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

[ElToro]

This question strikes at the very core of this entire subject, and to me, it’s really what needs to be addressed.

To what degree does the characteristic of a method subsequently define the characteristic of that method’s individual chooser?

I think it depends largely on what characteristic is being offered…but most of the pro-COTT folks I’ve seen on here use descriptors that should not be construed as a characteristic of the pro-CITH folks. While there may be some exceptions from overly harsh and critical pro-COTTs who directly and unabashedly take aim at individual character, most of what I’ve witnessed is criticism of method exclusively.

IOW, if one says that the Holy Father prefers COTT because it better highlights the truth of the real presence in the Eucharist, aids the devotion of the faithful, and makes it easier to enter into the sense of mystery…does this say (or clearly infer) that an individual person who choose CITH is less aware of the truth of the Real Presence, is less devoted, and less immersed in the mystery?

To me, it says no such thing. Even saying something as vague and simplistic as “COTT is better than CITH”, to me does not infer that the COTT folks are saying that they themselves are better than the CITH folks. But maybe I’m not sensitive enough to all this. Heck, to me, you could say “CITH is stupid”, and if I were a devout CITH subscriber, I still wouldn’t translate it to say “you are stupid”.

As far as the “superior” argument goes…I’m not sure why some are trying so hard to deny that the Holy Father sees COTT as superior. If for certain reasons he sees some licit thing as “better” than some other equally licit thing, then to me, by definition, he feels that the better thing is superior to the other thing, for those certain reasons. For other reasons, perhaps he feels CITH is better, and hence superior. **But because he has yet to articulate that, it seems reasonable for one to argue that the COTT method is seen by the Holy See as superior. **

What am I missing? Does the Holy See think COTT is better for certain reasons or not? Does he have a similar claim for CITH, or not? If the answers are “yes” and “no” respectively, than IMO the Holy See views COTT as superior.

Peace.

The Pope has in no way articulated that COT is superior to CIH. We could derive from his actions that he personally prefers to distribute communion via COT but that’s it. The rest is a stretch and really nothing more of trying to use the Pope’s actions to lend credence to their own beliefs.

 

[ElToro]

Respectfully, I didn’t see any ambiguity or politics here. I think his position is clear. CITH is a bad practice. Period. There’s no denial of it’s licitness, but he feels it is bad. Saying that he would wonder about the motives of someone choosing CITH but acknowledging that their choice is licit does not seem to make him a fence-sitter at all, IMO.

Not necessarily saying I hold the same position (because I am not as versed in the history of CITH), but nonetheless, I think his position is crystal clear. I also don’t think he judges anyone who does choose CITH, btw. The fact that he “might question their motives” does not equate to declaring them “bad Catholics”. But as I’ve said before, sometimes I too thick-skinned.

Peace.

That’s your personal opinion, “period.”

The reason I started this thread was to ask why people form an opinion (as you have, which is neither here nor there even if it is error-filled) and then publicly attack/reject that which the Church has approved. To me that’s cafeteria Catholicism. Possibly a better word is dissenting Catholicism.

Catholics don’t have the “right” to suggest that CIH (as an example) is invalid/illicit/profane unless they want to be viewed as cafeteria/dissenting Catholics.

 

[ElToro]

Exactly the opposite. Pope Paul VI told the Europeans to stop giving communion in the hand and they ignored him. So then, realizing he could not enforce the law without taking drastic measures, he permitted the practice instead.

You’re spinning your wheels. You have yet to prove that COT is in any way superior to COT. The fact that the Church has apparoved CIH for most of the world ensures that it is not. What does that mean exactly? In more direct terms you are suggesting the Catholic Church has allowed (at the very least) a non-optimal methog of executing something crutially important within the context of the Mass when there is a superior (in your belief) process that is immediately available. Simply put, the Church would not do that.

The Church has condemned communion in the hand multiple times.

Communion in the Church also began via CIH. The Church has approved CIH in the Latin Rite of the Church for most of the World. That is the reality. That is the position of the Catholic Church.

Cafeteria Catholicism is rejecting whatever doctrine of the Church one personally does not agree with. Communion in the hand is not a doctrinal issue. It is an matter of discipline and the historical facts are that the the Holy See approved communion in the hand only after being completely ignored when it tried to uphold the law. It is not something that the Church, in her great wisdom, thought advisable; rather something that the Church prohibited and only tolerantly permitted when it seemed that there was no other option.

Cafeteria Catholicism is not limited to “doctrine.” At least not in my book.

You are taking an unfortunate and questionable decision made by the Holy See under extremely unusual circumstances and making it out to be a wise and benevolent gesture for the good of the faithful. And that is just wrong. Do you get it?

You really cannot see where your personal opinion does not trump the Catholic Church, can you?

 

[SteveGC]

That’s your personal opinion, “period.”

The reason I started this thread was to ask why people form an opinion (as you have, which is neither here nor there even if it is error-filled) and then publicly attack/reject that which the Church has approved. To me that’s cafeteria Catholicism. Possibly a better word is dissenting Catholicism.

Catholics don’t have the “right” to suggest that CIH (as an example) is invalid/illicit/profane unless they want to be viewed as cafeteria/dissenting Catholics.

ElToro, you need to more carefully read the posts in succession. I was referring to another poster’s opinion, not my own. I was telling someone that I disagreed with his assessment that a poster was being wishy-washy.

Who on here is saying CIH is invalid/illicit??

You use words like attack/reject so effortlessly, yet I have my doubts that the people you are referring to are being correctly labeled in their actions and words. IF a Catholic rejects a dogmatic teaching of the Church…or rejects Her authority…you can call them not only dissenting and cafeteria, but also a heretic.

But the point is, who is doing these things? Show me an example please. To be clear, I’d like to see an example of a Catholic rejecting either a dogmatic teaching (not a discipline, mind you)…or rejecting Her authority (rejecting the authority…not disagreeing with a decision on a discipline)…or both.

Peace.

 

[ElToro]

ElToro, you need to more carefully read the posts in succession. I was referring to another poster’s opinion, not my own. I was telling someone that I disagreed with his assessment that a poster was being wishy-washy.

Who on here is saying CIH is invalid/illicit??

You use words like attack/reject so effortlessly, yet I have my doubts that the people you are referring to are being correctly labeled in their actions and words. IF a Catholic rejects a dogmatic teaching of the Church…or rejects Her authority…you can call them not only dissenting and cafeteria, but also a heretic.

But the point is, who is doing these things? Show me an example please. To be clear, I’d like to see an example of a Catholic rejecting either a dogmatic teaching (not a discipline, mind you)…or rejecting Her authority (rejecting the authority…not disagreeing with a decision on a discipline)…or both.

Peace.

You’re trying to limit it to a “dogmatic teaching.” I have already noted that my definition is not constrained by that.

 

[SteveGC]

Cafeteria Catholicism is not limited to “doctrine.” At least not in my book.

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.

 

[ProVobis]

Fact? More speculation and conjecture, rather than Vatican documents, eh?

Can you show any documents where the Vatican initiated the practice? In fact, two councils and several Popes have condemned it. I understand that the practice is still prohibited unless a 2/3rd majority of bishops in a particular country vote for it and other conditions are met. Thus it can be revoked at any time.

 

[Tigg]

“Most ancient” doesn’t mean anything at all, even if true.

If antiquity is a virtue, then let us follow the “most ancient” form of the sacrament of penance, whereby penitents do public penance, including standing outside in front of the church in the “sinners box”, for 10 years before receiving absolution.

:clapping:

I’m of the opinion this thread title is inappropriately named, but no matter.

Perhaps, though, we can all strive to be more like Moses who removed his sandals when told he was on holy ground, and through the discernment of the HS reawaken all that is sacred as indicators of the promise of reform make us hopeful.

 

[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?

***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

 

[archangel04]

What? Be very careful.

If the Church has “released” a new directive or “norm” and one is adament about following it, that is hardly being an arbiter of what is reguired. That’s not my question

Further it would be resoundingly WRONG/FALSE to suggest that receiving communion in the Latin Rite while kneeling and/or on the tongue is “better” than other approved postures and methods because that is the personal choice of Pope Benedict XVI in how he chooses to distribute communion.
I guess I could ask the question why some falsly conclude that based on the Pope’ personal perogative? Is it because it matches their perconceived notions of what is “better” or “best?” I suppose that brings us back to the question of where they came up with such an idea?

Did i ever once mentioned that a certain practice is better than the other? If one does not receive communion with due reverence and fully knowing what they are receiving then the posture is pointless.

 

[archangel04]

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?

 

[PJM]

=Transformer;8026351]PJM,

When you say “the reform,” are you talking about Sacrosanctum Concilium alone? If so, then I suppose I can’t argue with you. But I think it’s more accurate to apply the term “the reform” to all of the liturgical changes made by the Church during and after Vatican II, in which case several things on your list was explicitly allowed by the reform, including:

• An altar facing the laity
• Altar girls
• Communion under BOTH species
• Communion received in the hand…

As to these:

• Removal of the Communion ralis
• Relocation of the tabernacle in a GREAT MANY CHURCHES

I really have no idea when they were allowed and when prohibited, since they are not per se things that happen at Mass, but rather, features of a church building. The second one in particular I find so self-evidently a horrible idea that while I suspect the tabernacle never strictly had to be front and center, I agree that moving it was a misguided side-effect of the “reform.”

I don’t believe “extraordinary” means “used less than 10% or 5% of the time.” It is not a matter of what percentage of time they are used. Rather, extraordinary means “not the standard way of doing things, used only when the ordinary way of doing things is impossible or insufficient.” If unfortunate and extraordinary circumstances (like a shortage of priests, as we have in the US) are in place every week, then extraordinary procedures may be present every week. That does not mean that the extraordinary things are being treated as ordinary, it merely means that the extraordinary things are needed every week.

But to the point, PJM is free to hold that all of the above are bad ideas. I think he’s wrong, but he is not a cafeteria Catholic for judging some practices to be really better than others.

***Thank you for your kind responce.

I am well aquaited with the “bishops” document: Environment in Catholic Worhsip and Built of Living Stones. I am aware of the progession of changes and much od the histroy behind them. And yes, I’m filmiliar with all of the Vatican II and post Vatican II documents.

I DO NOT HOLD the NOVUS ORDO to in any way be ilicit or invalid. That said; personal piety has always been on the front of Holines, vocations, and Obedience to Rome. It is indispuitable [IMO] that the N.O. - Mass provides the same degree of piety, humility and focus on Christ as does the E.F. Mass.

I make no attempt to JUDGE others actions, but MUST speak the truth when it is grought under attack.

Again I THANK you for your kindness,

God Bless,
Pat***

 

[Sirach2]

Will S:

Exactly the opposite. Pope Paul VI told the Europeans to stop giving communion in the hand and they ignored him. So then, realizing he could not enforce the law without taking drastic measures, he permitted the practice instead.

It is an matter of discipline and the historical facts are that the the Holy See approved communion in the hand only after being completely ignored when it tried to uphold the law. It is not something that the Church, in her great wisdom, thought advisable; rather something that the Church prohibited and only tolerantly permitted when it seemed that there was no other option.

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.

 

[SteveGC]

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.

Is your analogy to contraception a bit far-fetched based on the fact that you are comparing a dogmatic teaching (contraception) which cannot change, to a discipline (method of Eucharist consumption) which can change? Just curious…I am not necessarily taking any position yet as to the truth or falsehood of Will’s claim of the origins of CITH.

Peace.

 

[Sirach2]

Steve, I was not comparing doctrinal matter to a discipline, but rather, showing the integrity of Pope Paul VI and debunking the fallacy that the Vatican operates like a democracy, giving in to those who clamor the loudest. It is suggestive that the Church’s teaching authority can be compromised with a little pressure from the lower ranks.

Does that help?

 

[TrueLight]

Steve, I was not comparing doctrinal matter to a discipline, but rather, showing the integrity of Pope Paul VI and debunking the fallacy that the Vatican operates like a democracy, giving in to those who clamor the loudest. It is suggestive that the Church’s teaching authority can be compromised with a little pressure from the lower ranks.

Does that help?

How about disciplines? Can the church give in when it comes to disciplines due to pressure from its bishops?

 

[SteveGC]

Steve, I was not comparing doctrinal matter to a discipline, but rather, showing the integrity of Pope Paul VI and debunking the fallacy that the Vatican operates like a democracy, giving in to those who clamor the loudest. It is suggestive that the Church’s teaching authority can be compromised with a little pressure from the lower ranks.

Does that help?

Yes, but it seems to me to be reasonable for a pontiff, while maintaining supreme, unwavering authority in dogmatic matters, to be susceptible to compromise in lesser matters, like disciplines. IOW, I just didn’t think it to be a stretch to assert that a pope might easily sway on matters of discipline.

Anyway, I look forward to Will’s response here.

Peace.

 

[Sirach2]

TrueLight:

How about disciplines? Can the church give in when it comes to disciplines due to pressure from its bishops?

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.

 

[PJM]

=Will S;8030861]One of the biggest problems with communion in the hand is that it was permitted only because it was already being done illicitly and disobediently in several European countries and the Holy See believed that trying to stamp it out would be more harmful to the Church in those countries than permitting it.

But a bad practice which is tolerated only because disobedient and rebellious persons started doing it without permission is still a bad practice.

THANK GOD SOMEONE BESIDES ME GET’S IT!

God Bless you and WELCOME to the FORUM!

Pat

 

[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?