Similarity between caferia Catholics and Non-Catholic Christians (Protestants)

[Mannyfit75]

It’s under my observation (and my opinion), that there is a distinct similarity between Caferia Catholics and Protestants.

Caferia Catholic belief is as follows:

1. They pick and choose what is acceptible in Church doctrine.
2. They disagree with the teachings of the Church.
3. They don’t practice and believe that being nice and good to people will give them to heaven.

Protestants.

1. They don’t accept Church authority.
2. They interpret Scripture to fit their own doctrines. If there is disagreement between two ministers, they separate and form another Church with different doctrine. While the other accept infant baptism, while the other does not. So they indirectly pick and choose what is acceptible to their church in accordance to Scripture.
3. They believe in OSAS and some do not.

So in a way, I think Protestants are pseudo Caferia Catholics, and Caferia Catholics are pseudo Protestants.

 

[rr1213]

Very few serious Protestants believe “being nice and good to people will give them to heaven.” Otherwise, your points are solid.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Very few serious Protestants believe “being nice and good to people will give them to heaven.” Otherwise, your points are solid.

That’s why I didn’t add that in the Protestant list… that is the only difference between caferia Catholics and Protestants… I think the common similiarity is the rejection of Church authority.

 

[rr1213]

That’s why I didn’t add that in the Protestant list… that is the only difference between caferia Catholics and Protestants… I think the common similiarity is the rejection of Church authority.

Agreed. Although bear in mind that some Protestant Churches are really big on the authority of their own particular denomination. They would say that you either toe the line or you are excommunicated (same as the Catholic Church). A minority of Protestant denominations, no doubt, but there are certainly some who view it that way. Of course, in any case, they reject the authority of the CATHOLIC Church…which may be the point you are making.

 

[Dirk_Skene]

Duuude you are so right on

There are some catholics (small “c” intended) that just need to stop pretending & just start their own church.

 

[dmelosi]

I never thought of it this way, but not a bad comparison.

I think the major difference is that it generally would be easier to educate cafeteria Catholics to become orthodox Catholics than protestants.

 

[catsrus]

Cafeteria catholics (small “c” intended!) ARE protestant. Period.

 

[a_cermak]

You know, if you don’t want your “Cafeteria Catholics” we’ve room in our Church for them. They’re welcome. I don’t think they’ll come though. Fr. Andrew Greeley has well documented the phenomenon of Catholic identity. They like being Catholic, on their own terms, yes, decidedly, but still they are Catholic. You’re not going to get rid of them anytime soon. And, really, there are no penalties for being a “Cafeteria Catholic”. Excommunication is reserved for serious offenses and matters, not just someone who intellectually disagrees with a Church position or two. Be happy, maybe some of those “Cafeteria Catholics” are tithing and keeping a Church here and there open.

 

[dmelosi]

You know, if you don’t want your “Cafeteria Catholics” we’ve room in our Church for them. They’re welcome. I don’t think they’ll come though. Fr. Andrew Greeley has well documented the phenomenon of Catholic identity. They like being Catholic, on their own terms, yes, decidedly, but still they are Catholic. You’re not going to get rid of them anytime soon. And, really, there are no penalties for being a “Cafeteria Catholic”. Excommunication is reserved for serious offenses and matters, not just someone who intellectually disagrees with a Church position or two. Be happy, maybe some of those “Cafeteria Catholics” are tithing and keeping a Church here and there open.

I think the definition of a cafeteria Catholics is that they belong to the Catholic church because that is all they know. They believe in God and were raised hearing that they should belong to the Church but really don’t know why.

At different points in different peoples life something causes many to study and learn more about their faith. Once they catch that “fire” to learn, is when they are really open to learning and living by what the Church teaches.

It is each of our duty to help ignite that “fire”.

Talking here only on the point of bringing anyone closer to being an orthodox Catholic, I think it is easier to light a “fire” under most cafeteria Catholics & bring them closer to the orthodox Catholic thinking than it would be to bring most protestants to the same point.

I certainly am not saying that any Catholic is closer to God than any protestant, just my opinion on cafeteria Catholics.

Any religion has their share of cafeteria members.

 

[patg]

I think the definition of a cafeteria Catholics is that they belong to the Catholic church because that is all they know. They believe in God and were raised hearing that they should belong to the Church but really don’t know why.

This is one good example but there is another which is at least as common - if there is no alternative which is anywhere near as good as the Catholic Church, why leave? Yes, they may disagree with some things for what they see as very good reason but it’s still the best there is.

I disagree with my parents on many things but I still know where home is and I know I am still loved and accepted there. Why not here? Is the quality of “God the Father” somehow less than my human father? And I am certainly not affecting anyone else’s relationship with God by my thoughts on the Church.

I understand how some can just say they believe and agree with everything the church says, does, and requires - but what possible good is it to do that when one can’t rationally accept it?

At different points in different peoples life something causes many to study and learn more about their faith. Once they catch that “fire” to learn, is when they are really open to learning and living by what the Church teaches."

In my experience, it is just as likely that such studying and learning will take one in the opposite direction.

It is each of our duty to help ignite that “fire”.

Except that in my case, for example, the fire didn’t exactly burn in the intended direction. That’s the way fire is…

Talking here only on the point of bringing anyone closer to being an orthodox Catholic, I think it is easier to light a “fire” under most cafeteria Catholics & bring them closer to the orthodox Catholic thinking than it would be to bring most protestants to the same point.

I think it depends on the definition of cafeteria you are using - this is probably true for your definition but not for mine.

Any religion has their share of cafeteria members.

Yes. And some are passive (your definition) and some are active (my definition).

 

[cheese_sdc]

This is one good example but there is another which is at least as common - if there is no alternative which is anywhere near as good as the Catholic Church, why leave? Yes, they may disagree with some things for what they see as very good reason but it’s still the best there is.(my definition).

:clapping:

 

[dmelosi]

This is one good example but there is another which is at least as common - if there is no alternative which is anywhere near as good as the Catholic Church, why leave? Yes, they may disagree with some things for what they see as very good reason but it’s still the best there is.

We were born with free will, each of us are different in our thoughts, the way we process our thoughts, everything we do. The thought that what are sins for some may not be for others is a slippery slope. The point being that it is ok to disagree, but obedience as a person learns more about the faith is the key

I disagree with my parents on many things but I still know where home is and I know I am still loved and accepted there. Why not here? Is the quality of “God the Father” somehow less than my human father? And I am certainly not affecting anyone else’s relationship with God by my thoughts on the Church.

No disagreement at all.

I understand how some can just say they believe and agree with everything the church says, does, and requires - but what possible good is it to do that when one can’t rationally accept it?

I believe a person may not accept some teachings because they don’t truly understand where it is coming from.

In my experience, it is just as likely that such studying and learning will take one in the opposite direction.

Do you have examples?

Except that in my case, for example, the fire didn’t exactly burn in the intended direction. That’s the way fire is…

I think it depends on the definition of cafeteria you are using - this is probably true for your definition but not for mine.

What is your definition of cafeteria?

Yes. And some are passive (your definition) and some are active (my definition).

 

[patg]

We were born with free will, each of us are different in our thoughts, the way we process our thoughts, everything we do. The thought that what are sins for some may not be for others is a slippery slope. The point being that it is ok to disagree, but obedience as a person learns more about the faith is the key

I believe a person may not accept some teachings because they don’t truly understand where it is coming from.

In my experience, it is just as likely that such studying and learning will take one in the opposite direction.

Do you have examples?

 

[patg]

We were born with free will, each of us are different in our thoughts, the way we process our thoughts, everything we do. The thought that what are sins for some may not be for others is a slippery slope. The point being that it is ok to disagree, but obedience as a person learns more about the faith is the key

I have tried that and think that in many cases, the opposite occurs. I can’t imagine that any amount of “learning the faith” will induce obedience in every area - some are simply unsupportable given the advances in human knowledge. Nevertheless, I am still here…

I believe a person may not accept some teachings because they don’t truly understand where it is coming from.

Yes, lack of understanding is sometimes a factor.

In my experience, it is just as likely that such studying and learning will take one in the opposite direction.

Do you have examples?

In the definitions below, I was a Catholic school product, a #1 for a while and now a #2. When I seriously started studying the scriptures and the analysis’ of a wide range of scholars, I new something was terribly wrong.

What is your definition of cafeteria?

I think the definition is simply someone who is baptised Catholic and does not follow/agree with every rule, doctrine, dogma, or teaching. The distinctions are seen when one considers the “why” of the cafeteria-ness. The two cases we have mentioned are:

1. 
   *]The passive person - they belong to the Catholic church because that is all they know. They believe in God and were raised hearing that they should belong to the Church but really don’t know why.
   *]The active person - they probably started out as in number 1, but have invested a lot of energy in reading, study, analysis, religious education, and discussions to come to the conclusion that some subset of teachings is untenable. This subset frequently involves teachings that are called into question by advances in human knowledge and experience. This creates a dilemma because the Church frequently paints itself into a corner with statements avowing thousands of years of error-free, absolute truth and thus it can’t react to real changes in the human world-vew.

 

[dmelosi]

I have tried that and think that in many cases, the opposite occurs. I can’t imagine that any amount of “learning the faith” will induce obedience in every area - some are simply unsupportable given the advances in human knowledge. Nevertheless, I am still here…

Yes, lack of understanding is sometimes a factor.

In the definitions below, I was a Catholic school product, a #1 for a while and now a #2. When I seriously started studying the scriptures and the analysis’ of a wide range of scholars, I new something was terribly wrong.

I think the definition is simply someone who is baptised Catholic and does not follow/agree with every rule, doctrine, dogma, or teaching. The distinctions are seen when one considers the “why” of the cafeteria-ness. The two cases we have mentioned are:

1. 
   *]The passive person - they belong to the Catholic church because that is all they know. They believe in God and were raised hearing that they should belong to the Church but really don’t know why.
   *]The active person - they probably started out as in number 1, but have invested a lot of energy in reading, study, analysis, religious education, and discussions to come to the conclusion that some subset of teachings is untenable. This subset frequently involves teachings that are called into question by advances in human knowledge and experience. This creates a dilemma because the Church frequently paints itself into a corner with statements avowing thousands of years of error-free, absolute truth and thus it can’t react to real changes in the human world-vew.

1. 
   I am curious what you found to be terribly wrong?
   
   What do you find that is unsupportable?
   
   I understand your definitions now, did not know what you meant before. But, I do disagree with you in that I think there are way more of the passive than the active as in your definition.

 

[thomasf]

I will say this about cafeteria catholics, because frankly I am one. At least a little bit.

I went away from the church for a long time. Basically the last 17 years or so. As soon as I got into college I dropped out of the church and never looked back for all that time.

About 7 years ago I started wondering what to do about my faith and belief in God. I spent those 7 years investigating a lot of religions and was never happy. And I really didn’t do anything about my faith or investigate my spirituality during that time either. Finally it came to me this winter that I needed to go back to the catholic church, that the church was what I was looking for all along.

But I was torn. When I left the church part of it was because I didn’t agree with the teachings, didn’t particularly like the religion, etc. But it was what I grew up with. I didn’t know how much of the church or docterines I could accept. But I figured at the very least it was better to return to church, go to mass, learn about God, etc then sit on my butt and do nothing and end up damned and out of God’s grace.

So I went back. And I was very pleased and excited to find out how much I never understood about the church, didn’t know about my religion. Excited and pleased because as I learned these things I could feel my faith growing, feel me becoming closer to the church. It’s exciting to learn what I was doing all those years growing up, understand what my faith is, understand why I have the beliefs I do.

So yes, when I came back into the church I was very much not intending to be in total agreement, and I would probably be described as a cafeteria catholic. But here’s the best thing about cafeteria catholics: there’s ALWAYS room on the tray for them to take more and more of the faith. That’s what I found I was doing, taking more of the faith, understanding more of the church, accepting more of catholicism. And it was/is great to find that these things I thought set up roadblocks in my spiritual growth aren’t that at all, and they fall to the side as I grow in my faith.

This is something that traditionalists and ‘hard core’ catholics should remember. Cafeteria catholics aren’t necessarily picking and chosing because they have some disrespect for the church, or are trying to put themselves above the authority of the church. Some just don’t know or understand the church. And if you have a negative attitude toward them, you’ll push them away and into the arms of protestants. And away from the body of Christ, God’s true church. If you welcome them and help them learn and grow in their faith, that cafeteria tray will become full before you know it.

And that should be your duty to your catholic brothers and sisters.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[DB_AND_ALI]

I will say this about cafeteria catholics, because frankly I am one. At least a little bit.

I went away from the church for a long time. Basically the last 17 years or so. As soon as I got into college I dropped out of the church and never looked back for all that time.

About 7 years ago I started wondering what to do about my faith and belief in God. I spent those 7 years investigating a lot of religions and was never happy. And I really didn’t do anything about my faith or investigate my spirituality during that time either. Finally it came to me this winter that I needed to go back to the catholic church, that the church was what I was looking for all along.

But I was torn. When I left the church part of it was because I didn’t agree with the teachings, didn’t particularly like the religion, etc. But it was what I grew up with. I didn’t know how much of the church or docterines I could accept. But I figured at the very least it was better to return to church, go to mass, learn about God, etc then sit on my butt and do nothing and end up damned and out of God’s grace.

So I went back. And I was very pleased and excited to find out how much I never understood about the church, didn’t know about my religion. Excited and pleased because as I learned these things I could feel my faith growing, feel me becoming closer to the church. It’s exciting to learn what I was doing all those years growing up, understand what my faith is, understand why I have the beliefs I do.

So yes, when I came back into the church I was very much not intending to be in total agreement, and I would probably be described as a cafeteria catholic. But here’s the best thing about cafeteria catholics: there’s ALWAYS room on the tray for them to take more and more of the faith. That’s what I found I was doing, taking more of the faith, understanding more of the church, accepting more of catholicism. And it was/is great to find that these things I thought set up roadblocks in my spiritual growth aren’t that at all, and they fall to the side as I grow in my faith.

This is something that traditionalists and ‘hard core’ catholics should remember. Cafeteria catholics aren’t necessarily picking and chosing because they have some disrespect for the church, or are trying to put themselves above the authority of the church. Some just don’t know or understand the church. And if you have a negative attitude toward them, you’ll push them away and into the arms of protestants. And away from the body of Christ, God’s true church. If you welcome them and help them learn and grow in their faith, that cafeteria tray will become full before you know it.

And that should be your duty to your catholic brothers and sisters.

Just my 2 cents.

I wish i could applaud you all night for these words…but it’s getting late here in Africa and i’m getting tired ! I was away from the church for 23 years…before i was led back by God. However as i am from Africa please could you explain how one can distinguish a ‘cafeteria’ catholic from a ‘devout’ catholic ? Does a devout catholic love God and his neighbour more than the cafeteria catholic ? If so how does one tell…also must i avoid any one of these ‘classes’ at mass !!! Let’s get real folks…we are all sinners and we come to church to reconnect with God…so lets not be judgemental but rather welcoming to all , especially to new catholics and those who ‘wandered’ away for a while.