The Church and Cafeteria Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter mary_bobo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
quote:YinYangMom
Well it would seem to me that one would have to believe in the magesterium of the Church before they could believe in the Real Presence…
I got thinking about this.
I was 6 years old when the communion catechism was
given me [communion was to be given, at age 7.]

I was told: Jesus is really, truely present…

I trusted the nun who told me this

-because she was an adult
-because my parents sent me to this school,
so I figured that they wanted me to know this
-my parents and grandparents obviously believed it

A six year old kid can be “told” about an “infallible
magisterium” - but I doubt that’s the basis on which
they “accept” the Real Presence, to begin with.

reen12
 
40.png
reen12:
Is it possible [this just occured to me]…is it possible that
we have some families, out there, who say:
The kids need to “have” “religion” in their lives.
We we’re “brought up Catholic” so we’ll “bring” our kids to church?
Not only is this possible but I believe, based on conversations that I have had with other Catholics, that this is common.
 
40.png
reen12:
quote:YinYangMom

I got thinking about this.
I was 6 years old when the communion catechism was
given me [communion was to be given, at age 7.]

I was told: Jesus is really, truely present…

I trusted the nun who told me this

-because she was an adult
-because my parents sent me to this school,
so I figured that they wanted me to know this
-my parents and grandparents obviously believed it

A six year old kid can be “told” about an “infallible
magisterium” - but I doubt that’s the basis on which
they “accept” the Real Presence, to begin with.

reen12
And yet the Truth you received came from the magesterium, nonetheless. It was handed down to you through your parents, grandparents, other Catholics around you, the nun who taught you. But where did they get it?

Then you grew up and became an adult. Why do you still believe in the Real Presence? Where does your confidence today come from?
 
40.png
Richard_Hurtz:
I would certainly agree with this to the extent that if someone believed in the Infallibility of the Magesterium they would also believe in all other Catholilc Dogmas.
That was my point…
How does a Catholic believe in one dogma or doctrine, but not others, when all are protected by the same promise of Jesus?

How does one accept the Church has the ability to discern and teach about the Real Presence yet reject the Church’s ability to discern and teach about other Truths?
 
40.png
Richard_Hurtz:
Not only is this possible but I believe, based on conversations that I have had with other Catholics, that this is common.
Absolutely WAY too common :crying:

The good news, though, is in our youth…thanks to JPII and those World Youth Days I am definitely experiencing the fruits of his labors. The teen and college age Catholics in my area are on fire for the faith (not all, and still, not most, but quite a number). It’s a changing of the tide in motion…
 
Originally Posted by reen12
Is it possible [this just occured to me]…is it possible that
we have some families, out there, who say:
The kids need to “have” “religion” in their lives.
We we’re “brought up Catholic” so we’ll “bring” our kids to church?
quote: Richard_Hurtz
Not only is this possible but I believe, based on conversations that I have had with other Catholics, that this is common.
Well, this would go a long way toward explaining the lack
of belief in the Real Presence…or of being indifferent to
the magisterium.

Thanks for your thought,

reen12
 
40.png
reen12:
I would say:
1- a person would have to have an “interest” in
what the magisterium had to say
2-would have to accept that this magisterium was infallible

The question then becomes, I think:

How many Catholics are going to Mass and receiving
communion, on a Sunday, for whom the ‘category’
magisterium has no meaning.
You’re onto something there…
I don’t think it’s a question of “rejecting” magisterial teaching, in some cases, but, rather, in not even being aware of same.
I’d agree.
And, if this assessment is accurate, the further question
then becomes:
How is this possible?

Do some Catholics render ‘magisterium’ as: “The Church says…”
and not understand same as an infallible teaching office?
I think that is an important distinction you just pointed out - the CHURCH says. As if the Church is this stand-alone entity. I think a lot of Catholics falsely believe the Church makes up new things and forces people to believe with the term “magesterium”, when in fact, the Church protects and defends all the ‘old’ teachings revealed by God through the magesterium.
Is it possible [this just occured to me]…is it possible that
we have some families, out there, who say:

The kids need to “have” “religion” in their lives.
We we’re “brought up Catholic” so we’ll “bring” our kids to church?
A lot of families are like that. Even my 8th grade RE students tell me they know they have to marry in the Church and have their kids baptized into the Church, and yet some of these students don’t know the “Hail Mary” by heart, most of them didn’t know Catholics are obliged to continue learning about catholicism after they get confirmed, and that not going to Mass on sunday is a sin. :o The parents of almost half of my class do not attend mass weekly, and yet they insist their kids come to class once a week.
There’s a school of thought that refers to “live” issues…
that is, does this issue have importance to me…do I see
same as relevant?

I continually see references to: we need better education etc.
But if the “topics” being addressed are not “live” issues for
the ‘hearers’…I dunno.

reen12
True…‘magesterium’ and ‘infallibility’ are not “live” issues…and the issues which are are against life and thus the Church resisting to cave into the pressure to embrace those issues is the evidence those Catholics use as proof that the Church is a group of ‘men who aren’t perfect’.
 
40.png
YinYangMom:
How does one accept the Church has the ability to discern and teach about the Real Presence yet reject the Church’s ability to discern and teach about other Truths?
I am not sure how to answer this question. To my way of thinking if someone is convinced that the Church has the ability to infallibly define the charism of Infallibility then all other questions of faith and morals should be settled.

To my mind you can’t believe that the Church can Infallibly define one dogma but be incorrect on defining it’s Infallibility on Teaching.

That being said, I’m not convinced that the Church has made it’s case for it’s Infallilbility.

Peace to you,
Richard
 
mary bobo:
I am not sure if this is the right forum, but here goes. My husband, a non-Catholic, says that the Church is de facto approving of Cafeteria Catholics by remaining silent on some of their activities. I tried as best I could to discuss this with him, and we do discuss and not argue, but I do not feel equipt to offer a good response. Any suggestions appreciated.

I think some words of St.Paul are relevant to this:​

blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Phl&chapter=3&version=rsv&Go.x=24&Go.y=10
  • Phl 3:7 But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ.
  • Phl 3:8 Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ
  • Phl 3:9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith;
  • Phl 3:10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death,
  • Phl 3:11 that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.
  • Phl 3:12 Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own.
  • Phl 3:13 Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead,
  • Phl 3:14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
  • Phl 3:15 Let those of us who are mature be thus minded; and if in anything you are otherwise minded, God will reveal that also to you.
  • Phl 3:16 Only let us hold true to what we have attained.
  • Phl 3:17 Brethren, join in imitating me, and mark those who so live as you have an example in us.
  • Phl 3:18 For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, live as enemies of the cross of Christ.
  • Phl 3:19 Their end is destruction, their god is the belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things.
  • Phl 3:20 But our commonwealth is in heaven, and from it we await a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ,
  • Phl 3:21 who will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power which enables him even to subject all things to himself.
Who are Cafeteria Catholics ? People Christ has brought into the Church on the same terms as other Cafeteria Catholics - that group includes us all, unless we are sinless saints. If Christ does not condemn us, what are we that we should condemn each other ? All of us come short, in many ways - that is why that category is useless. ISTM that all one can say, is that people come short in different things: some in liturgical or doctrinal matters, some in matters of chastity or truthfulness or probity or kindness. Christ is alone without fault - so we cannot be. A church of one, would still have a sinful membership.

ISTM that the problem with singling out a particular group, is that one implying one is free from their failings - but how can, or does, one know that ? How does that differ in essence from the thanksgiving of the Pharisee that he was not like the publican ? (The publican is equally capable of this attitude, as C.S. Lewis pointed out.)

The attitude of St.Paul is the antidote, I think - he leaves his complaint to apply to all of us, if need be. And he avoids arrogance by having said that he is not already perfect. ##
 
Faith is a never ending journey while we are here and God can choose any way, time, situation, or person to get us to accept the grace He offers us to grow stronger in our faith.

May God bless and protect us.
JLC
 
mary bobo:
I am not sure if this is the right forum, but here goes. My husband, a non-Catholic, says that the Church is de facto approving of Cafeteria Catholics by remaining silent on some of their activities. I tried as best I could to discuss this with him, and we do discuss and not argue, but I do not feel equipt to offer a good response. Any suggestions appreciated.
I was like most Cafeteria Catholics. I decided which teachings not to obey (usually moral teachings), then tried to justify this lack of obedience by saying some part of Catholic theology was wrong (Mary, confession,etc).

I never seriously considered becoming a Protestant, JW, LDS, Muslim or anything else.

But one very kind and loving priest would occasionally ask me to come to Church. He knew I needed to grow in faith and that I was not the type to jump back in feet first.

And sure enough, one doubt after another was answered by the Church.

Maybe that’s why the Church doesn’t clean house. How else can all the reverts be explained.
 
40.png
willy:
when you speak of cafeteria, are you referring to like the lunch cafeteria , im sure its not that lol but if you wouldnt mind defining as to what exactly you mean by cafeteria?? thank you
There have been many interesting responses to my original post. Some got off the subject and others provided verses, etc. to show me what the Church teaches. I am not the one who prompted my original question. Cafeteria Catholics are those people who know the teachings of the church, but decide which ones they will obey and which they will not. There are a great many people in our Congress, both House and Senate, who are Catholics? and ardently support pro-choice. There are others that support gay marriage. These are the ones my husband was referring to when he asked the question. He was not, nor am I, questioning the teachings of the Church. He was questioning how those Catholics who are in the public eye and are still allowed to receive the sacraments are not denied by the Church.

I see that many young Catholics leave the church for various reasons and then return years later when they find they can fulfill their duty as far as the teachings of the church are concerned. And I agree with the poster who pointed out that not a lot of families you see in church have more than three children. But there is a family who sits in front of me every week with five little boys.
 
40.png
BillP:
Way to selectively misquote to create a strawman there fix and you even quote it correctly before you misquote it:

Dissent might not be TOTALLY compatible, but apparantly the Pope (God be good to him) thought it was at least “partially” compatible.
I gave the direct quote from John Paul II in post above.

As you can see form the context, the pope is referring to adherence to Church teaching. One can have “trouble” with the teachings of the Church, but they are still called to willingly adhere to it from “a loyal spirit, animated by love for the Church.
"It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church on a number of questions… It has to be noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church’s moral teaching. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the magisterium is totally compatible with being a “good Catholic,” and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching of the Bishops in the United States and elsewhere.” (Pope John Paul II in his speech to the Bishops in 1987)
John Paul II promulgated the Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, where dissent is described as “public opposition to the Magisterium of the Church” (par. 32)

This is the context which which John Paul II opposes dissent, and it is that context of dissent from the magisterium that is incompatible with being a “good Catholic” and poses an obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. To assert otherwise is a “grave error.”

Dissent is distinguished from “personal difficulties” according to Church teaching. The Instruction states,
"It can also happen that at the conclusion of a serious study, undertaken with the desire to heed the Magisterium’s teaching without hesitation, the theologian’s difficulty remains because the arguments to the contrary seem more persuasive to him. Faced with a proposition to which he feels he cannot give his intellectual assent, the theologian nevertheless ***has the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question.

For a loyal spirit, animated by love for the Church, such a situation can certainly prove a difficult trial. It can be a call to suffer for the truth, in silence and prayer, but with the certainty, that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail. " (par. 31)
Dissent manifests itself in different forms.
In its most radical form, it aims at changing the Church following a model of protest which takes its inspiration from political society… **it is asserted that the theologian is not bound to adhere to any Magisterial teaching unless it is infallible.” (ibid., 33).

Another form of Dissent asserts that “the interventions of the Magisterium would have their origin in one theology among many theologies, while no particular theology, however, could presume to claim universal normative status. In opposition to and in competition with the authentic magisterium, there thus arises a kind of “parallel magisterium” of theologians.” (par. 34)

Dissent also “appeals to a kind of sociological argumentation which holds that the opinion of a large number of Christians would be a direct and adequate expression of the “supernatural sense of the faith”.” (par. 35)

These forms of “dissent” are what the Church calls harmful to the faith and incompatible with being a “good Catholic.”

The harm that dissent causes is summarized by the Church as, “As to the “parallel magisterium”, it can cause great spiritual harm by opposing itself to the Magisterium of the Pastors.* Indeed, when dissent succeeds in extending its influence to the point of shaping; a common opinion, it tends to become the rule of conduct. This cannot but seriously trouble the People of God and lead to contempt for true authority.*” (par. 35)

You can read the entire Instruction here:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html
 
40.png
BillP:
Since none of us is without sin aren’t ALL of us "cafeteria Catholics to one degree or another?

Or is someone claiming that they completely 100% LIVE every single teaching of the Church 100% of the time?
As I said in my response to willy forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1165144&postcount=8

belief is diffent than sin. Someone who believes the Church has the authority and believes we should follow her teaching, is not a “cafeteria Catholic”. We all sin, but we all don’t believe or tell our neighbors that they can ignore the Church teaching on x or y sin.
 
mark a:
I was like most Cafeteria Catholics. I decided which teachings not to obey (usually moral teachings), then tried to justify this lack of obedience by saying some part of Catholic theology was wrong (Mary, confession,etc).

I never seriously considered becoming a Protestant, JW, LDS, Muslim or anything else.

But one very kind and loving priest would occasionally ask me to come to Church. He knew I needed to grow in faith and that I was not the type to jump back in feet first.

And sure enough, one doubt after another was answered by the Church.

Maybe that’s why the Church doesn’t clean house. How else can all the reverts be explained.
I had a similar experience. This is why I don’t believe in waving my finger at a “cafeteria Catholic” and telling them they are not Catholic. That is wrong! They are Catholic by baptism, and they are in error because they are ignorant or obstinate. Education, prayer and understanding are the best prescription for this disease.

Catholic politicians and priests who preach moral relativism and speak openly of defying Church teaching should be reprimanded by good Bishops (like Archbishop Chaput in Colorado and others did last election). Bishops who teach in error should be reprimanded by the Pope.

Parish priests should be teaching the “hard truths” to their parishioners. It’s how we learn and grow in our faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top