholics are not anti gay marriage. Many Catholics do not agree with the teachings of the CC, but b/c they were raised Catholic, they remain Catholic.

Shouldn’t they just become Protestant instead? Or should they remain Catholic despite their belief that the CC is outdated.

btw…I am not talking about abortion here. Please don’t bring this up. Every woman I know that fits the description of Cafeteria Catholic is very anti-abortion.

Well, the problem is that “indelible mark” on the soul made when one is Baptised in the Church. If the Church considers one to be Catholic regardless of what that person thinks, just because they were baptised, then why should/would a dissent Catholic leave? They can continue to do as they please, since the Church considers them forever Catholic anyway. Maybe a solution to this problem would be to stop having infant baptism, and limit baptism to consenting adults? Not that I’m against infant baptism, because I’m not. But when I read about how hard it is for someone to convert to the Catholic Church, and how much they have to do through to get baptised, I think that maybe the problems the Church is having with compliance from it’s members is really kinda sorta their own fault? Because they baptise people who have not freely consented to be baptised and then expect these people, baptised without a choice, to submit to the rules of the Church. Obviously many people don’t consent and don’t submit. But just because the Church compells them to obey, doesn’t mean they feel compelled to obey. After all, the choice to be Catholic wasn’t made by them to begin with. So I feel that the only resolution is to have patience with cafeteria catholics and help them on their journey towards understanding and compliance, however long that takes. They’re not going to become protestant just because other Catholics don’t find them worthy to be called Catholic anymore. After all, the Church says that’s not possible to begin with - due to that indelible mark. The Church still regards those who convert to other religions “Catholic”.

 

[rinnie]

How is it not a marriage because he found another man after 20 years but is a marriage if he found another woman after 20 years?

Simple he was not capable of making a commitment at the time of the marriage. He should have told her he could not commit to something that was impossible for him.

 

[novusCatholic]

… if 80% of Catholics think that the Pope is “behind the times” or “outdated”, then perhaps it is time for the church to re-evaluate it’s stance on things like birth control…

At one point, there were only the twelve Apostles who accepted Christ’s teachings. I’ll side with the 20% who still do.

 

[rinnie]

Please, I’m not saying that annulments/church divorces are not the “right thing to do” in specific circumstances!

I’ve never said that!

I won’t comment further on the annulment process since I’ve promised to shut up.

Alex

And I am saying according to the word of God Church DIVORCES are the wrong thing to do. Not accepted in the RCC.

The first line in marriage is to promise to love honor and obey how can that be possible if you are not attracted to the opposite sex?

 

[Peepers]

It is interesting to ponder the intersection of the Church and society. Spain and Italy are countries where the vast majority of the population profess Catholicism, and yet their governments diverge widely from Church doctrine. Does anyone have figures which show the actual numbers of annulments in the US over the years, as a percentage of legal divorces? As I learn more about Catholicism, the nagging question for me is whether there is a true unchanging moral standard, or whether the Church changes its standards as society and economic realities change. I am still forming my opinion on this, and I have read learned and convincing arguments advocating opposite opinions, by sincere Catholics, who seem to be asking the same question that I am asking. The “hardliners” will say that the Church is morally static, other than gaining improved understanding over time. The “reformists” seem to be saying that the Church must modify its views, or lose its relevancy to the majority of the faithful. I must admit that I find great resonance in the idea of an abiding moral standard. But in my personal life, I would prefer to see a more relative moral standard. I am trying to navigate this dichotomy. Sometimes when I share the details of that struggle, I have been personally attacked on this site. I don’t take that personally, as much as I am amused and sometimes saddened by the immaturity of the attacker(s).

Is the original question at the heart of the reform movement in any religion? Where is that line between upholding traditional teachings, and remaining relevant to current knowledge and current standards of social justice? These are not easy questions to answer. I see Catholics as being fortunate to have such a large and rich body of knowledge and centuries of experience debating these topics to draw on.

 

[Radical]

To keep things in context…

Your comment about even if 20% of the Catholics believe the Magisterium is right doesn’t make it so, you’re correct about that. But that wasn’t my point. I was answering the comment that if 80% disagree with the magisterium, then the Church should change it’s teachings. My point was that an argument to change teachings based on percentages isn’t a good argument. I would also agree that you shouldn’t just believe the Magisterium because of statistics, either. Stats have nothing to do with my trust in the Church.

understood and agreed

I also am not interpreting that Jesus only promised 20%. My comment there was that Jesus sent the Spirit to lead us to ALL truth. And that promise is, in fact, to everybody. But there has to be a deposit of truth,…

I guess the issue between us is whether that deposit (at this point in time) begins and ends with scripture

…then, because it can’t just be in the 80% opinion that the Church is wrong…because even those 80% can’t agree on everything. And Jesus said ALL truth.

he did, but Paul only saw dimly and even Christ himself didn’t know the date of his return…so there is some limitation to that “all”

As far as developing doctrine, that is, in fact, what makes things so much easier for me to believe. Obviously to you, “developing” means changing.

my study of history tells me that “change” would be the better term

But I don’t see that at all. Growth and change are not the same things. In fact, doctrinal development is in the Bible as well.

indeed it is…change (as in a new covenant) is a very good thing when introduced by the right party. Change when introduced by the wrong party is quite possibly a change from the truth.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I have started another thread to discuss annulments, and divorce, in an attempt to let this thread get back on topic. If anyone cares to join the discussion it can be accessed through the following link.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7778467#post7778467

 

[Incomplete]

understood and agreed

I guess the issue between us is whether that deposit (at this point in time) begins and ends with scripture

he did, but Paul only saw dimly and even Christ himself didn’t know the date of his return…so there is some limitation to that “all”

my study of history tells me that “change” would be the better term

indeed it is…change (as in a new covenant) is a very good thing when introduced by the right party. Change when introduced by the wrong party is quite possibly a change from the truth.

Whether the deposit of truth begins and ends with Scripture has probably been debated a lot here, though of course, that’s a difference between us. Understand, though, that Protestants tend to have extra-biblical “traditions” themselves.

However, nothing in Catholicism goes against Scripture. And if ALL truth is in the Scripture, what good is it if nobody can agree on how to interpret it? You still can’t know truth then. It’s said often and it’s true: you can use Scripture to make just about any point you want to make.

Christ himself may have not known everything, but He had not yet sent the Spirit to lead US (not Him) to all truth. And Paul seeing dimly is also not the same. He’s talking about when he meets God face-to-face, when he can actually understand the bigness of God. But Jesus sent the Spirit to us on earth to know all truth, so He can’t be meaning the same kind of thing.

Your study of history is your interpretation. I have also studied history, though maybe not as thoroughly as you. My priest, however, is a history fanatic and has no difficulty reconciling it with Church teachings. So, again, interpretation.

You have no trouble believing in God as a protestant. And that’s fine. I have great protestant Christian friends. It’s one of the reasons these “cafeteria Catholic” threads drive me nuts. My Protestant Christian friends love God with all their hearts, and some act more Christian than some Catholics I know.

But for me, if I had to leave it with Protestantism, I would have much more difficulty in believing in God, because how do you know where the truth is? Which Protestant branch? Because you all broke off from the Catholic church, so I’d need to figure out…where exactly did Catholicism err? And how do I know I’m right, when so many other Protestant branches claim to be right, and they all differ from each other?

So when I can trace doctrine back to the beginning, and it makes sense to me, it makes the whole thing make more sense. I am not saying this to convince you to be Catholic, but to help you understand why I am one. It is the only one that makes sense to me.

I’ll be gone for several hours. If this thread keeps moving quickly, I may give up on following it. So I might not answer anything you say. I just don’t know.

But thank you for speaking respectfully. So often it becomes a war of words, but you are not that way. This has been enjoyable.

 

[novusCatholic]

At one point, there were only the twelve Apostles who accepted Christ’s teachings. I’ll side with the 20% of Catholics who still do.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Doctrinally it is true. And it still has nothing to do with the OP.

As far as your insult, there have been many threads on disciplines of the Church—most of which get shut down due to lack of charity. It goes something like this:

**Orthodox: ** Condom use may be allowed due to exceptional circumstances (such as one spouse has AIDS) by one’s spiritual father through an act of economia.

RC: Contraception is evil!

Orthodox: NFP is a form of contraception and Rome is studying condom use for exceptional situations such as one spouse having AIDS.

RC: That’s not true! Furthermore you allow divorce.

Orthodox: Annulments are equivilent to ecclesiastical divorce.

RC: That’s not true!

ETC, ETC, ETC…thread closed.

Give it a break wanner.

Actually I agreed with you on the pot shot comment…but wanner does have a point…the other poster had a similiar cheap shot…which you did not address at all…which was not charitable either…just an outside perspective…

 

[Radical]

Whether the deposit of truth begins and ends with Scripture has probably been debated a lot here, though of course, that’s a difference between us. Understand, though, that Protestants tend to have extra-biblical “traditions” themselves.

agreed…though our “traditions” tend to be viewed as non-required beliefs

However, nothing in Catholicism goes against Scripture.

to be precise, that should be that “nothing in Catholicism goes against Scripture as interpreted by conservative Catholics.”

And if ALL truth is in the Scripture, what good is it if nobody can agree on how to interpret it?

it is one great start though, isn’t it? One could also ask: if all truth can be found in Jesus, what good was his earthly ministry when his 1st century audience couldn’t agree on how to interpret his words?

…And Paul seeing dimly is also not the same. He’s talking about when he meets God face-to-face, when he can actually understand the bigness of God. But Jesus sent the Spirit to us on earth to know all truth, so He can’t be meaning the same kind of thing.

…but the simple fact is that we don’t know all truth. Look at your Catechism, doesn’t it get just a little thicker every century? How long was this “leading into all truth” supposed to take? Was the promise something no one would see fulfilled in their lifetime? There is nothing wrong with approaching a passage of the Bible and merely acknowledging that we can not be certain of its meaning…IMHO it is the right thing in quite a few instances…but would that negate your understanding of “leading into all truth?”

Your study of history is your interpretation.

mine and many, many others.

.

My Protestant Christian friends love God with all their hearts, and some act more Christian than some Catholics I know.

and for me it is vice versa

But for me, if I had to leave it with Protestantism, I would have much more difficulty in believing in God, because how do you know where the truth is?

I am comfortable with a level of uncertainty…in fact, I believe that such a thing encourages reliance on God.

Which Protestant branch? Because you all broke off from the Catholic church, so I’d need to figure out…where exactly did Catholicism err? And how do I know I’m right, when so many other Protestant branches claim to be right, and they all differ from each other?

it is my experience that there isn’t a lot of conflict amongst Protestants (though I do tend to avoid those on the extremes) we have no problem acknowledging that Catholics can be wonderful Christians and so it is very easy to see other Protestants as full brothers (notwithstanding certain doctrinal differences)…perhaps it has something to do with Canada enjoying a kinder, gentler society.

So when I can trace doctrine back to the beginning, and it makes sense to me, it makes the whole thing make more sense. I am not saying this to convince you to be Catholic, but to help you understand why I am one. It is the only one that makes sense to me.

I can understand that…different things appeal to different people…

I’ll be gone for several hours. If this thread keeps moving quickly, I may give up on following it. So I might not answer anything you say. I just don’t know.

I won’t hold my breath

But thank you for speaking respectfully. So often it becomes a war of words, but you are not that way. This has been enjoyable.

It is very easy to respect a brother who reciprocates. Cheers.

 

[fred_conty]

Radical,

agreed…though our “traditions” tend to be viewed as non-required beliefs.

Is “Sola Scriptura” non-required? Or “once saved al…”? Or “sola fide”?
Or the Pastor says so? Symbolism? I believe these are some of the
required traditions in some denominations.​

to be precise, that should be that “nothing in Catholicism goes against
Scripture as interpreted by conservative Catholics.”

That also stands for High Catholics, Mid Catholics and Low Catholics
or any Catholics.​

One could also ask: if all truth can be found in Jesus, what good
was his earthly ministry when his 1st century audience couldn’t agree
on how to interpret his words?

Just when and how did this take place?​

…but the simple fact is that we don’t know all truth. Look at your
Catechism, doesn’t it get just a little thicker every century?

I would agree if you mean that we attain a fuller understanding of
truth. I would disagree that there has been any new revelation of
truth.

The Catechism enlarges because uses more references and
illustrations to help teach doctrine. It has nothing to do with
new revelation.​

How long was this “leading into all truth” supposed to take?

Notice: all truth or fullness of truth is not new truth. It will take
as long as needed and develope as it is needed by the church
to guide it to the 2nd comming.​

There is nothing wrong with approaching a passage of the Bible
and merely acknowledging that we can not be certain of its
meaning…?

If the passage in question is left open to interpretation by the
teaching church, then yes, else no.​

 

[1voice]

I’m deeply insulted that you assume that the characteristics you decry are somehow characteristics of Protestantism.

…Dont be too insulted … Catholics have a lot of deep misconceptions about other Christians. The fact that they equate irresponsible Catholics with the rest of us Christians is part of Catholic DNA. They cant help it. (I have the perspective of having been a Catholic for the first 25 years of my life).
I took flying lessons once and there were a lot of bumper stickers in the parking lot that said … If you aint a pilot you aint ----!!
Infallibility has its privilege.

 

[ANNE_2]

…Dont be too insulted … Catholics have a lot of deep misconceptions about other Christians. The fact that they equate irresponsible Catholics with the rest of us Christians is part of Catholic DNA. They cant help it. (I have the perspective of having been a Catholic for the first 25 years of my life).
I took flying lessons once and there were a lot of bumper stickers in the parking lot that said … If you aint a pilot you aint ----!!
Infallibility has its privilege.

The issue is that non-Catholic Christian faiths believe different things. And when some Christian faiths started voting on what is sinful and what was not - regardless of what the Bible says - it makes it more confusing.
When some non-Catholic Christian faiths voted that homosexual acts were OK, that abortion was OK, etc. it made me very sad. This is not Sola Scriptura.

Here is one example: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterianism_and_homosexuality
While the Bible says: Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:9-10 1 Tim 1:10

Here is another: pregnantpause.org/people/wherchur.htm
Bible: Thou shall not kill.
Jer 1:5 Job 10:8-12 Ps 22:10-11