Should "Cafeteria Catholics" just become Protestant?

[estesbob]

One might respond that the truth is that those who claim that “those who level charges charges of people being uncharitable, Pharisees, jugemental ,etc.,etc., generally do so to steer the discussion away from Catholic teachings they are uncomfortable with,” do so generally to avoid being confronted with the possibility that they are indeed uncharitable. My experience on this and one other Christian forum is that there are those who know how to speak the truth and do so in love. There are others who are quite good at speaking the truth, but they do so with great hatred in their hearts, or at least the way in which they speak the truth makes it seem so. I have seen some of both approaches in this thread.

Could you give some examples? Do you find this uncharitable?

Well there is is impossible to paper over

• they both can’t be right can they? How do you determine what the truth is? And how do you explain it when you’re truth varies from thousands of others believe the truth is?*

*It is impossible to paper over the huge theological differences between Catholics and Protestants. It is also wrong to ignore the fact that these differences exist. As Catholics we have a responsibility to present the truth to those who have strayed from it. If that makes us uncharitable so be it.
**

 

[GaryTaylor]

One might respond that the truth is that those who claim that “those who level charges charges of people being uncharitable, Pharisees, jugemental ,etc.,etc., generally do so to steer the discussion away from Catholic teachings they are uncomfortable with,” do so generally to avoid being confronted with the possibility that they are indeed uncharitable. My experience on this and one other Christian forum is that there are those who know how to speak the truth and do so in love. There are others who are quite good at speaking the truth, but they do so with great hatred in their hearts, or at least the way in which they speak the truth makes it seem so. I have seen some of both approaches in this thread.

I don’t disagree with Ryan and I can tell you, you’d be hard pressed to find a more humble person that I. Thats also doesn’t mean that I don’t at times become subject to human error.

I have no contempt in my heart for anyone. Not that I won’t get caught up in the moment as I just feel the hate and contempt and respond to it in the wrong way. Especailly when issues come up which I just know better about, like the BVM or the Saints. And some vial idea is proposed for no good reason. Its as I said earlier I believe its either pure ignorance, evil or both.

And I don’t want to put words in your mouth, you may have a very different thought on this?

God Bless, Gary

 

[RyanBlack]

Could you give some examples? Do you find this uncharitable?
*It is impossible to paper over the huge theological differences between Catholics and Protestants. It is also wrong to ignore the fact that these differences exist. As Catholics we have a responsibility to present the truth to those who have strayed from it. If that makes us uncharitable so be it.
**

If you need me to provide specific examples, I suspect that you and I are so far apart on the issue that you would reject any examples I would provide… However, let me ask you, do you really believe that if it is the case that there are those who cry out, “Judgmental! Uncharitable!” and the like, largely as a diversion, that there are not also those who are indeed being judgmental and uncharitable who also resort to diversions,claiming that all protestations of their being judgmental and uncharitable are illegitimate? Furthermore, can you not admit that there are those in your camp, so to speak, who are indeed at times guilty of being judgmental and uncharitable? I find the idea that those in the “traditionalist” camp are never guilty of being judgmental or uncharitable to be absurd beyond words and to amount to self-delusion. We are all guilty of sin. “Cafeteria” Catholics, “Traditionalist” Catholics, and non-Catholics alike.

 

[wanner47]

it’s all in the tone. some people don’t understand that and they don’t want to.

Could it be possible that you are misinterpreting the tone, given that the Internet does not allow for voice inflections or facial expressions?

I think you may be predisposed to think people are judgmental when they are just stating facts.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Could it be possible that you are misinterpreting the tone, given that the Internet does not allow for voice inflections or facial expressions?

I think you may be predisposed to think people are judgmental when they are just stating facts.

Well that can’t be ignored either, add to fact some are more direct and accertive, So all things have to taken into consideration. In the end only you know your intentions. And if they leave much to be desired, say your sorry and move on.

Gary

 

[CMatt25]

this sort of mischaracterization of my position is unfortunate…but I guess it makes you feel better about your beliefs. We are all pursuing the truth. It is like the situation when science proved that the earth revolved around the sun (contrary to the CC’s position that the Bible stated otherwise). It wasn’t as if God changed or that the truth changed…it was that an error in belief was corrected. It is the same with history…the CC has made certain claims regarding what the ECFs believed and now historians are establishing that those claims contain errors (self-serving errors to be precise). It seems that instead of admitting the situation you cling to that misinformed version of history that props up your beliefs and resort to dismissing the the better scholarship as the work of “revisionists” …one can tell you that the emperor has no clothes, but you’ll still see what you want.

man’s knowledge of history changes (even if it doesn’t suit you)

I agree Radical. I believe in God. I pray. In pursuit of truth I study and search the Scripture. In prayer and by faith I seek the Holy Spirit’s guidance for understanding. Yet I am continuously mischaracterized as having no place for God. Or no authority. Or having a premise that we each decide ahead of time what to believe. Oh well. Peace to you and to all as we take our lifelong faith walks in pursuit of the truth. God bless!

 

[estesbob]

If you need me to provide specific examples, I suspect that you and I are so far apart on the issue that you would reject any examples I would provide… However, let me ask you, do you really believe that if it is the case that there are those who cry out, “Judgmental! Uncharitable!” and the like, largely as a diversion, that there are not also those who are indeed being judgmental and uncharitable who also resort to diversions,claiming that all protestations of their being judgmental and uncharitable are illegitimate? Furthermore, can you not admit that there are those in your camp, so to speak, who are indeed at times guilty of being judgmental and uncharitable? I find the idea that those in the “traditionalist” camp are never guilty of being judgmental or uncharitable to be absurd beyond words and to amount to self-delusion. We are all guilty of sin. “Cafeteria” Catholics, “Traditionalist” Catholics, and non-Catholics alike.

What exactly is the “traditionalist” camp???

 

[PRmerger]

But that does not mean I or others make ourselves the “begining and the end” or that I seem to have no place for God.

This may be true, Matt. However, is it possible that this God that you are worshipping is a god that you have created in your own mind? That is, a god you’ve created in your own image?

If there’s nothing in your religious precepts that you find hard to agree with, then I venture to say that you have indeed created god to your own image, rather than conforming your image to God’s.

 

[CMatt25]

What exactly is the “traditionalist” camp???

From what I can gather on the “traditionalist” board, there for instance seems to be among many “traditonalists” a dislike for CITH, Mass not said in Latin, for post Vat2, and so forth. Even though the hierarchy, believed to be successors to the Apostles, allow these. I always wonder how far back in tradition do we should go though. For instance if in 33 AD Mass was in Latin or in a language common to the area at the time?

 

[Lapey]

From what I can gather on the “traditionalist” board, there for instance seems to be among many “traditonalists” a dislike for CITH, Mass not said in Latin, for post Vat2, and so forth. Even though the hierarchy, believed to be successors to the Apostles, allow these. I always wonder how far back in tradition do we should go though. For instance I wonder if in 33 AD if they were saying Mass in Latin?

Last supper would have been Aramaic. That was the first mass, the institution of the most Holy Eucharist and the commanding of the apostles to “DO this in memory of Me.”

So no, you’re right it would not have been in Latin. But from what we see in scripture however, they did recieve in the hand, possibly sitting, excuse me, reclining at table. But these were apostles, so thy would have the priestly faculties to consecrate and distribute with the command of Jesus.

 

[CMatt25]

Last supper would have been Aramaic. That was the first mass, the institution of the most Holy Eucharist and the commanding of the apostles to “DO this in memory of Me.”

So no, you’re right it would not have been in Latin.

Thanks Lapey. It was my understnding that Aramaic was spoken in that time and place. Then we also have for instance the church in Antioch where those believers were first called Christians according to Acts.

 

[guanophore]

Some of my premises and where I put my faith have been misinterpreted here. But I would just say to answer the OP’s question… Given the fact the Catholic Church from my understanding calls them Catholic, I’d then leave it up to the Catholic in question whether they remain or whether they become a Protestant. As I would fear distancing people might only serve to push them further out the door. But if Benedict did indeed say he would rather have a purer if smaller Church, then I suppose that might be one way to achieve it. The only question I might have then would be if all fall from perfection, if you do push out all the sinners, how many are going to be left in the pews? But in any case everyone have a most blessed, joyous Happy Easter.

I see your point, but it is not loving or helpful to people to confirm then in error. If a person is walking over a cliff, and no one tries to warn them, are not the silent bystandars as culpable?

To say nothing when a “Catholic” is living in mortal sin and presents themselves for Communion is being a bystander when someone is heaping sin upon sin, endangering their immortal soul. Jesus and the Apostles never seemed to be afraid of “pushing them further out the door”. They just told it like it is. If God has revealed (I know you don’t believe it is possible for us to know this) that certain behaviors result in eternal hellfire, it seems like the most loving thing to do is inform those that are doing them what the consequences are.

We are also not talking here about “fall from perfection”. We are talking about a willful rejection of the Teachings of Jesus. It is not like these people were trying to please God, and fell short. They think that what the Church teaches about pleasing God is not right, so they have not obligation to follow it. Why would it matter if such rebellious persons occupied pew space?

 

[guanophore]

Living life the way Jesus taught us to live is so much harder and isn;t always going to be popular.

He did say 13 "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few. Matt 7:13-14

I don't think that cafeteria catholics should become protestant. But I do think that the Catholic church needs to teach better what it is we believe and why we believe it.

Are you going to volunteer for RCIA?

When people talk about the church needing to get with the times there isn’t a whole lot different know than back in biblical times. There was sin then, sin now. Disobedience to God was and is at the heart of it.

Yes. There is a difference between those who do not follow The Way because they are ignorant, and those who do not follow because they are disobedient.

 

[guanophore]

Matt I don’t know if it’s intentional, or not, but you haven’t answered my question. How do you know what parts of scriptures can be ignored?

I think he did answer it, Prodigal. Maybe you missed it?

We walk in faith with what interpretations we place faith in. It’s not proven science.

He puts his faith in whatever he interprets he wants to put his faith in. He begins and ends with his own faith.

 

[guanophore]

I believe in God.  I pray.  In pursuit of truth I study and search the Scripture.  In prayer and by faith I seek the Holy Spirit's guidance for understanding.  Yet I am continuously mischaracterized  as having no place for God.  Or no authority.  Or having a premise that we each decide ahead of time what to believe.  :shrug:  Oh well.

Prayer is good, Scripture reading is good, and seeking the HS for guidance is good.

I notice, though that the Church is not in your formulation. Jesus does not separate Himself from His One Body, the Church.

John 5:39-41
You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

Jesus is speaking through His Church. What benefit is it to any one to pray, read, and seek, if we do not come to Him, that we might find life?

You do not trust the Church because you do not agree with the doctrines that are taught (some of them, anyway). You want to reserve the right to choose opposite from what the Church believes and teaches.

Luke 9:58-62
59 To another he said, “Follow me.” But he said, “Lord,** let me first go and bury my father." 60 But he said to him, “Leave the dead to bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.” 61 Another said, "I will follow you, Lord; but let me first **say farewell to those at my home.” 62 Jesus said to him, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.”

One who comes to God still saying “let me first” is not fit for the Kingdom. We do not get to pick and choose - He is all, or nothing. In this Holy Week, we meditate on the cross. When one went to crucifixion, one was under a death sentence. To pick up one;s cross and carry it means that we let everything we want, all our dreams, hopes, and plans, wants, desires, everything be separated from us so that we can follow Him.

“I will carry my cross, but I still want x, y, and z” just doesnt work.

 

[CMatt25]

I see your point, but it is not loving or helpful to people to confirm then in error. If a person is walking over a cliff, and no one tries to warn them, are not the silent bystandars as culpable?

To say nothing when a “Catholic” is living in mortal sin and presents themselves for Communion is being a bystander when someone is heaping sin upon sin, endangering their immortal soul. Jesus and the Apostles never seemed to be afraid of “pushing them further out the door”. They just told it like it is. If God has revealed (I know you don’t believe it is possible for us to know this) that certain behaviors result in eternal hellfire, it seems like the most loving thing to do is inform those that are doing them what the consequences are.

We are also not talking here about “fall from perfection”. We are talking about a willful rejection of the Teachings of Jesus. It is not like these people were trying to please God, and fell short. They think that what the Church teaches about pleasing God is not right, so they have not obligation to follow it. Why would it matter if such rebellious persons occupied pew space?

I suppose but it takes faith for one to reach the point of believing the Church is as the most faithful Catholic believes Her to be. And faith then also to believe what is error.

But regardless I actually believe it matters and is a good thing when someone is occupying pew space in a church. They come to hear the Word, to worship Him. And I know one of the things I read revealed in the Gospel is Jesus saying He would turn no one away who comes to Him. So I’m not all that certain this pushing away, pushing out the door and smaller talk is all it’s cracked up to be.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I suppose but it takes faith for one to reach the point of believing the Church is as the most faithful Catholic believes Her to be. And faith then also to believe what is error.

But regardless I actually believe it matters and is a good thing when someone is occupying pew space in a church. They come to hear the Word, to worship Him. And I know one of the things I read revealed in the Gospel is Jesus saying He would turn no one away who comes to Him. So I’m not all that certain this pushing away, pushing out the door and smaller talk is all it’s cracked up to be.

Well, I think that people are making differentiations.

I said myself earlier that I didn’t think ‘cafeteria Catholics’ should become Protestant but should rather educate themselves to the truth and become obedient Catholics.

The person in the pew who is open to Christ but having ‘doubts’ or rather even ‘difficulties’ at some point in his life is not the same kind of person as someone who is not only NOT open to Christ, but has set himself up as being better than Christ, and who then uses his position as a supposed Catholic to perpetuate error as truth, and in doing so, causing spiritual harm to thousands of people.

Now admittedly it’s difficult on some ‘message board’ to know ‘for sure’ the heart of a person. I’m sure that some wag could create a sock puppet, come on to blather about how Catholics should ordain women and complain that as a good Catholic HE supports women instead of snubbing them, etc., etc. . .whereas in reality that wag was not only not Catholic, but was actually a woman with no real faith in anything, just looking to prove her ‘point’ about how awful ‘theists’ are.

But just because we can’t know the truth of an individual person’s ‘motive’ even if they come out and say something, we CAN objectively look at what is said.

Whether a person is a ‘devout Catholic’, a ‘seeking protestant’, a ‘friendly atheist’, or a Jack Chick clone, if that person says, “Catholics should ordain women” the answer from Catholics is the same for each ‘person’. . .The Church HAS NO AUTHORITY to ordain women.

So it doesn’t matter if the person saying ‘ordain women’ is really Catholic even. . .the answer "the church has no authority to ordain women’ is THE SAME as if the questioner were the silliest sock puppet ever.

We CAN make prudential judgments over the truth. The truth is, The Catholic Church has NO AUTHORITY to ordain women. Now people can come up with all kinds of ‘reasons’ to accept or reject that, but neither the acceptance nor rejection will have an effect on the truth itself.

IF a lot of people accept truth, it doesn’t become MORE true, and if a lot of people reject it, it doesn’t become LESS true. It doesn’t become "true for one person, but not another’. It doesn’t even become true BECAUSE it supports more or become false because it doesn’t ‘fit’ society. Truth is truth is truth. And THAT we can acknowledge and it isn’t us judging. It is us affirming what is already judged BY GOD. Something else entirely than our own piddly judgment.

 

[blackfirepro]

To all cafeteria “Catholics”: GET OUT! The Church has no use for people who won’t accept its teachings.

read my articles at:

colewebbharter.com

 

[guanophore]

I suppose but it takes faith for one to reach the point of believing the Church is as the most faithful Catholic believes Her to be.  And faith then also to believe what is error.

You make a good point about faith. It is a quality of the human psyche, that is built by God into our being. We choose where to place it. That is why Jesus always said “your faith has saved you”. When faith is placed in God’s revelation, salvation results. When we place our faith in worldly things, like money and fame, then we do not find salvation. One cannot serve both God, and mammon.

 But regardless I actually believe it matters and is a good thing when someone is occupying pew space in a church.

In general, I would say this is true. The grace of God seeks all to repent and believe. But if a person is there in a state of deceiving themselves, believing they can be a Christian while living contrary to the precepts of God, then they will even have more to answer for.

Luke 12:47-48
47 And that servant who knew his master’s will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating. 48 But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.

You see, the better educated a person is, the more they know, the greater their responsibility to respond to what has been revealed to them. If they sit in the pew, and learn, and still disobey, the beating is more severe.

  They come to hear the Word, to worship Him.  And I  know one of the things I read revealed in the Gospel is Jesus saying He would turn no one away who comes to Him.

The person who comes to Him and still has the “let me first” mentality has not really come to Him, have they?

Matt 10:37-39
37 He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38 and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it.

Coming to the Lord without the willingness to take up the cross is not a worthy attitude.

So I'm not all that certain this pushing away, pushing out the door and smaller talk is all it's cracked up to be.

There is no “pushing away” CMatt. People excommunicate themselves by their own choices. Each soul has the freedom to choose God’s Way, or their own way.

Deut 30:19-20
19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live, 20 loving the LORD your God, obeying his voice, and cleaving to him; for that means life to you and length of days

Choosing Him means one is willing to obey His voice.

What would you think of a person who said He chooses God, but then also says “the Bible says a lot of things”(implying that some of the contents are not relevant)?

 

[Radical]

I was respnding to your ridiculous charge against Cardinal Newman’s statement about being steeped in history is to cease being Protestant. He was speaking of the Early Church when he made that statement because of the glaringly obvious Catholicity of it.

right, the glaringly obvious lack of mention of Mary in the first two centuries, the glaringly obvious lack of use of the term “priest” wrt any minister of the church in those first two centuries, the glaringly obvious lack of a unified belief in a real somatic presence (until after it was advocated by the 4th century Antiochian school) and add to that the glaringly obvious lack of a belief in a real somatic presence by Augustine, the glaringly obvious lack of banking and trading in grace as if it was a common commodity and the glaringly obvious lack of a monarchical bishop in parts on the empire during the first centuries…yep, the “Catholicity” of the earliest church is as glaringly obvious as the magnificence of the emperor’s new clothes.
.