Why is it that cafeteria Catholics

[mercygate]

Strider:

Yup. And some Catholics consider it okay to get an abortion. But only if it’s necessary. Some Catholics consider it okay to sleep in on Sunday until noon. Heck, they were out late Saturday night. Some Catholcs consider it against Church teaching to avoid taking the pill. Some…well, you get the idea.

rlg98406, I think, meant that NFP, because it effectively regulates births, is contrary to the spirit of marriage and of trust in God. ?? I believe that is what was meant; not that NFP is against “freedom of conscience” to flaut Church teaching.

 

[sherilo]

To all who responded to my post regarding my current views on contraception:

I have to leave now, and my pc at home is on the blink. Would love to respond, and ask more questions. If this topic is still going on Monday, I will. Until then, you all have given me much to ponder. That’s why I joined this forum in the first place. Thanks, and peace to you all.

Sherilo

 

[rlg94086]

mercygate:

rlg98406, I think, meant that NFP, because it effectively regulates births, is contrary to the spirit of marriage and of trust in God. ?? I believe that is what was meant; not that NFP is against “freedom of conscience” to flaut Church teaching.

Bingo. I don’t happen to agree with the anti-NFP viewpoint, but someone who does is not going against the Church. The Church approves of NFP, but does not require it as dogma . Thanks Mercygate.

Pax,

Robert.

 

[aspawloski4th]

this answer is mainly to sherillo, but for everyone. first when one follows the church on somethings and not others, what do you want me to call it? I used cafeteria catholic, because thats the title of this thread. I hear the judgemental accusation when ever I defend the church not going along with modernism. I consder birthcontrol a part of modernism. remeber modernism is names as an error in the syllubus of errors.
2nd when you get married in the church you agree to accept children as God gives them to you. if you dont want children either dont have sex or dont get married in the church. reasoning away that conraception isnt a sin, doesnt make it any less a sin.
3rd Im married wouldnt wouldnt consider enjopying love making wrong any more than anyone else. but god created it first to propagate humanity or huimanity would of ended with adam and eve.
4th remember I stated all christian denominations considered artifial birthcontrol a sin till 1930. so taking away sin status is annother new idea. do you expect the church to go along with every new idea that comes down the road. to be very honest with everyone here birthcontrol aside, Im quite sick n tired of new ideas creeping into the church I grew up in. ie no purgatory, birth control, priests not wearing their roman collars, etc ,etc. whats next? no hell, calling God female! I can see why my parents would like to bring back the medieval catholic church. you knew where you stood then.
last. we as catholics are allowed to think for our selves, but we are supposed to submit our will to the church. most of us are not studied in the bible,traditions, teachings, etc ,etc of the church over the years. its the church’s job to guide us to heaven, not make us happy on earth!
for me and my wife’s household we want to get to heaven and not burn in hell. we dont use conraception.

 

[amarischuk]

Yes, there are many things condemned in the Syllabus of errors. Other errors which it condemned are:

1. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. – Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.

1. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. – Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.
2. The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect. – Apostolic Letter “Ad Apostolicae,” Aug. 22, 1851
3. The Roman pontiffs have, by their too arbitrary conduct, contributed to the division of the Church into Eastern and Western. – Apostolic Letter “Ad Apostolicae,” Aug. 22, 1851.
4. Catholics may approve of the system of educating youth unconnected with Catholic faith and the power of the Church, and which regards the knowledge of merely natural things, and only, or at least primarily, the ends of earthly social life. – Ibid.
5. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. – Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855.
6. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

And aspawloski4th wrote:

Im quite sick n tired of new ideas creeping into the church I grew up in. ie no purgatory, birth control, priests not wearing their roman collars, etc ,etc. whats next? no hell, calling God female! I can see why my parents would like to bring back the medieval catholic church.

You obviously have no idea about the Middle Ages. They were an open, liberal, progressive era of dialogue. Only in the Middle Ages could Dante place so many popes in Hell, Abelard write Sic et Non, Siger of Brabant hold a teaching position in Paris, Hugh of Saint Victor write the Didascalion, Chaucer write the Canterbury Tales, and the time of Roger Bacon . It was a period of the investiture controversy and as W.R. Southern pointed out the close cooperation between church and state, rather than the absolutist approach of the renaissance papacy which claimed spiritual and temporal superiority.

But at the same time, there were the antecedents of modern ultra-montain papalism: the condemnations of Thomas Aquinas, Meister Eckhart, Giles of Rome, the Donation of Constantine forgery, the excesses of Pope Gregory, the abuse of power of Bernard of Gui, the anti-intellectualism of St Bernard of Clairveaux.

In fact, the greatest voices for reform in the Church in the twentieth century were Medievalists such as Henri de Lubac, Yves Congar, Etienne Gilson, Marie Domonique Chenu, Dom David Knowles, Frederick Copleston and Jacques Maritain. I consider it an insult to the present church and the middle ages to equate post Trent Catholism with the splendor of the Medieval era.

Adam

 

[aspawloski4th]

what I was thinking of, and my parents think of when they want catholic church brought back. is the pope runs the show, heritics get burned at the stake, like john huss. there may have been liberal people blithering their bs, but the rules were the rules and the church didnt change them for anything. one big differenece from today in the midages was people valued the soul over the body. thats the stuff I was thinking of. But I will say the councel of trent era of the church wasnt bad either.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Originally Posted by Catholic4aReasn
*

Strider:

That’s the logic behind “give the high school kids condoms because, ‘they’re going to do it anyway’.”
QUOTE]

Do you know of any parent who would simply put a helmet on their toddler’s head because “they’re going to run out in the street anyway”? Why on earth would we do that with our teens?

In Christ,
Nancy

Strider:

Nancy,
I believe we are in agreement, here. Sometimes, the sarcasm gets lost in the translation.

Apparently so. I knew you were being sarcastic. Thought you’d know I was too. *

 

[amarischuk]

aspawloski4th:

what I was thinking of, and my parents think of when they want catholic church brought back. is the pope runs the show, heritics get burned at the stake, like john huss. there may have been liberal people blithering their bs, but the rules were the rules and the church didnt change them for anything. one big differenece from today in the midages was people valued the soul over the body. thats the stuff I was thinking of. But I will say the councel of trent era of the church wasnt bad either.

The pope didn’t run the show in the middle ages. The Church in the middle ages was far more collegial than the present post-trent Church (even with the VII liberalization). For a great part of the Middle Ages the pope didn’t even have comlpete power over episcopal investitures. Are you sure you want the American Government, the Canadian Government or the French Government having a say in who is the next bishop of the diocese of X? During the time of the middle ages, the state and church cooperated and often the will of the state prevailed.

There were desparate attempts to define realms of authority, such as the famous example of the state being the temporal arm of the Church…but those attempts are proof that no balance had been struck. I would almost hazard the statement that the state (Holy Roman Empire and the French monarchy) and the magisterium were two halves of the Church in the Middle Ages. The magisterium was not equated with the Church like it was post Trent, which VII tried to correct by reintroducing the importance of the laity.

In the middle ages there were factions established against the ultramontainist style heresy of the papacy, such as the Gulf and Ghebellin war, Ochkam’s flight to the Holy Roman Empiror. The great schism. There was no formulation of Papal infallibility and the bishops were usually left much freer that today to deal with problems in their diocese.

The burning of Huss was one of the darkest moments in papal history where the safe conduct granted to him was recinded. The pope effectively lied and murdered a man without giving him a change to defend himself.

As for those liberal people and their BS, I am glad to hear that you concider Albert Magnus and Thomas Aquinas’ contributions to Catholicism BS.

And as for people being concerned more with thier souls than their bodies. Maybe the superstituous common folk often were, but seldom was the magisterium, including the papacy. But even the common folk tended to be much more ‘earthy’ than the platonist/fundamentalist style Catholicism emerging in the USA.

The Middle Ages were the greatest time of the Church, but not for the reasons most conservative Catholics believe.

Adam

 

[aspawloski4th]

thomas aquinas liberal by the standard of his time, maybe, by the standard of our time no. I call being able to coronate kings and emporors pretty powerful, current day popes cant do that. ultimately maybe what we need in this time is an intense study of the"syllabus of errors", and a big movement to heed it. remember if God would of wanted us to be permisive he would of gave us the 10 sugestions.

 

[amarischuk]

aspawloski4th:

thomas aquinas liberal by the standard of his time, maybe, by the standard of our time no.

You cannot measure anyone by any standard but their times. I could easily retort: Karl Rahner, liberal by the standard of his time, maybe, by the standard of the year 2168…no.

The famous Thomistic scholar Etienne Gilson in his letters to the equally famous Henri de Lubac (published by the conservative Iganatius press) note the importance of the evolution of Thomistic philosophy as new scientific knowledge is made available and as new philosophical issues arise.

But who needs all this history or philosophy when blind obedience works so well?

I call being able to coronate kings and emporors pretty powerful, current day popes cant do that. ultimately maybe what we need in this time is an intense study of the"syllabus of errors", and a big movement to heed it. remember if God would of wanted us to be permisive he would of gave us the 10 sugestions.

You are obviously ignorant or mal-informed about the nature of the papal coronations. They had nothing to do with Papal supremacy and authority and more to do with monatery contributions and a complex system of alliances.

Any if God wanted us to have a syllabus of errors presumably he wouldn’t have waited 2000 years to give us one. Did God also not want us to study Aristotle like Thomas Aquinas did when Aristotle and Aquinas were separately condemned?

Do you also abide by the Index of Forbidden books? I hope you have never read anything by St. Thomas More or Blaise Pascal, both with writings on the index.

Adam

 

[sherilo]

sherilo:

To all who responded to my post regarding my current views on contraception:

I have to leave now, and my pc at home is on the blink. Would love to respond, and ask more questions. If this topic is still going on Monday, I will. Until then, you all have given me much to ponder. That’s why I joined this forum in the first place. Thanks, and peace to you all.

Sherilo

Good day all,

Well, I pondered. As you all know, I am still in a learning phase. As I go, I often find, with the issues that are difficult for me, one sentence or one quote that makes it all make sense. Rosalind Moss cleared up Mary’s perpetual virginity with one sentence. On Friday, I read the Catholic Answers link that Mercygate sent me. The following sentence made perfect sense to me: “contraception…denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life” (Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, Feb. 12, 1997). Nancy beautifully expounded on this as did many others. Also, thanks Nancy for clarifying that cafeteria catholic is not a judgement from the heart, but merely a term that is used. Sometimes, it comes across quite differently. In any case, I signed on to these forums as one avenue for learning more about the Catholic faith. I never thought that I would be a Catholic, and now I never see myself as being anything but. And while I am struggle with an issue here and there, I know where I can go for help. Thanks to you all.

Sherilo

 

[sherilo]

sherilo:

To all who responded to my post regarding my current views on contraception:

I have to leave now, and my pc at home is on the blink. Would love to respond, and ask more questions. If this topic is still going on Monday, I will. Until then, you all have given me much to ponder. That’s why I joined this forum in the first place. Thanks, and peace to you all.

Sherilo

Good morning all,

Well, I pondered. Often, with issues I struggle with, one sentence will suddenly clear it all up, or open the door for me. Rosalind Moss cleared up my problem with Mary’s perpetual virginity with one clarifying sentence. On Friday, a sentence from Mercygate’s Catholic Answers link began that process wrt to contraception-
“… contraception…denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life” (Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, Feb. 12, 1997). There it is. Also, Nancy, Robert and others expounded on it beautifully. Thanks Nancy also for explaining that "cafeteria catholic’ is not a judgement of the heart, but merely a term. It does not alway come across as such. I signed on to these forums as just one avenue for learning more about the Catholic faith. I never thought that I would be a Catholic, and now I can’t imagine myself anything but. There is still an issue here and there that I struggle with, but I know where I can go for answers.

Thanks to all!

Sherilo