The Intellectually Honest Cafeteria Catholic

[guanophore]

For orthodox Catholics, the doctrine is important and worth fighting about. For cafeteria Catholics (which, if we’re honest, is the vast majority of Catholics - though I don’t claim that this fact implies anything about the rightness or wrongness of doctrine; it just is), the doctrine issue is moot; it doesn’t matter to them. Because of that, people on that side of the issue haven’t bothered to come up with a sticky name for those on the orthodox side.

You are correct, the vast majority of American Catholics have become Protestant, whether they realize it or not. Many have stopped practicing the Catholicfaith entirely and have joined “non-denominational” communities.

I used to be a Cafeteria Catholic. I never tried to study or understand the doctrines of the Church, I just disagreed and ignored them because they did not meet with my personal views of what made sense.

After many years of study and prayer, I came to understand that what belongs to the faith is not for me to decide, but for God. I don’t believe there is such a thing as an “intellectually honest” cafeteria Catholic. If one is intellectually honest, one will study, and if one is Catholic one will obey, and pray for the grace to be pursuaded about that which does not make sense, or sit right. This is the humility about which Peter writes, that we are to be like newborn babes, longing for pure milk.

 

[fred_conty]

I’ve always detested the phrase “cafeteria Catholic.”

It’s needlessly pejorative and insulting. It’s use says “I don’t like what you believe, but I’m not articulate enough to say why, so I’ll use an insulting phrase someone else though up to describe a person who struggles with issues of conscience, even though calling names is never helpful.” Its use is a needless categorization of “us vs. them.”

The people who use that phrase are just as flawed and sinful as anyone else. If some can use the phrase “cafeteria catholic,” can I call people who use that phrase “small minded bitter hardheaded blind followers who just do whatever they’re told and needlessly call others names”?

Another way to put it used to be “lax” catholic. And there were a number of reasons for one to be a “lax” catholic.

But I have more admiration for those lax catholics, who are not in communion with the church, who recognize they have a problem, and yet they still attend the Sunday Mass. There in church, they can still pray for the mercy of Jesus to help them. I can understand that. But it isn’t good to reject other good ways just because of something they are having trouble with. Jesus is kind, and he will always answer a good prayer of one who recognizes his sin and asks his help.

Jesus told the story of two men in the temple. One sat in back, beat his breast, and prayed, “Lord, have mercy on me a sinner.”
The other man sat in front and prayed, “Lord I thank thee that I am not like other men.” Then Jesus asked the question …

 

[guanophore]

Another way to put it used to be “lax” catholic. And there were a number of reasons for one to be a “lax” catholic.

But I have more admiration for those lax catholics, who are not in communion with the church, who recognize they have a problem, and yet they still attend the Sunday Mass. There in church, they can still pray for the mercy of Jesus to help them. I can understand that. But it isn’t good to reject other good ways just because of something they are having trouble with. Jesus is kind, and he will always answer a good prayer of one who recognizes his sin and asks his help.

Jesus told the story of two men in the temple. One sat in back, beat his breast, and prayed, “Lord, have mercy on me a sinner.”
The other man sat in front and prayed, “Lord I thank thee that I am not like other men.” Then Jesus asked the question …

Yes.

We all must pray diligently the prayer of St. Thomas “Lord, help my unbelief!” especially at those times when we are having trouble embracing what Jesus has revealed.

 

[djames99]

If a Catholic examines a Church doctrine, studies the issue, decides that it is wrong … then he defers to the main rule(baptismal promise) that obligates him to obey.

Defiant stands are a show of insincerity, and open the door a crack to allow satan’s foot to enter. Either we release ourselves in submission to become the new man, or we hold ourselves up in pride to become yet another who joins the banquet table of man made religions offering every kind of deviation and permissiveness that is palpable to his taste.

But I speak of De Fide dogma.

Opinio Tolerata topics are permissible to discuss and discern, but they should not be allowed to rule the person’s mind and become bad inner forces to contend with. These can actually be fun talks, but always in a guarded atmosphere of what is appropriate and respectful; the "promise’ always remembered. These are best with someone with ecclesial authority has a guide.

 

[guanophore]

If a Catholic examines a Church doctrine, studies the issue, decides that it is wrong … then he defers to the main rule(baptismal promise) that obligates him to obey.

Defiant stands are a show of insincerity, and open the door a crack to allow satan’s foot to enter. Either we release ourselves in submission to become the new man, or we hold ourselves up in pride to become yet another who joins the banquet table of man made religions offering every kind of deviation and permissiveness that is palpable to his taste.

But I speak of De Fide dogma.

Opinio Tolerata topics are permissible to discuss and discern, but they should not be allowed to rule the person’s mind and become bad inner forces to contend with. These can actually be fun talks, but always in a guarded atmosphere of what is appropriate and respectful; the "promise’ always remembered. These are best with someone with ecclesial authority has a guide.

This is well said djames99. In reflecting on the thread tilte, I wonder if there really is such a thing as an intellectually honest cafeteria Catholic? Can one be intellectually honest and morally rebellious at the same time?

 

[zz912]

So if a Catholic attends a Presbyterian or Methodist Church instead of Catholic he or she is in a state of mortal sin? I don’t think that is our call.

If a Catholic attends a Presbyterian or Methodist worship service, and forgoes attending Mass, they have committed a grave sin. If it is mortal depends on their culpability for the disobedience.

Additionally, a Catholic would need serious reasons to regularly attend such services, such as maintaining family harmony, etc. A Catholic who attends for no serious reason gives scandal and confusion by their attendance at such worship services.

 

[Padres1969]

**I’ve always detested the phrase “cafeteria Catholic.”
**
It’s needlessly pejorative and insulting. It’s use says “I don’t like what you believe, but I’m not articulate enough to say why, so I’ll use an insulting phrase someone else though up to describe a person who struggles with issues of conscience, even though calling names is never helpful.” Its use is a needless categorization of “us vs. them.”

The people who use that phrase are just as flawed and sinful as anyone else. If some can use the phrase “cafeteria catholic,” can I call people who use that phrase “small minded bitter hardheaded blind followers who just do whatever they’re told and needlessly call others names”?

I don’t know, I actually used it as a term to describe myself in the last years I considered myself Catholic. To me it was an accurate way to articulate what I was more than any other term. I wasn’t a “Lax Catholic” as I attended mass actively and regularly, I was constantly praying for discernment, etc… So I was in no way lax. I wasn’t “Lapsed Catholic”, again because I was active. Some would use the somewhat synonymous term “Bad Catholic” but to me THAT is the term that is pejorative and negative (to say nothing of judgmental on the part of the one so labeling.)

Cafeteria Catholic to me is a very apt descriptor that is not inherently negative nor judgmental lest you let it become so. It is typically used by definition, by those that still assert a Catholic identity while not assenting to all Catholic theological or moral teaching.

 

[shockerfan]

If a Catholic examines a Church doctrine, studies the issue, decides that it is wrong and that they are going to live in contradiction to it, should they cease calling themselves Catholic?

I think that the Church allows one to question doctrine, but at the same time, a Catholic questioning a doctrine is still required to engage it and submit to it as they struggle.

I think Catholics struggle with various Catholic teachings at one time or another, myself included. The bottom line is this: is what the Church is teaching true?

Here are some bible verses to help you with that:

o “Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
 Matthew 18:18
o Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”
 Matthew 28: 18-20
• “And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”
 John 20:23
• o “Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”
 Luke 10:16

• The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth
o But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.
 John 16:13-15

• The Holy Spirit will teach and remind them
o And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.
 John 14:16
• The anointing of the Holy Spirit remains in you
o As for you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you, so that you do not need anyone to teach you. But his anointing teaches you about everything and is true and not false; just as it taught you, remain in him.
 1 John 2:27
• The Apostles spoke with the voice of the Holy Spirit
o “It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities,”
 Acts 15:28

• The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth
o But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.
 1 Tim 3:15

 

[guanophore]

I don’t know, I actually used it as a term to describe myself in the last years I considered myself Catholic. To me it was an accurate way to articulate what I was more than any other term. I wasn’t a “Lax Catholic” as I attended mass actively and regularly, I was constantly praying for discernment, etc… So I was in no way lax. I wasn’t “Lapsed Catholic”, again because I was active. Some would use the somewhat synonymous term “Bad Catholic” but to me THAT is the term that is pejorative and negative (to say nothing of judgmental on the part of the one so labeling.)

Cafeteria Catholic to me is a very apt descriptor that is not inherently negative nor judgmental lest you let it become so. It is typically used by definition, by those that still assert a Catholic identity while not assenting to all Catholic theological or moral teaching.

Thanks for contributing to the topic and sharing your personal experience Padres. I also was a Cafeteria Catholic at one time.

Can you explain more about what it means to “assert a Catholic identity”? Do you mean just going to Mass and thinking of your self as Catholic?

If it would not derail the thread, and if you would feel comfortable, can you say what it was that you were not assenting, and why you decided to formally depart? If not I understand.

 

[Ender]

Cafeteria Catholic to me is a very apt descriptor that is not inherently negative nor judgmental lest you let it become so. It is typically used by definition, by those that still assert a Catholic identity while not assenting to all Catholic theological or moral teaching.

I’ve always found the term very descriptive as well, but it is typically used as a pejorative. For me the implication is justified because I don’t see how there can be such a thing as an intellectually honest cafeteria Catholic. You are a case in point. You struggled with a teaching, and finally left the church because you could not reconcile what you believed to be true with what the church taught. The point is: you are no longer a Catholic. That is the only intellectually honest position.

It is not reasonable to believe on the one hand what the church says about herself, and why her teachings are true, while on the other hand insisting that she got this or that particular teaching wrong. Those positions are mutually exclusive. I recognize that individuals, including popes, have been wrong, and that doctrines and practices can and have changed over time, but there is a body of doctrine that must be assented to, that has not changed in any significant way. Disagreement with those doctrines is not intellectually rational…for a Catholic.

Ender

 

[guanophore]

I’ve always found the term very descriptive as well, but it is typically used as a pejorative. For me the implication is justified because I don’t see how there can be such a thing as an intellectually honest cafeteria Catholic. You are a case in point. You struggled with a teaching, and finally left the church because you could not reconcile what you believed to be true with what the church taught. The point is: you are no longer a Catholic. That is the only intellectually honest position.

It is not reasonable to believe on the one hand what the church says about herself, and why her teachings are true, while on the other hand insisting that she got this or that particular teaching wrong. Those positions are mutually exclusive. I recognize that individuals, including popes, have been wrong, and that doctrines and practices can and have changed over time, but there is a body of doctrine that must be assented to, that has not changed in any significant way. Disagreement with those doctrines is not intellectually rational…for a Catholic.

You have summarized my thought process most eloquently. I do think it is also intellectually honest to embrace the Teachings of Jesus, accepting that our finite human minds have been unable to reconcile them in our own minds.
Ender

 

[carefullytread]

I don’t know, I actually used it as a term to describe myself in the last years I considered myself Catholic. To me it was an accurate way to articulate what I was more than any other term. I wasn’t a “Lax Catholic” as I attended mass actively and regularly, I was constantly praying for discernment, etc… So I was in no way lax. I wasn’t “Lapsed Catholic”, again because I was active. Some would use the somewhat synonymous term “Bad Catholic” but to me THAT is the term that is pejorative and negative (to say nothing of judgmental on the part of the one so labeling.)

Cafeteria Catholic to me is a very apt descriptor that is not inherently negative nor judgmental lest you let it become so. It is typically used by definition, by those that still assert a Catholic identity while not assenting to all Catholic theological or moral teaching.

This seems exactly right to me. The Cafeteria Catholic is someone who wants to assert a Catholic identity without agreeing to what some would say is the central tenant of the Catholic Church, namely that is the infallible carrier of Sacred Tradition.

I have two conflicted ideas about this.

One, there is a lot to Catholicism besides the belief that the Church is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit in faith and morals. Rejecting that central tenet to allow for the fact that some doctrines could be mistaken or conditionally true for their historical context still leaves a lot of distinctly Catholic teachings for one to embrace.

Funny enough, you sometimes meet those very serious traditionalists who reject Vatican II, but that is also implies rejecting the central tenet of infallibility. That’s a curious road to walk down.

Second, the Catholic Church is allowed to decide what it is and you can’t will the Church to accept a definition of Catholic that’s not what it says about itself. In that sense, if the Church says to be a Catholic is to submit to all doctrines and accept infallibility, then that’s what it means.

I see your solution was to become an Anglican! That reminds me of this article by Hobson. He has a harsh view of the Church, and while he does make some interesting observations, he missing that fact that one doesn’t need to be a reactionary to think the Catholic Church could be both fallible and more correct than the Anglican one.

 

[carefullytread]

I’ve always found the term very descriptive as well, but it is typically used as a pejorative. For me the implication is justified because I don’t see how there can be such a thing as an intellectually honest cafeteria Catholic. You are a case in point. You struggled with a teaching, and finally left the church because you could not reconcile what you believed to be true with what the church taught. The point is: you are no longer a Catholic. That is the only intellectually honest position.

It is not reasonable to believe on the one hand what the church says about herself, and why her teachings are true, while on the other hand insisting that she got this or that particular teaching wrong. Those positions are mutually exclusive. I recognize that individuals, including popes, have been wrong, and that doctrines and practices can and have changed over time, but there is a body of doctrine that must be assented to, that has not changed in any significant way. Disagreement with those doctrines is not intellectually rational…for a Catholic.

Ender

Padres decided that the Anglican Church was a better fit for him. And in many ways, maybe they are a better fit for a more free minded person, as they do not demand doctrinal assent in the same way.

But this thread has helped clarify the question to become something like this:

You could hold the position that the doctrine (dogma?) of infallibility is wrong. That doesn’t seem intellectually inconsistent to me. Certainly, you can point to Scripture suggesting that this isn’t the case, but I hope we can agree that well intentioned people can honestly disagree about the interpretation of Scripture. So, if the Church can be wrong, it can be wrong about not being able to be wrong.

Even after accepting that, you could still believe that the Church is the One, Holy, and Apostolic Church. If you believe that, can you honestly call yourself a Catholic?

I think Padres decided that the doctrinal errors meant that the Church wasn’t the True Church, or maybe he thinks the True Church can be more broadly construed to mean Christianity not exclusive to Catholicism. Or maybe a different position. Regardless, in the end, he left the RCC.

I’m not convinced that rejecting infallibility means rejecting the Church as the True Church, but maybe it does. That seems to be what most people on this thread have been implying. Maybe you can address that question directly.

 

[Della]

I don’t know, I actually used it as a term to describe myself in the last years I considered myself Catholic. To me it was an accurate way to articulate what I was more than any other term. I wasn’t a “Lax Catholic” as I attended mass actively and regularly, I was constantly praying for discernment, etc… So I was in no way lax. I wasn’t “Lapsed Catholic”, again because I was active. Some would use the somewhat synonymous term “Bad Catholic” but to me THAT is the term that is pejorative and negative (to say nothing of judgmental on the part of the one so labeling.)

Cafeteria Catholic to me is a very apt descriptor that is not inherently negative nor judgmental lest you let it become so. It is typically used by definition, by those that still assert a Catholic identity while not assenting to all Catholic theological or moral teaching.

Well, a person in discernment is not a bad Catholic–he may be a confused Catholic, a searching Catholic, a Catholic more influenced by the culture or his own ideas, but he’s not a bad Catholic. We sometimes take tangents in order to get back to the truth. God’s truth can lead us in ways we don’t expect, but if a person is earnestly seeking the truth, God will honor that endeavor by drawing him to the truth.

A bad Catholic is one who is obdurate in his unbelief in spite of good teaching and good example. Some people will not bow to the truth no matter what. Why they do so is for God to judge not any of us.

 

[Ender]

Padres decided that the Anglican Church was a better fit for him. And in many ways, maybe they are a better fit for a more free minded person, as they do not demand doctrinal assent in the same way.

If one believes Catholic doctrines were devised by a long succession of popes and bishops this would be a reasonable position. If, however, one accepts what the church says about herself, it isn’t.The knowledge which the Church offers to man has its origin not in any speculation of her own, however sublime, but in the word of God which she has received in faith. (Fides et Ratio, #7) Either the church is what she claims to be, or she isn’t. If she is, then “her” doctrines are nothing less that God’s laws, to which even a free minded person must assent.

You could hold the position that the doctrine (dogma?) of infallibility is wrong. That doesn’t seem intellectually inconsistent to me. Certainly, you can point to Scripture suggesting that this isn’t the case, but I hope we can agree that well intentioned people can honestly disagree about the interpretation of Scripture. So, if the Church can be wrong, it can be wrong about not being able to be wrong.

Regarding the interpretation of scripture: …the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church. (Dei Verbum, #10)
Again, to reject the church’s understanding is to reject the basis on which she claims to exist. As I said before, that may be a reasonable thing for a non-Catholic, but it is literally irrational for a Catholic to believe this. If she is wrong (about her basic doctrines) then she is not what she claims to be, and there is no reason to believe she got anything right except by accident.

I’m not convinced that rejecting infallibility means rejecting the Church as the True Church, but maybe it does. That seems to be what most people on this thread have been implying. Maybe you can address that question directly.

*What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason: we believe “because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.” … The assent of faith is “by no means a blind impulse of the mind.” *(CCC 156)
Ender

 

[Padres1969]

Thanks for contributing to the topic and sharing your personal experience Padres. I also was a Cafeteria Catholic at one time.

Can you explain more about what it means to “assert a Catholic identity”? Do you mean just going to Mass and thinking of your self as Catholic?

If it would not derail the thread, and if you would feel comfortable, can you say what it was that you were not assenting, and why you decided to formally depart? If not I understand.

Asserting a Catholic identity to me it’s a combination of several things. First and foremost is believing one self to be Catholic. Secondly there has to be some reason behind that (ie: you were a baptized cradle Catholic or converted to Catholicism). These would be the most important to my mind and the ones that are not negotiable if you say you’re asserting a Catholic identity. You obviously won’t be asserting a Catholic identity if you don’t truly believe you’re Catholic (such as say I don’t assert a Catholic identity today), and if you’ve never been baptized Catholic (or are at least in that process of joining the RCC) you really can’t be asserting a Catholic identity.

Now there are other things I’d argue you would include in general if you were really asserting that Catholic identity, such as attending mass regularly, believing in most key Catholic concepts such as sacramental grace, etc… But that’s not to say there are those that assert a Catholic identity more for cultural reasons who don’t attend mass and/or who reject core Catholic concepts. Not everyone who asserts a Catholic identity is necessarily a discerning/struggling Cafeteria Catholic. But in my experience most people who don’t really believe much of what Catholicism teaches, and who aren’t active members, don’t tend to assert a Catholic identity unless for familial reasons or something like running for political office.

As for my own reasons for departing, they’d more than likely derail the thread as objections to the RCC teaching/positions so often do, so I won’t get into them here. Suffice it to say I fit into that Cafeteria Catholic category for a good long time discerning and struggling before I ultimately departed. And I’m happy to hear that you were able to resolve your struggle as well even if we ended up going in different directions.

 

[Kay_Cee]

They have decided not to pray to God for understanding on the issue as they have decided there is nothing to understand, rather, that the Church is mistaken.

Goodness, am I the only person here who’s bothered by this?

It sounds like deciding one is more intelligent than God Himself.

 

[Padres1969]

This seems exactly right to me. The Cafeteria Catholic is someone who wants to assert a Catholic identity without agreeing to what some would say is the central tenant of the Catholic Church, namely that is the infallible carrier of Sacred Tradition.

I have two conflicted ideas about this.

One, there is a lot to Catholicism besides the belief that the Church is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit in faith and morals. Rejecting that central tenet to allow for the fact that some doctrines could be mistaken or conditionally true for their historical context still leaves a lot of distinctly Catholic teachings for one to embrace.

Funny enough, you sometimes meet those very serious traditionalists who reject Vatican II, but that is also implies rejecting the central tenet of infallibility. That’s a curious road to walk down.

Second, the Catholic Church is allowed to decide what it is and you can’t will the Church to accept a definition of Catholic that’s not what it says about itself. In that sense, if the Church says to be a Catholic is to submit to all doctrines and accept infallibility, then that’s what it means.

I see your solution was to become an Anglican! That reminds me of this article by Hobson. He has a harsh view of the Church, and while he does make some interesting observations, he missing that fact that one doesn’t need to be a reactionary to think the Catholic Church could be both fallible and more correct than the Anglican one.

First I don’t think all Cafeteria Catholics outright reject the notion that Catholicism is the infallible carrier of tradition. Do they struggle with it, absolutely. But I think it’s too narrow of a view to say that all who are in the process of struggling or discerning outright reject it. Do those like myself who leave typically reject it, I’d say that’s a fair generalization. But not all Cafeteria Catholics leave. As we’ve seen in this very thread some eventually are able to conform into no longer being Cafeteria. Some struggle their whole lives as Cafeteria Catholics but don’t outright reject the RCC’s position of infallibility. And as you point out some reject what you say is the central tenant of Catholicism, being that infallible character, while not rejecting the RCC.

Second yes the RCC is the only body that can define who and what it is. However with regards to its membership the RCC has also defined who is a member of its body. And as you know their view is that anyone baptized and/or confirmed into the church as a member is always a Catholic. The RCC doesn’t make these distinctions like Lax or Cafeteria about its membership. Rather it is the membership and others who make these distinctions for the ease of our categorized culture and way of thinking. We do it for our own ease of understanding and because to say everyone who is a member of the RCC or who has ever been baptized into the RCC is Catholic ignores that even among Catholics beliefs, attitudes, ways of worship, etc… are all imprecise. But from the RCC’s POV that doesn’t matter. I as a self identifying former-Cafeteria Catholic now Episcopalian am no more or less Roman Catholic than Pope Francis himself from the RCC’s POV even if I personally reject that notion as a member of another church.

And actually my solution was for a long time to not be anything. I didn’t one day stop being Catholic and start being Anglican. I spent more than a decade out of any organized religion, and at one point I was even flirting with not being Christian at all, before I eventually found my way back. Absent that knowledge I know it can seem like a somewhat logical jump to have made, but having been on the journey I can tell you landing spot was anything but assured. And while I agree that Hobson’s article has some merit, it does seem an over simplification of several issues (on both the Anglican and Catholic sides), and in particular I’d even argue he presents Catholicism as somewhat of a narrow caricature.

 

[clem456]

If a Catholic examines a Church doctrine, studies the issue, decides that it is wrong and that they are going to live in contradiction to it, should they cease calling themselves Catholic?

I think that the Church allows one to question doctrine, but at the same time, a Catholic questioning a doctrine is still required to engage it and submit to it as they struggle.

Consequently, it seems that no Catholic is allowed to disbelieve a doctrine and then disobey it with no intention at repentance.

Examples I have in mind are a gay Catholic who decides that they will live with their husband and feel no guilt about it or a married Catholic who decides to engage in hormonal contraception in full knowledge and rejection of Church teachings. They have decided not to pray to God for understanding on the issue as they have decided there is nothing to understand, rather, that the Church is mistaken.

If such a person wishes to be intellectually honest, should they concede that they are not Catholic and go elsewhere?

Let me take a different view on this.

Why would a person who rejects what the Church teaches even want to be Catholic? If for instance one believes same sex couples deserve sacramental marriage, the Church is committing a great injustice in your eyes. In that case you should reject the Church. You should not condone what you believe to be an injustice.

God wants us to be truthful. Maybe it is worse for a person to pretend, than to admit that one does not really believe.

I think of Paul, who was passionate about what he believed although he was on the wrong side. God used him, because he was red-in-the-face passionate about his beliefs. He was disposed to pursuing the truth.

So then, because thou art luke-warm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit thee out of my mouth:

I always tried to impress on my kids, don’t come to Mass for my benefit. If you don’t believe, stand up and tell me you don’t believe, and give your reasons.

 

[guanophore]

You could hold the position that the doctrine (dogma?) of infallibility is wrong. That doesn’t seem intellectually inconsistent to me.

Well, of course it does not seem intellectually inconsistent. This is what Protestants have been doing for 500+ years. It ignores 2000 years of church history, but it is very popular.

Certainly, you can point to Scripture suggesting that this isn’t the case, but I hope we can agree that well intentioned people can honestly disagree about the interpretation of Scripture. So, if the Church can be wrong, it can be wrong about not being able to be wrong.

Are you suggesting there is scriptural evidence that infallibility is not correct? I am interested to see that.

I agree, if the Church can be wrong, then she can be wrong about anything. The question is, was Jesus wrong,when He promised He would lead the Church into “all Truth”, and that the gates of hell would not prevail?

Even after accepting that, you could still believe that the Church is the One, Holy, and Apostolic Church. If you believe that, can you honestly call yourself a Catholic?

People call themselves Catholic who reject even these basic elements that define the Church. It creates a schism - to embrace what one believes is Catholic while rejecting the rest.

I’m not convinced that rejecting infallibility means rejecting the Church as the True Church, but maybe it does. That seems to be what most people on this thread have been implying. Maybe you can address that question directly.

Either Jesus founded One Church, or He did not. Either He placed the Apostles in place to shepherd her, and promised never to leave them, or He did not. The Church is a seamless garment. Rending it begins to unravel the whole faith, so that Catholicity is lost.

The Church is incarnational, like Jesus, with both divine, and human elements. Christ is her Head,a nd she is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. It is the divine elements of the Church that make her infallible, not the human.