Why are there cafeteria Catholics when it comes to the OF?

[PJM]

=Annabelle Marie;8030953]Says you, but the Church does allow it and Pope Benedict has said he doesn’t have a problem with it. So, saying it isn’t allow does make someone a Cafeteria Catholic because that is NOT what the Church has said. Just because someone does not “like” it does not give them the right to act as if someone is disobedient for doing it. It is no different, IMO, then a Cafeteria Catholic because they want to pick and choose. Having a personal preference is fine…its when you start teaching something other then what the Church has said that is not. It would be like me teaching that COTT is not allowed any more

FRIEND I’M NOT EASILY AGIATED but!

Do you have ANY understanding of HOW and WHY we got to where we are?

Were you for example AWARE that the Church Fathers of Vatican II actually discussed Communion under Both species, and Communion in the HAND and rejected both handly?

This being FACT, ought one to ask why and how?

As a FYI…
THE POPE IS THEE CHURCH… THE VERY VICAR OF CHRIST!

But that means naught? OUR opinion are MORE importamt because???" WHY; because they are mine

God Bless you and may He grant all of us Wisdon and humility,

Pat

 

[ElToro]

I agree with this. But we seem to be talking past one another a bit. What I’m saying is this: Catholics do not have to hold that absolutely every option allowed by the Church is equally good, and that any preference of one over another is never more than subjective preference.

Again, there is no problem with showing a preference for something licit. But to attack something licit as being inferior is a no-no. We all have our preference but we simply lack the authority (as some have done on this very thread) to say (for instance) that COT is intrinsically superior to CIH.

I mean, if Catholics can’t ever hold that one option for the liturgy is really better than another, that leads into absurdity. Can I not think that one Memorial Acclamation is slightly better poetry, or slightly more suited to music, than the others, and so, that that option is really a bit better than the alternatives? Can I not hold that ringing the bell to start the mass is better than having the cantor announce the first hymn, for a variety of reasons? Heck, the very fact that the Church sometimes changes details of how the Mass is celebrated implies that some disciplines can be better than others.

I think you can without question state your PREFERENCE for different. licit, options but to suggest they are “better?” Nope. They can certainly be more pleasing to some individuals. But “better?” No way.

Now, absolutely, I agree, if a Catholic claims that something clearly permitted by the Church is illicit, or that it actually invalidates the Mass, then he’s a cafeteria Catholic (see: schismatic traditionalists). But a Catholic can hold that one option is a bit better than another, and that its superiority is not merely a matter of subjective preference.

Or is even inferior. Let’s take the Mass and within the context of something so awesome the crucial process of distributing communion. It’s unfathomable to me that the Church would allow something (CIH or COT) that is inherently inferior to another (CIH or COT.) Do you honestly even think that’s possible, and please no comments about the lack of papal infallibility. It’s absurd to me that the Church would approve something (such as CIH) and only select Joe and Jane Catholics (and not the Church itself) would be aware the Church mistepped. That’s just silly.

 

[ElToro]

FRIEND I’M NOT EASILY AGIATED but!

Do you have ANY understanding of HOW and WHY we got to where we are?

Were you for example AWARE that the Church Fathers of Vatican II actually discussed Communion under Both species, and Communion in the HAND and rejected both handly?

This being FACT, ought one to ask why and how?

As a FYI…
**THE POPE IS THEE CHURCH… **THE VERY VICAR OF CHRIST!

But that means naught? OUR opinion are MORE importamt because???" WHY; because they are mine

God Bless you and may He grant all of us Wisdon and humility,

Pat

Wrong. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ of which He is the Head.

 

[ElToro]

Then please just realize that you are using it well outside of it’s intended and commonly understood and agreed upon usage. Although an unofficial term not used by the Church, it is typically used to describe dissent from doctrinal or moral teaching from the Church. Hence, neither “cafeteria” nor “dissenting” are appropriate adjectives to describe a Catholic who disagrees and criticizes a discipline within the Church.

Use them if you must, and perhaps no one will tell you it is insulting, but maybe you could refer to them in other ways. Call them “holier-than-thou” if you want. Not that it fits most of the ones you’re debating, but it’s likely more accurate a term than those above.

Peace.

I don’t think they are “holier-than-thous.” Many of their comments are anything but holy or pious. I took your comments seriously and I am searching for what might be a more appropriate label.

I do feel they believe they can pick and choose what to accept from the Church and what to attack.

 

[ElToro]

***WOW

It’s the first time I have been called a “cafeteria catholic” because I follow my Pope!***

It tells me where the laity is today and how they feel there rights exceed papal direction.

Dear LORD, Please Grant us Wisdom and lead us to YOUR Truth,

Pat

Pope Bendict XVI has never encouraged Catholics to become their own arbiters of what they choose to accept (ex. COT) from the Church and what they will choose to reject and more importantly, publically attack (ex. CIH.) That’s simply another form of moral relativism.

 

[ElToro]

ElToro do you know now how the recent practice of the COTH came to be? Seems you are well educated in this subject so I am sure you can answer my question?

I know the history. Are you aware the important part of this is that the Church definately allows CIH in most of the world (and being via indult in no way makes it inferior) and not your opinion that you feel the process it used to make that allowance is somehow unacceptable?

 

[ElToro]

One could say the same thing about being in communion with the Church. You’re either in communion, or not. But people seem to be very eager to split the difference there too.

If you are interested in my opinion, I say communion in the hand is not contrary to the faith, but it is dangerous to faith, rightly condemned, and unfortunately tolerated at the present time.

That’s not true. It’s not that cut-n-dried. Catholics are in perfect communion with the Catholic Church. The Orthodox are in imperfect communion. Protestants are not in communion…

 

[archangel04]

I know the history. Are you aware the important part of this is that the Church definately allows CIH in most of the world (and being via indult in no way makes it inferior) and not your opinion that you feel the process it used to make that allowance is somehow unacceptable?

You are just putting word into my mouth. Never did I say it was inferior. I am only asking you to please answer my questions. How did modern COTH came to be? I am not talking about the early church times I am talking about recent times. Please feel free to answer.

 

[ElToro]

Why can’t there be levels of preference or superiority among licit things? That makes no sense to me.

There certainly can (and are) differing personal preferences. But for someone to equate their personal preference to an intrinsically superior (or inferior) state is wrong.

 

[ElToro]

I see a lot of allegations you made concerning so-called facts, but no sources. How about backing up your comments with some historical proof? It is really ludicrous for any Catholic to believe that the Vatican caved due to having no other option. If that were true, then the thousands of people who supported contraception would have seen the Vatican cave there, also. However, we know through Humana Vitae that this same Pope Paul VI does NOT give in to popular opinion, nor do I believe he conceded CIH because of some Europeans ignoring him.

Indeed. Taking that a step further, IF the Church did cave because it had no other options (as absurd as that sounds) why in the heck would one remain Catholic? That would equate to the Church turning Herself into a cafeteria. If she caved on this “discipline” due to public opinion why wouldn’t she cave on other matters as well? Why didn’t she cave on ABC as you mention?

I think the return of CIH was a few hundred years in the making. I think there are many cultural and sociological factors that played a big part in the decision that most have never even considered. Most take the silly viewpoint that the Church was against CIH but that it folded due to popular pressure. No way.

 

[ProVobis]

If that were true, then the thousands of people who supported contraception would have seen the Vatican cave there, also.

Possibly because of a misinterpretation of the conscience clause of Pope Paul’s earlier Populorum Progressio #37:

“Finally, it is for parents to take a thorough look at the matter and decide upon the number of their children. This is an obligation they take upon themselves, before their children already born, and before the community to which they belong—following the dictates of their own consciences informed by God’s law authentically interpreted, and bolstered by their trust in Him.”

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_26031967_populorum_en.html

IMO it would have been the cafeteria Catholics who chose to believe everything is a matter of conscience rather than to H.V.

 

[TrueLight]

I believe the word “pressure” is not a good word because it creates a picture of the papacy being led around by the nose of the bishops. Truth is Truth, and if this was in fact a “mistake” as Will S alleged, the Church could have certainly corrected it, as she has done in revamping the choice of words used in the OF liturgy. Yet nothing has been done in all these years, giving me some certitude that there is no such documentation to prove that the Pope went against his better judgment.

Yes, in collaboration with the world’s bishops who petitioned for this manner of receiving communion, the Pope would have reviewed their theological reasons for and against it, and decided accordingly. It is disrespective of the Holy See to imply that the Pope just simply follows willy-nilly, rather than truly leads.

Who said anything about willy nilly?

What happens at meetings? People discuss things. People negotiate. There is a give and take. Not every battle should be fought.

1 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’**? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied**, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard****. But it was not this way from the beginning.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

FRIEND I’M NOT EASILY AGIATED but!

Do you have ANY understanding of HOW and WHY we got to where we are?

Were you for example AWARE that the Church Fathers of Vatican II actually discussed Communion under Both species, and Communion in the HAND and rejected both handly?

This being FACT, ought one to ask why and how?

As a FYI…
THE POPE IS THEE CHURCH… THE VERY VICAR OF CHRIST!

But that means naught? OUR opinion are MORE importamt because???" WHY; because they are mine

God Bless you and may He grant all of us Wisdon and humility,

Pat

Maybe its because you are so agitated…but I don’t get your post.

It seems on one hand you are saying that the Pope is Thee Church and then are on the other hand saying he was weak and pressured into allowing CITH?

To me…it’s Holy Mother Church and when people start saying things like the Pope was wrong to allow it and it’s just because he was weak and didn’t see another option…well you’re insulting my momma

 

[PJM]

=ElToro;8035496]Wrong. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ of which He is the Head.

So the Pope is …

1. Not the head of the CC?
2. Does not have to [absolute sense] be OBEYED? [Faith matters and Moralty]
3. Does NOT speak with the authority and power of Christ Himself? [Faith and Morals]
4. Gives example of Faith practice ONLY because he favors this or that?
5. And Christ Mystical body is headless?
6. So how then, if NOT through the Pope [the HOLDER of ALL the Key’s Complete access to heaven…Mt. 16:19] does Christ and the Holy Spirit speak to us these days?

WOW; you my friend MUST belong to a Different Roman catholic Church than I do

God/s continued Blessings,

Pat

 

[curlycool89]

So the Pope is …

1. Not the head of the CC?

Jesus has always been said to be the Head. The Pope is His vicar, and as I said he is the Steward.

1. Does not have to [absolute sense] be OBEYED? [Faith matters and Moralty]

On faith and morality. How to receive communion is a discipline (much like celebacy in the priesthood). We can disagree on discipline as long as we acknowledge that the Church makes the final decision. In this case, the Church has said both COTT and CITH are licit, therefore nobody is allowed to question the licitness.

1. Does NOT speak with the authority and power of Christ Himself? [Faith and Morals]

Careful. The Pope can also have personal opinions. For example, Pope Benedict’s has said his book Jesus of Nazareth is his own personal theological teaching, not that of the universal Magisterium. So the Pope does not always speak with that authority.

1. Gives example of Faith practice ONLY because he favors this or that?

Method of distribution of communion is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of discipline.

1. And Christ Mystical body is headless?

See above.

1. So how then, if NOT through the Pope [the HOLDER of ALL the Key’s Complete access to heaven…Mt. 16:19] does Christ and the Holy Spirit speak to us these days?

See above again. The Holy Spirit speaks through the Church and the Pope, but the Pope can also have his own personal opinions which are not binding on the faithful.

 

[Sirach2]

Sirach2:

PJM,

I pose the same question to you as I did to Will S. Where’s your proof or source that
"a bad practice (CIH) is tolerated only because disobedient and rebellious persons started doing it without permission. Since you applauded this, maybe you also have documentation?

Apparently the bluff was just another case of propaganda to make one’s argument appear to be credible. Will S has been on line since the question was asked of him, but apparently he has nothing to substantiate his claim, either. For the innocent reader who relied on this hearsay propaganda, I feel very saddened.