J
johnnyc176
Guest
I’m not sure how one can conclude that separating Jesus Christ from His Church can be a good thing unless one’s political ideology takes precedance over the teachings of Jesus.
- Status
S
spunjalebi
Guest
I understand where the OP is coming from, because I am a convert orthodox Catholic while my husband is somewhat of a cafeteria Catholic. He was raised a Catholic, but doesn’t understand why contraception is a big deal, doesn’t like confession, fasting, penance, etc. He finds EF Mass depressing and terrible, and thinks a lot of the traditional gender roles Catholics abide by are stupid (yes, stupid), outdated, and absurd. Yes, I do love my husband anyway
However that said, I don’t think the Church should have to change for people who disagree with her. The Church has come very, very close to changing her mind to “go with the flow”-- the most recent major issue I can recall is changing the stance on contraception. If the Church had changed her mind, it would mean the Holy Spirit was wrong. That in itself, is a very shattering realization for the Church.
There may be cafeteria Catholics, but the Church will always adhere to her teachings. In no way should Catholics insist the Church change for them; on the contrary, we should be changing for her, and for God.
However that said, I don’t think the Church should have to change for people who disagree with her. The Church has come very, very close to changing her mind to “go with the flow”-- the most recent major issue I can recall is changing the stance on contraception. If the Church had changed her mind, it would mean the Holy Spirit was wrong. That in itself, is a very shattering realization for the Church.
There may be cafeteria Catholics, but the Church will always adhere to her teachings. In no way should Catholics insist the Church change for them; on the contrary, we should be changing for her, and for God.
S
spunjalebi
Guest
Hate to break it to you, but that’s the majority of Christians right there. Jesus takes a backseat to their political ideologies.
T
tawny
Guest
Amen.
J
johnnyc176
Guest
Now just replace Catholic/Church all that he disagrees with Jesus Christ.I understand where the OP is coming from, because I am a convert orthodox Catholic while my husband is somewhat of a cafeteria Catholic. He was raised a Catholic, but doesn’t understand why contraception is a big deal, doesn’t like confession, fasting, penance, etc. He finds EF Mass depressing and terrible, and thinks a lot of the traditional gender roles Catholics abide by are stupid (yes, stupid), outdated, and absurd. Yes, I do love my husband anyway
Again, replace Church with Jesus Christ.
In no way should Catholics insist that Jesus change for them…means a whole lot different huh.
J
johnnyc176
Guest
Really?..the many protestant communities that believe in woman ordination, homosexual marriage, contraception, abortion, never mind the many interpretations of His Word.
S
spunjalebi
Guest
In no way should Catholics insist that Jesus change for them…means a whole lot different huh.
So are you disagreeing with me or what?
Q
QuasiCatholic
Guest
At the risk of going off topic on my own thread, I’ve heard people say this before and I don’t understand this idea that the church can’t change without contradicting itself.
It seems to me in reading the Bible that God’s whole MO is to keep changing the script. First it was just “get circumcised.” Then it was “hey, here’s 10 commandments and some very very specific rules about how to do absolutely everything.” Then we get Jesus and a whole new bunch of information and ways of doing things. And then Peter has a dream about a bunch of food spread out on a blanket and decides all the Kosher rules no longer apply. And somewhere in there we decided circumcision – which was like the original thing God asked of anyone – was no longer necessary either.
I’m not saying the church necessarily should change. But given this history of different rules for different eras sort of, why wouldn’t it be possible for the holy spirit to tell the pope that the rules have changed again?
S
spunjalebi
Guest
Have you even been reading what I’ve actually said?
S
spunjalebi
Guest
I think you misunderstand spiritual progression. St. Peter didn’t just make up “rules” nilly-willy-- there was a process to accepting Gentiles and Jews as Christians. St. Peter and St. Paul disagreed with circumcision, yes, but their disagreement was not about rules as much as it was a spiritual one. They both asserted Jesus came to fulfill the Law, and thereby we are no longer required to follow it in the same manner the Jews did.
Why would there be a need for the Holy Spirit to “change the rules”? What “rules” need to be changed? If anything, a lot of the changes or as I see it, deviations from tradition have been flaws in the Church. The Church shouldn’t have to change to suit the changing attitudes of her people, the culture, the time, etc.
To add, Christianity is a faith where it has been revealed to us. It’s not a religion like the pagans where they based it off the changing seasonal patterns or natural incidents, and that’s why the rules keep changing. Due to this revelation to man, man has been trying to discern what exactly is it God reveals to us, and that is how we come to our understanding about God and His teachings. Catechism puts it best by stating people long to understand this revelation and have the capacity to understand. Whether or not we are willing to listen and open our eyes is an entirely different issue.
E
Edmundus1581
Guest
Hey, QuasiCatholic, this is hardly a new problem!
The history of the Church is one of rigourists demanding more rigor from the Church and harsher punishment (such as expulsion) of those who don’t meet up to their standards. The rigourists are usually laity and a minority of clergy.
It’s not up to the laity to say who belongs in the Church and who doesn’t, or to decide what the shades of “Catholic” are. That is the job of the Bishops, and you won’t find “Cafeteria Catholic” in any Church document. If they welcome the 70% (or whatever it is) then it’s not up to us to second-guess them. If they won’t label anyone a “Cafeteria Catholic” then neither should we. If they also accept the rigorous and harsh, then so should we.
This problem goes back to the New Testament! The response of the Church was then the same as it always has been - to insist that some of its teachings are non-negotiable, but also to not put burdens on peoples’ backs, and to not engage in large scale excommunications, etc. Some of Paul’s harshest words are for those who impose their scruples and legalism on others.
Don’t let anyone on the internet tell you that you don’t belong. I see from your previous thread that your parish priest is on the Catholic Right (my words). He’s not in charge of you either, and represents a minority of Catholic priests, who rarely engage in partisan politics - and never from the pulpit. Issues, yes - personalities, no.
In my 30 years in the Church I have seen as much practical dissent from the right as from the left. Often it is over social teachings (eg. war, environmentalism), but often it is just a refusal to allow the bishops to lead the Church, and to decide who’s in communion with it.
In the end, it’s between you and God. The Church is there to guide you, and her teachings and Magisterium are a sure path - but the Church itself will tell you when you have strayed too far.
I suggest that your read what the CCC says about Moral Conscience (which falls under The Dignity of the Person).
ps. You might want to avoid taking on the right, however
… you’ll only upset yourself.
The history of the Church is one of rigourists demanding more rigor from the Church and harsher punishment (such as expulsion) of those who don’t meet up to their standards. The rigourists are usually laity and a minority of clergy.
It’s not up to the laity to say who belongs in the Church and who doesn’t, or to decide what the shades of “Catholic” are. That is the job of the Bishops, and you won’t find “Cafeteria Catholic” in any Church document. If they welcome the 70% (or whatever it is) then it’s not up to us to second-guess them. If they won’t label anyone a “Cafeteria Catholic” then neither should we. If they also accept the rigorous and harsh, then so should we.
This problem goes back to the New Testament! The response of the Church was then the same as it always has been - to insist that some of its teachings are non-negotiable, but also to not put burdens on peoples’ backs, and to not engage in large scale excommunications, etc. Some of Paul’s harshest words are for those who impose their scruples and legalism on others.
Don’t let anyone on the internet tell you that you don’t belong. I see from your previous thread that your parish priest is on the Catholic Right (my words). He’s not in charge of you either, and represents a minority of Catholic priests, who rarely engage in partisan politics - and never from the pulpit. Issues, yes - personalities, no.
In my 30 years in the Church I have seen as much practical dissent from the right as from the left. Often it is over social teachings (eg. war, environmentalism), but often it is just a refusal to allow the bishops to lead the Church, and to decide who’s in communion with it.
In the end, it’s between you and God. The Church is there to guide you, and her teachings and Magisterium are a sure path - but the Church itself will tell you when you have strayed too far.
I suggest that your read what the CCC says about Moral Conscience (which falls under The Dignity of the Person).
ps. You might want to avoid taking on the right, however
… you’ll only upset yourself.
J
johnnyc176
Guest
Actually I am agreeing with you. I am just pointing out that if you replace Church with Jesus Christ it changes things. But it shouldn’t because Jesus Christ and His Church are One and the Same.
Q
QuasiCatholic
Guest
I don’t know; I’m not God. But you could just as easily ask why didn’t God just send Jesus to begin with instead of taking the whole crazy circuitous route through the Mosaic laws first? I’m not saying the church should just change for the hell of it. But if the Pope felt called to change something – like Peter was after his dream about the food – who’s to say that’s a contradiction and not just a new chapter in the plan?
S
spunjalebi
Guest
Please, please QuasiCatholic, pay attention to what he said. I have been guilty of applying shades to Catholics in regard to their beliefs; I regret doing so because it’s an immature stance to take. I personally had to shut out the buzzing to understand what the Church taught and why she teaches what she does. Then I decided to read Catechism for myself and learn what it meant to be a Catholic. This helped me develop a more mature faith.
In addition to not letting anyone on the internet say you don’t belong, always remember no Catholic is perfect. No one. Part of our spiritual growth is coming across issues like this and working through them with God’s help. People can be very fickle.
Of course. But people make the differentiation because they don’t see how Jesus had anything to do with the formation of the Church. Heck, even my husband has made some crazy arguments about certain things, but I am not about to castigate him for not being “Catholic” enough.
U
Usige
Guest
I’m not so sure about that. Even if it’s 70% remember that many of those do not attend Mass on a regular basis and likely don’t contribute to the Church. Many cultural Catholics do not give the Church any social capital at all. Catholics that attend Mass regularly (say more than 85% of the time) are probably about 40% in the US. I would define the 60% that don’t attend to be culturally Catholic as they already disregard one of the main tenets of the faith. So using your 70% it is already likely that the majority of those don’t significantly contribute in any measurable way.
I’ll give you an example. I attend a parish with around 3800 registered families. Based on the average registered family size and the estimated percentage of the population that self identifies as Catholics in the area it should be closer to 6200 families. When we had a building campaign according to the parish about 38% of registered families contributed. They then had a breakdown of number of families who made 3 year commitments in different buckets ($1-$50/yr, $51-$100, $101-$250, etc). Over 90% of the funds were from 6% of the families. Something like 81-84% was from less than 100 families (~ 2.5% of registered parishioners).
My wife and I are at the parish fairly frequently either volunteering or helping the deacons with something. In all the volunteer activities you are almost always guaranteed to see the same handful of people. The main place we see large numbers outside that core is in RE. Those parents seem to volunteer as long as their kid is in RE, but generally disappear after the benefit of helping is gone (they get about a 60% discount on RE if they volunteer).
So my point is that a large percentage of the time and money that goes into the Church seems to come from a relatively small subset of people in the Church. That has been the case in all 4 parishes where we’ve attended over the last 10 years. The only exception is the FSSP chapel were it is closer to 40% of people who contribute and volunteer, but it is also only about 400 families so a smaller population that goes out of it’s way to attend a specific parish likely skews that result…
Now the question is if that core 5-10% of Catholics that provide the bulk of volunteer work and funds are orthodox? Based on my experience the majority are orthodox. Is it 100%? No, but it is certainly more than 30% (i’d guess closer to 60 - 70% are orthodox, but that’s purely a guess).
So I’d say that the majority of the 70% in your figure have already checked out. They might identify as Catholic, they might even attend Mass, but do they provide proportional support as their more orthodox brothers and sisters? That I’m not so sure about. I am sure there are major volunteers who don’t toe the line, but there are also likely orthodox members who for various reason haven’t stepped forward. It is possible that they might do so if there was a major crisis. Nature abhors a vacuum.
Would the Church be smaller and be able to do less if 70% left. Undoubtedly. Would She collapse as an institution, I don’t think so. Some of the times of greatest tribulation is when God provided the graces to rise up and rebuild hist Church.
So again, I will not cheer for them, but rather I will weep and pray for them.
And BTW I know where 1 Buddhist and 2 Hindu temples are. I personally know 5 or 6 Buddhists and over 30 Hindus. I suspect if I lived in Asia I’d know a ton more and few Catholics.
S
spunjalebi
Guest
Well since none of us are God, and won’t have the answers to this maybe it would be better to ask Him?
J
johnnyc176
Guest
So we should listen to you, rather than a Catholic priest, even though you are on the internet?
J
johnnyc176
Guest
I would suggest to have him read the Bible.
S
spunjalebi
Guest
That is NOT what he was saying at all. He was telling the OP that particular priest took a very different approach probably not used by most priests.
S
spunjalebi
Guest
He has read the Bible, but he’s also allowed to think what he wants. It’s not my job to nag and poke at him to be “more Catholic.” I didn’t become a Catholic with some backdoor agenda to wreck my marriage.
- Status