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

[ElToro]

Then frankly I would say it’s you who are being a bit unfair, reading a negative judgment of people’s hearts or faiths into traditionalists’ criticisms of certain practices . No judgment of individuals is implied by traditionalists’ arguing for what they think are superior practices, except perhaps that the individuals have not reasoned through the issue sufficiently or do not have all the information they need to arrive at the truth. Most liturgical traditionalists I know are not implying anything about others’ holiness or faith when they argue about the liturgy.

I would say that it is simply incorrect to call a practice allowed by the Church “illicit” or “abusive.” But it is not cafeteria Catholicism to take the position that a certain discipline is really inferior to an alternative. The very principle of Resourcement from Vatican II implies that a current discipline in the Church could be inferior to an older practice, and so, that a return to that different older practice is called for. Laypeople are free to criticize disciplines; indeed, if they are genuinely convinced that the alternative is better, it might be their duty to do so. Catholics get the motivation to call a discipline inferior or a bad idea simply because it seems to them in their reason that it really is so.

And I am no liturgical traditionalist, as a search of my posts will clearly reveal.

I cannot think of a more obvious practice of cafeteria Catholicism than to pick and choose whichelemtns/options of the Mass one will accept as being licit/valid. I’m not talking about those who prefer (for instance) COT. I’m talking about those who outwardly attack/condemn CIH. There is a wold of difference between the two.

 

[ElToro]

Apples and oranges, because likewise the difference between voicing a preference for one over the other as more reverent and declaring valid actions as objectively wrong or disordered is just as far as the east is from the west… and that’s the point that’s being made: we can have preference (Lord knows I certainly do!), but we cannot declare invalid and illicit what the church has allowed as valid and licit.

Sublime… Thanks.

 

[ElToro]

***Friend you and likeminded COULD NOT possibly be more wrong.

Do you understand that Our Pope is CHRIST on earth?

May God bless and grant you understanding,

Pat***

I’m trying to understand why people make the comments you are making. It’s really the focus of this entire thread. Why do people attempt to make themselves the arbiter of what is right and wrong, good or bad within the context of the faith?

This is the Church;s job, not their job.

 

[Stylites]

. . . but ONLY consecrated hands ought to touch the REAL Presence of Jesus.

. . .

Because of my age and physical condition I Genuflect and receive Christ on my tongue. I ONLY receive communion from the priest and ONLY take the Blood of Christ from a priest or a Deacon.

Pat,

While it is certainly wonderful to hear you are following your preferences in the Holy Sacrament, your apparent mistake is in trying to say that your preference only ought to be allowed to everyone. Since the Church teaches otherwise, it is incumbent upon us to understand it and follow it, lest we become . . . cafeteria Catholics, picking and choosing which teachings of the Church we are to follow.

 

[ElToro]

Pat,

While it is certainly wonderful to hear you are following your preferences in the Holy Sacrament, your apparent mistake is in trying to say that your preference only ought to be allowed to everyone. Since the Church teaches otherwise, it is incumbent upon us to understand it and follow it, lest we become . . . cafeteria Catholics, picking and choosing which teachings of the Church we are to follow.

Exactly. That his personal choices are somehow “better” than those of someone else, presuming both are allowed within the Church.

I make no distinction between “allowed” and “encouraged.” In the USA in the Latin Rite of the Church the encouraged posture is standing. That does not make it superior or inferior to the posture of kneeling – only different.

If I attack either posture as being inferior or illicit I am wrong.

 

[PJM]

=Stylites;8023205]Yes, it does seem pretty lame to see people occasionally claim that a music director or a guitar or dirty hands of others or a clown costume from 1973 got them to quit the Church, and then stacking their self-righteous indignation up against what the martyrs went through so as to not deny Christ.

***How dificult is it to blame others for ones own goofs?

Leaving the CC for ANY reason is abandoment of God. And such will be juded accordingly by a Just God.***

This passage applies SPECIFICALLY to Catholics…

Heb.6 Verses 4 to 10: “For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if [WHEN] they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt. For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned.”

May God grant them the grace, wisdom and corrrage to come Home!

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Transformer]

I cannot think of a more obvious practice of cafeteria Catholicism than to pick and choose whichelemtns/options of the Mass one will accept as being licit/valid.

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.

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.

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.

 

[SteveGC]

Seems we’re trying to redefine the colloquialism “cafeteria Catholics”. Not a big deal to the point of this thread, but since others seem to debate the use of it, I thought I’d remind everyone that the primary use of this phrase is associated with those Catholics who pick and choose which DOCTRINES to follow, not which DISCIPLINES. Cafeteria Catholics are typically not in communion with the Church for one reason or another.

Painting alleged “attackers of CIH” with the broad brush of “cafeteria Catholic” will not get one far in productive dialogue, simply because that label does not fit. Granted, I do not support any Catholic “attacking” another over a discipline, but could we be more clear about what we really mean by “attacking”? It seems a harsh allegation, and I would not equate someone stating that CIH is inferior to COT as being an “attacker”.

My personal opinion is that if the Pope finds COT while kneeling to be preferable, than to him it is superior to CIH, and since he is our Holy Father, it is not unreasonable for some to assert that it should have superiority for all the faithful.

Peace.

 

[curlycool89]

Then frankly I would say it’s you who are being a bit unfair, reading a negative judgment of people’s hearts or faiths into traditionalists’ criticisms of certain practices . No judgment of individuals is implied by traditionalists’ arguing for what they think are superior practices, except perhaps that the individuals have not reasoned through the issue sufficiently or do not have all the information they need to arrive at the truth. Most liturgical traditionalists I know are not implying anything about others’ holiness or faith when they argue about the liturgy.

That’s not what it seems like when you take into account all you see here. It’s not everyone, no, but there are some that I’ve seen.

Certainly piety is both a private thing and a public thing. One errors in not understanding this. Receiving keeling is both publically [the lesser important aspect] and privately a MUCH better choice, because we DO NOT TOUCH or hold God in our hands. Our “bodies indeed are a temple” but ONLY consecrated hands ought to touch the REAL Presence of Jesus.

I don’t want to be a dick, but I will for a minute. What about Deacons? Their hands are not consecrated, and they are an ordinary minister of the Eucharist.

***Friend you and likeminded COULD NOT possibly be more wrong.

Do you understand that Our Pope is CHRIST on earth?

May God bless and grant you understanding,

Pat***

Dude, that’s heresy. The Pope is not Christ on earth, the Pope is the vicar of Christ. He is the Steward to the King (think Faramir to Aragorn, the Pope is Faramir). That’s why Jesus gave Peter the keys, because the keys are the symbol of the steward.

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.

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.

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.

There’s a difference between what you’re saying here in your second paragraph and what we’re seeing. I have no problem with someone saying COTT is better than CITH because of symbolism or whatever if someone wants to make that argument. What we are no ok with is someone going on from there to say that people who receive CITH are “less faithful” or “less orthodox”.

If they are doing something that is licit (like CITH), then they are just as orthodox as someone who does something people might consider “better” (like COTT).

 

[Transformer]

There’s a difference between what you’re saying here in your second paragraph and what we’re seeing. I have no problem with someone saying COTT is better than CITH because of symbolism or whatever if someone wants to make that argument. What we are no ok with is someone going on from there to say that people who receive CITH are “less faithful” or “less orthodox”.

If they are doing something that is licit (like CITH), then they are just as orthodox as someone who does something people might consider “better” (like COTT).

Yes, I think we agree.

 

[EasterJoy]

If I’m reading the question correctly, the OP agrees with Thomas a Kempis:

“What difference does it make to you what someone else becomes, or says, or does? You do not need to answer for others, only for yourself.”

 

[SteveGC]

I have no problem with someone saying COTT is better than CITH because of symbolism or whatever if someone wants to make that argument. What we are no ok with is someone going on from there to say that people who receive CITH are “less faithful” or “less orthodox”.

If they are doing something that is licit (like CITH), then they are just as orthodox as someone who does something people might consider “better” (like COTT).

Can you give examples of the situations or episodes here on CAF (or elsewhere) where someone who holds COTT in higher regard also claims that you, as a person, are inferior to him/her because of your preference to CITH? How does that sort of dialogue play out specifically?

I really think people become unnecessarily offended by criticisms of methods/practices, misconstruing them as criticisms or judgments of PEOPLE.

Peace.

 

[curlycool89]

Can you give examples of the situations or episodes here on CAF (or elsewhere) where someone who holds COTT in higher regard also claims that you, as a person, are inferior to him/her because of your preference to CITH? How does that sort of dialogue play out specifically?

I really think people become unnecessarily offended by criticisms of methods/practices, misconstruing them as criticisms or judgments of PEOPLE.

Peace.

Well, there was the criticism I pointed out above about “people without consecrated hands shouldn’t touch the Eucharist”. Essentially, it’s saying we’re bad Catholics for touching Jesus (leaving aside the fact right now that it’s totally bunk because a Deacon is an ordinary minister and doesn’t have consecrated hands either). The poster went in-depth and mentioned that privately (inwardly) it’s a “better choice”, which implies that people should feel inward guilt if they are not behaving in the way the poster deems “better”.

What about the many times we’ve seen people who suggest that people be forced to kneel and receive on the tongue (or mandatory alter rails, ect) (just in the Liturgy forum, I don’t want to speculate on what happens in the Traditional forum)? How is that not saying “these people who receive CITH aren’t reverent enough and should be made to be ‘more’ reverent” (putting aside for the moment that forced reverence is really in itself false or pretend reverence)?

I’ve seen other examples, but my point is not to go on a witch hunt. I’m just giving a general comment.

 

[SteveGC]

Well, there was the criticism I pointed out above about “people without consecrated hands shouldn’t touch the Eucharist”. Essentially, it’s saying we’re bad Catholics for touching Jesus (leaving aside the fact right now that it’s totally bunk because a Deacon is an ordinary minister and doesn’t have consecrated hands either). The poster went in-depth and mentioned that privately (inwardly) it’s a “better choice”, which implies that people should feel inward guilt if they are not behaving in the way the poster deems “better”.

Interesting, because I think you have to read into that considerably to deduce that there is a claim of “bad Catholic”. My immediate reaction to this is that the pro-COTT person simply believes hands in general should not come into contact with the Host. Why read more into it? It’s a criticism of method, not a judgment on the method chooser.

What about the many times we’ve seen people who suggest that people be forced to kneel and receive on the tongue (or mandatory alter rails, ect) (just in the Liturgy forum, I don’t want to speculate on what happens in the Traditional forum)? How is that not saying “these people who receive CITH aren’t reverent enough and should be made to be ‘more’ reverent” (putting aside for the moment that forced reverence is really in itself false or pretend reverence)?

I agree this sort of comment offered publicly is taking things a bit too far. It’s one thing to think these things, but entirely another to state them in the presence of those who do not share their sentiment. Still, I don’t think the intent is to denigrate. Rather, it is a deep longing to realize sacred worship with a unified outwardly visible reverence to the Eucharist…a sign of solidarity and unity, if you will. I can understand that longing, and I have to agree with the COTT crowd that their method does that much better than CITH…provide an outwardly visible sign of reverence, that is. Don’t get me wrong…the heart trumps the appearance, but there is something to the appearance that seems to count too - assuming it is always accompanied by the heart.

I’ve seen other examples, but my point is not to go on a witch hunt. I’m just giving a general comment.

And thanks for sharing. I am a 4 year convert, btw, who up until very recently was only CITH. I slowly began transitioning to COTT because I take my 1 year old up to communion with me and do not want to risk mishandling the Host. As that has progressed, it has had the effect of deepening my reverence and focus on the Real Presence. Not that I believe that we all must do it…and not that I even feel it is a superior method per se. But it does help me.

Peace.

 

[Love_Divine]

Well, there was the criticism I pointed out above about “people without consecrated hands shouldn’t touch the Eucharist”. Essentially, it’s saying we’re bad Catholics for touching Jesus (leaving aside the fact right now that it’s totally bunk because a Deacon is an ordinary minister and doesn’t have consecrated hands either).

It’s not “essentially saying” anything. It’s saying that people without consecrated hands shouldn’t touch the Eucharist. For your argument about the Deacon, the Deacon is the ordinary minister of the Chalice. This is why when there is a Deacon present, he raises the Chalice during the consecration. Whenever I’ve been to a Mass without any EMHC’s and there’s a deacon, the priest(s) distribute the host, and the deacon(s) distribute the wine.

The poster went in-depth and mentioned that privately (inwardly) it’s a “better choice”, which implies that people should feel inward guilt if they are not behaving in the way the poster deems “better”.

Again, you’re reading into things too much. There’s the old saying, “familiarity builds contempt” and this is what most people mean when it’s inwardly a better choice. How many people who receive CITH honestly make a profound sign of reverence and then receive Him in their hands which they raise and make like a throne to receive their King? (Seriously, think about it in those words.) When I quit receiving CITH, the way in which I inwardly received him changed.

What about the many times we’ve seen people who suggest that people be forced to kneel and receive on the tongue (or mandatory alter rails, ect) (just in the Liturgy forum, I don’t want to speculate on what happens in the Traditional forum)? How is that not saying “these people who receive CITH aren’t reverent enough and should be made to be ‘more’ reverent” (putting aside for the moment that forced reverence is really in itself false or pretend reverence)?

Vatican II never said to remove the communion rails and to start receiving communion in the hand. In fact, CITH is only permitted right now because special permission was granted to some Congregations of Bishops in areas who requested it. At any moment the pope could remove the permission for CITH and everyone would have to receive on the tongue. Furthermore, the priest has every right to refuse CITH if he believes there is risk of profanation of the Eucharist. COTT is the universal norm. CITH is only permitted with special permission from the pope.

 

[ProVobis]

I suggest that you try not to worry about it.

Precisely. Otherwise you put yourself at the same level of being a critic as you are accusing others of being.

 

[Stylites]

It’s not “essentially saying” anything. It’s saying that people without consecrated hands shouldn’t touch the Eucharist.

Apropos to the title of this thread, a “cafeteria-style” faith says that something allowed and permitted by the Magisterium ought not be allowed and permitted.

 

[Will_S]

Apropos to the title of this thread, a “cafeteria-style” faith says that something allowed and permitted by the Magisterium ought not be allowed and permitted.

No. That is ridiculous. This is not a question of the Magesterium, which is the teaching authority of the Church. When the Holy See granted the indult to permit communion in the hand, it was not an act of teaching authority. It was an act of presumed mercy done to legitimize the rampant illicit and disobedient abuse of communion in the hand that was already widely occurring.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with criticizing that decision or the current practice.

 

[PJM]

=ElToro;8024309]I think the term “cafeteria Catholic” is very fitting when applied to those Catholics who makes claim that certain elements the Church allows/encourages are somehow bad or “illicit” or “abusive” or even inferior to their personal choices.

Critisizing an allowed/encouraged “discipline” is terribly bad practice. Again, I’m not sure where Catholics get the motivation to do that?

The Motivation is Satan using the MOST POWERFUL tool in his arssenal …HUMAN PRIDE

It comes from a personal belief that one knows More or knows better than the Church, and even God Himself.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[benedictgal]

I don’t want to be a dick, but I will for a minute. What about Deacons? Their hands are not consecrated, and they are an ordinary minister of the Eucharist.

Curlycool, the deacon is the ordinary minister of Holy Communion, not the Eucharist. As he is neither a bishop nor a priest, he cannot confect (consecrate) the Eucharist.