Should "Cafeteria Catholics" just become Protestant?

[Alexander_Roman]

Well, if you are still talking to me . . .

I think the crisis of faith and its practice all has to do with the crisis of prayer. Those for whom prayer is second nature do not always understand how the Cafeteria Catholics can go through life without a solid prayer life and what the problem is etc.

I led a retreat at a parish church recently about prayer and, at the end, so many raised their hands to ask “how do we really pray then?”

We’re organizing a series of “how to” sessions on prayer, the types of prayer with lots of “hands together” experience.

What are some ways by which prayer can be taught to others?

Alex

 

[fred_conty]

Radical,

(Sola scripture) this is the default position, once one finds error in existing tradition

I believe this is a major, major tenent for protestants, not a default. Check
it out on our website for an in depth explaination. This is entirely Protestant
teaching and is at the very heart of the difference between Catholic and Protestant.​

Sola fide, symbolism, pastor says so, these should all be interpretations of scripture

But your traditional tenet is that anyone can interpret scripture in any way they want
just because they want to see it that way today, but tomorrow they will be see it
differently, because truth is never the same on Wednesday as it was on Tuesday.
And pastor Tom believes in “once saved” while pastor Bob says that tenent is
incorrect. Truth becomes whatever anyone wants it to become. There are
now about 32,000 different truths claiming to be right. The above are tenents, not
choices.​

no, those blessed Cafeteria Catholics may very well believe that what the hierarchy
teaches goes against the plain meaning of scripture in certain instances.

I readily admit that we have sinners, all varieties and sizes, in our church. “Father
forgive them (and me) for they know not what they do”. But that is why the church
is here, to pray for them, to instruct them, to guide them back to complete union
with our dear Jesus. The church is the good shepherd always seeking out and
helping those who have strayed from the truth.

But having said this, they are not the teaching members of the church who are there
to light our path to our Saviour, Lord and master, Jesus Christ. Paul mentions in his
letters that each part of the Body of the church has its own function. Some are
teachers, prophets, apostles, etc, but not all have the same function. He also warns
various churches in the diaspera about abuses and wonderings from the truth. It is
because he was appointed to teach and mandate with authority, which is not given to
everyone, especially the errent christian, which he specifically warns not to listen to.​

how would one gain a fuller understanding of truth w/o new revelation?..the application
of logic to existing revelation?

Basically the mind, in any field of endevour, takes 2 or more known truths and then
concludes to a third truth. Thru out the history of the church, we see talented men
attempting to explain religious truths in the scripture because scripture is not a text book,
with an index to sundry topics, all explained in an orderly and easy fashion. So men
search thru scripture for ways to come to a more meaningful and exact knowledge
which is not explicity mentioned. For example, from earliest times, Jesus was
pronounced as human as Paul says “like to us in all things except sin”. So what
does that mean? He has a human body and a human soul. Now we pretty much
know what a body means. But what does a soul mean? He has a human
intellect and a human will, therefore He has the power to understand and make decisions with his human intellect and human will. Therefore He is not a robot which God uses but a human to which God has joined Himself, the 2nd person of divine Trinity, thru the power of the 3rd person of the divine Trinity, in accord with the 1st person of the blessed Trinity, with Mary concurring as the handmaiden of the Trinity, becoming the true mother of God.
CONCLUSION:
Therefore he is the God/Man, AND A REAL man, AND REAL god, not just a man/prophet,
man/messiah, or divine robot, or any other incorrect combination. And Mary is the real
mother of God, not from eternity, but in time on this planet. And she is the HIGHEST saint
precisely because she is the MOTHER OF GOD, thru whom God was born, which no other title could possibly surpass which was granted by the will of God. And so “all men will call me blessed…”,(magnificat), and “hail Mary, FULL of grace”,(pregnate with God/Man).
In addition, Mary, being the mother of God, she would be at the top of all creation, even
higher than angels. Which means, power with her divine Son, as mother queen, similar to that in Cana of Galliee.

This is the logic of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the teaching church herself in her counciliar writtings of the bishops. It is from this that we are one in belief and have the richness and the fullness of our faith, the same the world over. It is beautiful to be Catholic if one takes time to know what it really presents.

 

[Serap]

Radical,

(Sola scripture) this is the default position, once one finds error in existing tradition

I believe this is a major, major tenent for protestants, not a default. Check
it out on our website for an in depth explaination. This is entirely Protestant
teaching and is at the very heart of the difference between Catholic and Protestant.​

Sola fide, symbolism, pastor says so, these should all be interpretations of scripture

But your traditional tenet is that anyone can interpret scripture in any way they want
just because they want to see it that way today, but tomorrow they will be see it
differently, because truth is never the same on Wednesday as it was on Tuesday.
And pastor Tom believes in “once saved” while pastor Bob says that tenent is
incorrect. Truth becomes whatever anyone wants it to become. There are
now about 32,000 different truths claiming to be right. The above are tenents, not
choices.​

no, those blessed Cafeteria Catholics may very well believe that what the hierarchy
teaches goes against the plain meaning of scripture in certain instances.

I readily admit that we have sinners, all varieties and sizes, in our church. “Father
forgive them (and me) for they know not what they do”. But that is why the church
is here, to pray for them, to instruct them, to guide them back to complete union
with our dear Jesus. The church is the good shepherd always seeking out and
helping those who have strayed from the truth.

But having said this, they are not the teaching members of the church who are there
to light our path to our Saviour, Lord and master, Jesus Christ. Paul mentions in his
letters that each part of the Body of the church has its own function. Some are
teachers, prophets, apostles, etc, but not all have the same function. He also warns
various churches in the diaspera about abuses and wonderings from the truth. It is
because he was appointed to teach and mandate with authority, which is not given to
everyone, especially the errent christian, which he specifically warns not to listen to.​

how would one gain a fuller understanding of truth w/o new revelation?..the application
of logic to existing revelation?

Basically the mind, in any field of endevour, takes 2 or more known truths and then
concludes to a third truth. Thru out the history of the church, we see talented men
attempting to explain religious truths in the scripture because scripture is not a text book,
with an index to sundry topics, all explained in an orderly and easy fashion. So men
search thru scripture for ways to come to a more meaningful and exact knowledge
which is not explicity mentioned. For example, from earliest times, Jesus was
pronounced as human as Paul says “like to us in all things except sin”. So what
does that mean? He has a human body and a human soul. Now we pretty much
know what a body means. But what does a soul mean? He has a human
intellect and a human will, therefore He has the power to understand and make decisions with his human intellect and human will. Therefore He is not a robot which God uses but a human to which God has joined Himself, the 2nd person of divine Trinity, thru the power of the 3rd person of the divine Trinity, in accord with the 1st person of the blessed Trinity, with Mary concurring as the handmaiden of the Trinity, becoming the true mother of God.
CONCLUSION:
Therefore he is the God/Man, AND A REAL man, AND REAL god, not just a man/prophet,
man/messiah, or divine robot, or any other incorrect combination. And Mary is the real
mother of God, not from eternity, but in time on this planet. And she is the HIGHEST saint
precisely because she is the MOTHER OF GOD, thru whom God was born, which no other title could possibly surpass which was granted by the will of God. And so “all men will call me blessed…”,(magnificat), and “hail Mary, FULL of grace”,(pregnate with God/Man).
In addition, Mary, being the mother of God, she would be at the top of all creation, even
higher than angels. Which means, power with her divine Son, as mother queen, similar to that in Cana of Galliee.

This is the logic of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the teaching church herself in her counciliar writtings of the bishops. It is from this that we are one in belief and have the richness and the fullness of our faith, the same the world over. It is beautiful to be Catholic if one takes time to know what it really presents.

EXCELLENT POST…BRAVO!!! It’s posts like this that I would love to see more of.

Well done!!!

No uncharitable remarks, no judging…bravo!!!

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Well, it is a judgement in favour of true Christianity. . .

Alex

 

[Radical]

I believe this is a major, major tenent for protestants, not a default.

the question is, “Where can one find God’s revelation free from any error?” The question is from a western Christian perspective and makes assumptions, such as, there is a God. The possible answers include:
a) sacred tradition and scripture (I know of no other candidates except for the “prophecies” of some on the outer fringes);
b) scripture alone; and
c) nowhere
If one answers (a), logic would/should cause him to join whatever group possesses the sacred tradition. If one answers (c), logic would/should cause him to join whatever group possesses the most reliable (albeit flawed) revelation. If one thinks it is neither (a) nor (c) he tends to fall into the sola scriptura camp. The question most famously arose among believers where (c) wasn’t an option and (a) was the status quo…hence why I label it the default position.

Check it out on our website for an in depth explaination. This is entirely Protestant teaching and is at the very heart of the difference between Catholic and Protestant.

If I, a Protestant, want to know what we Protestants believe, I’ll resort to something other than a Catholic site…I might even ask myself.

But your traditional tenet is that…

don’t you find it a little odd that you are telling me what I believe?

But your traditional tenet is that anyone can interpret scripture in any way they want just because they want to see it that way today, but tomorrow they will be see it differently, because truth is never the same on Wednesday as it was on Tuesday.

This is as valid as me telling you that your foundational tenet is to believe whatever erroneous doctrine is produced by the CC. That wouldn’t be accurate b/c you don’t believe that the CC can produce error…so I wouldn’t be describing your tenet correctly…I would be presenting a caricature of it for the purpose of belittling it. Likewise I believe we are all called to interpret God’s revelations to us, but it must be done in a reasonable fashion and not in isolation and so it doesn’t amount to whatever I “want”.

There are now about 32,000 different truths claiming to be right.

Please be advised that any one who references the “32,000 denomination” figure loses all credibility (IMO)

I readily admit that we have sinners, all varieties and sizes, in our church. “Father forgive them (and me) for they know not what they do”. But that is why the church is here, to pray for them, to instruct them, to guide them back to complete union with our dear Jesus. The church is the good shepherd always seeking out and helping those who have strayed from the truth.

here is the thing…those sinners (or at least a good chunk of them) are part of the Church…so perhaps it is them that are to pray for the hierarchy and guide the hierarchy back to the truth…I know that you think that they aren’t included among the “teachers” of the Church, but I don’t know why I should view your belief as being valid

But having said this, they are not the teaching members of the church who are there to light our path to our Saviour, Lord and master, Jesus Christ.

this is merely your conclusion…should I assert that you are merely making an interpretation that allows you to have your “want” of an infallible teaching authority?

Basically the mind, in any field of endevour, takes 2 or more known truths and then concludes to a third truth. Thru out the history of the church, we see talented men attempting to explain religious truths in the scripture because scripture is not a text book, with an index to sundry topics, all explained in an orderly and easy fashion. So men search thru scripture for ways to come to a more meaningful and exact knowledge which is not explicity mentioned. …

I agree, you have summarized the logic of a number of the ECFs…I see no reason as to why their logic should be viewed as flawless and beyond review…on occasion, their logic was badly influenced by Greek philosophy. On other occasions their logic worked off of bad translations. Frankly, their conclusions should be categorizd as the product of their fallible intellects and not as the product of guidance by the Spirit.

 

[CMatt25]

If the Church wanted learned and informed Cafeteria Catholics who still do not believe in certain matters of faith, to just become Protestants, then why would the Church still consider them to be Catholic?

 

[Radical]

Don’t you have this exactly wrong? Isn’t the “cafeteria” designation all about picking and choosing from what is known to be offered? …surely you can’t be suggesting that any one who becomes “learned and informed” will then necessarily adopt the teachings of the CC…that would seem to be beyond mere wishful thinking.

 

[rinnie]

But an “annulment” implies that the marriage wasn’t licit to begin with. Apart from the case you mention, how can someone obtain an annulment after living with someone for years and after having children?

The definition of “annulment” is therefore expanded if the Church authorities were to grant such, don’t you think? And then “divorce under another name” is what such an “annulment” amounts to.

My point is that the Orthodox Church does not differ in this from the Catholic Church.

Alex

Please go to the site that was opened up here by another poster and you will find your answer there. Thanks

 

[CMatt25]

Don’t you have this exactly wrong? Isn’t the “cafeteria” designation all about picking and choosing from what is known to be offered? …surely you can’t be suggesting that any one who becomes “learned and informed” will then necessarily adopt the teachings of the CC…that would seem to be beyond mere wishful thinking.

I’m not sure what the particular poster was suggesting. But it would be erroneous to think anyone who is learned and informed about CC teaching would then just automatically believe all teaching. As there are many who are learned and informed about CC teaching but still do not hold to such and such a belief.

 

[Radical]

that might have been Newman’s opinion, but times they are a changing…as someone else has said here: If once, it was that to be steeped in history was to cease being Protestant, then now it is that to be more greatly steeped in history is to cease being Catholic

 

[estesbob]

that might have been Newman’s opinion, but times they are a changing…as someone else has said here: If once, it was that to be steeped in history was to cease being Protestant, then now it is that to be more greatly steeped in history is to cease being Catholic

That happens only when you ignore the first 1,500 years of church history

 

[JohnnyReb]

that might have been Newman’s opinion, but times they are a changing…as someone else has said here: If once, it was that to be steeped in history was to cease being Protestant, then now it is that to be more greatly steeped in history is to cease being Catholic

A Protestant friend of mine replied “Fine, to be deep in scripture is to cease to be Catholic” which one do you wish to be deep in? (Not that personally believe this to be true)

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

A Protestant friend of mine replied “Fine, to be deep in scripture is to cease to be Catholic” which one do you wish to be deep in? (Not that personally believe this to be true)

Scriptures are history as well.

 

[1voice]

Quote:
Originally Posted by fred conty
Is “Sola Scriptura” non-required?

this is the default position, once one finds error in existing tradition

“Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity”

BENEDICT XVI

GENERAL AUDIENCE

St. Peter’s Square
Wednesday, 19 November 2008

Saint Paul (13):
Excerpt from:
The Doctrine of Justification: from Works to Faith.Be

"… it is Christ who unites us with and in the one God; it is Christ who guarantees our true identity within the diversity of cultures. The wall is no longer necessary; our common identity within the diversity of cultures is Christ, and it is he who makes us just. Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love (cf. Gal 5: 14).

Paul knows that in the twofold love of God and neighbour the whole of the Law is present and carried out. Thus in communion with Christ, in a faith that creates charity, the entire Law is fulfilled. We become just by entering into communion with Christ who is Love. We shall see the same thing in the Gospel next Sunday, the Solemnity of Christ the King. It is the Gospel of the judge whose sole criterion is love. What he asks is only this: Did you visit me when I was sick? When I was in prison? Did you give me food to eat when I was hungry, did you clothe me when I was naked? And thus justice is decided in charity. Thus, at the end of this Gospel we can almost say: love alone, charity alone. But there is no contradiction between this Gospel and St Paul. It is the same vision, according to which communion with Christ, faith in Christ, creates charity. And charity is the fulfilment of communion with Christ. Thus, we are just by being united with him and in no other way.

At the end, we can only pray the Lord that he help us to believe; really believe. Believing thus becomes life, unity with Christ, the transformation of our life. And thus, transformed by his love, by the love of God and neighbour, we can truly be just in God’s eyes."

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html

 

[Radical]

A Protestant friend of mine replied “Fine, to be deep in scripture is to cease to be Catholic” which one do you wish to be deep in?

hey thanks, that is not a bad retort…though I don’t know where one could use it (apart from various threads here )

 

[Radical]

Excerpt from:
The Doctrine of Justification: from Works to Faith.Be

"… it is Christ who unites us with and in the one God; it is Christ who guarantees our true identity within the diversity of cultures. The wall is no longer necessary; our common identity within the diversity of cultures is Christ, and it is he who makes us just. Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love (cf. Gal 5: 14).

Paul knows that in the twofold love of God and neighbour the whole of the Law is present and carried out. Thus in communion with Christ, in a faith that creates charity, the entire Law is fulfilled. We become just by entering into communion with Christ who is Love. We shall see the same thing in the Gospel next Sunday, the Solemnity of Christ the King. It is the Gospel of the judge whose sole criterion is love. What he asks is only this: Did you visit me when I was sick? When I was in prison? Did you give me food to eat when I was hungry, did you clothe me when I was naked? And thus justice is decided in charity. Thus, at the end of this Gospel we can almost say: love alone, charity alone. But there is no contradiction between this Gospel and St Paul. It is the same vision, according to which communion with Christ, faith in Christ, creates charity. And charity is the fulfilment of communion with Christ. Thus, we are just by being united with him and in no other way.

At the end, we can only pray the Lord that he help us to believe; really believe. Believing thus becomes life, unity with Christ, the transformation of our life. And thus, transformed by his love, by the love of God and neighbour, we can truly be just in God’s eyes."

Thanks, that was certainly worth reading…

 

[CMatt25]

I suppose one might come to this conclusion if by faith they accept the Roman Church’s interpretation of Herself. And if then they go on to accept the selected history as compiled by Rome. And then if they go on to accept as beyond err Her interpretation of teaching and they believe Christ never needs to reform His Church so as to keep the gates from prevailing. And if they accept the Catholic Church’s interpretation of the history which She Herself presents.

 

[estesbob]

I suppose one might come to this conclusion if by faith they accept the Roman Church’s interpretation of Herself. And if then they go on to accept the selected history as compiled by Rome. And then if they go on to accept as beyond err Her interpretation of teaching and they believe Christ never needs to reform His Church so as to keep the gates from prevailing. And if they accept the Catholic Church’s interpretation of the history which She Herself presents.

Or one could believe that God left everyone to figure out everything on their own based on their personal inteprpreation of a book that was not even in existence when his Son ascended into heaven Having made that leap they have to, of course, hope that their personal interpreation is the correct one and the thousnads of contrary interpreations are wrong. This approach to Faith is nothing new-the Gnositcs were around even before Christ.

 

[rinnie]

Quote:
Originally Posted by fred conty
Is “Sola Scriptura” non-required?

“Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity”

BENEDICT XVI

GENERAL AUDIENCE

St. Peter’s Square
Wednesday, 19 November 2008

Saint Paul (13):
Excerpt from:
The Doctrine of Justification: from Works to Faith.Be

"… it is Christ who unites us with and in the one God; it is Christ who guarantees our true identity within the diversity of cultures. The wall is no longer necessary; our common identity within the diversity of cultures is Christ, and it is he who makes us just. Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love (cf. Gal 5: 14).

Paul knows that in the twofold love of God and neighbour the whole of the Law is present and carried out. Thus in communion with Christ, in a faith that creates charity, the entire Law is fulfilled. We become just by entering into communion with Christ who is Love. We shall see the same thing in the Gospel next Sunday, the Solemnity of Christ the King. It is the Gospel of the judge whose sole criterion is love. What he asks is only this: Did you visit me when I was sick? When I was in prison? Did you give me food to eat when I was hungry, did you clothe me when I was naked? And thus justice is decided in charity. Thus, at the end of this Gospel we can almost say: love alone, charity alone. But there is no contradiction between this Gospel and St Paul. It is the same vision, according to which communion with Christ, faith in Christ, creates charity. And charity is the fulfilment of communion with Christ. Thus, we are just by being united with him and in no other way.

At the end, we can only pray the Lord that he help us to believe; really believe. Believing thus becomes life, unity with Christ, the transformation of our life. And thus, transformed by his love, by the love of God and neighbour, we can truly be just in God’s eyes."

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html

Correct and agreed. But where Luther and the Church disagree is faith without works. Thats where the trouble began.

 

[estesbob]

Correct and agreed. But where Luther and the Church disagree is faith without works. Thats where the trouble began.

Actually the trouble began when Luther rejected the authority of the Church and relied instead on his own personal interpretation of Scripture.