Why the cafeteria catholicism?

[Digitonomy]

The priest and the others went wrong when they stopped merely expressing their personal preferences and began judging things that the Catholic Church allows. One of the things was CIH. One guy for example claimed “they” (not sure whom) “slid it (approval) under the door at the last moment!” He was making himself the arbiter of what’s acceptable and not acceptable. That’s cafeteria catholicism.

There may have been connotations to what was said that I’m missing because I wasn’t there. However, there’s nothing wrong with disliking some policy or act of the Church - whether because of the policy itself, or how it came about. I don’t particularly like the liberal approach John Paul took to canonizing saints. A veritable torrent of saints were canonized, more than doubling the total of saints prior to his pontificate. I don’t deny their status as saints, I just disapprove of the overall approach that was taken. It sounds like those you label Cafeteria Catholics may have had similar reservations, but on other subjects.

It’s important to remember that the Church is not infallible in enacting or enforcing disciplines, nor in its various bureaucratic processes.

Luger:

The priest also railed against CIH. Because CIH comes with conditions (true enough) he tried to argue that it is intrinsically sacrilegious. I would have laughed at him had he not sounded so off-base. Sort of like the guy who denounced CIH because it was somehow “inferior because it’s via indult.” I really don’t think any of them appreciate how much they looked like cafeteria catholics – a quality they are very quick to point out in so-called “liberals.”

Poor logic does not make one a Cafeteria Catholic. An indult does not ipso facto make something inferior, except regarding its status under canonical processes, as an earlier post pointed out. It may in fact be inferior, or it may be superior, or it may be inferior in some ways and superior in others - we are free to hold such views, and we’re even free to hold them if they are dead wrong. If a person actually calls an approved Church liturgical practice “sacriligious,” he is denying the ability of the Church to properly celebrate its sacraments - that strikes me as heretical, or perhaps “cafeteria”. But if he merely thinks a liturgical practice is unwise, or leaves room for improvement, I don’t see the problem.

A Cafeteria Catholic is one who will take or leave Church teaching at will. Attending Saturday evening mass because one dislikes the stuffiness of the 10 AM Sunday mass doesn’t make one a Cafeteria Catholic, nor does attending the TLM because one thinks the ordinary form is less reverent. Both are following approved options, and neither is denying Church teaching.

 

[Luger]

boy…doesn’t this happen all the time? People think that they are just “expressing” their opinion…meanwhile looking down their noses at people who do CIH or something else they don’t agree with. Telling us that we don’t believe in the Real Presence because we take communion in the hand. At that point, it is not an opion or arguement…they make it sound like they have some authority on the matter.

**Either you believe what the Church teaches or your don’t. ** If you don’t and you want to pick and choose…then you are a cafeteria catholic. If you think the Church can’t get it right with something as important as communion…what makes you think they have it right with birth control?

Me…I trust Holy Mother churches wisdom…and if I don’t understand…then I pray that someday I will.

I don’t see how picking each other off with critism is building up the Church. And even more disheartning is that I fear we do it with our priest. This side doesn’t like this…this side doesn’t like this…no wonder we have a lack of vocations!

True. We ALL have our personal preferences but to judge/condemn what the Church teaches/allow and/or encourages is extremely bad form.

I had this discussion a few weeks ago. Someone at my eastern parish I know asked me where I went to Mass. I told them. They cringed. They said they would NEVER receive communion from a woman and that my parish had female EMsHC. I said the Church allows EMsHC and female EMsHC at that. Befuddled they said they would never receive communion from unconsecrated hands! I chuckled and reminded them not to receive communion at that Divine Liturgy because neither the priest’s nor the deacon’s hands are consecrated in the Byzantine Rite.

You could have pushed them over with a feather. Abject ignorance seems to be rampant in all corners of the Church, sad to say…

 

[Luger]

There may have been connotations to what was said that I’m missing because I wasn’t there. However, there’s nothing wrong with disliking some policy or act of the Church - whether because of the policy itself, or how it came about. I don’t particularly like the liberal approach John Paul took to canonizing saints. A veritable torrent of saints were canonized, more than doubling the total of saints prior to his pontificate. I don’t deny their status as saints, I just disapprove of the overall approach that was taken. It sounds like those you label Cafeteria Catholics may have had similar reservations, but on other subjects.

It’s important to remember that the Church is not infallible in enacting or enforcing disciplines, nor in its various bureaucratic processes.Poor logic does not make one a Cafeteria Catholic. An indult does not ipso facto make something inferior, except regarding its status under canonical processes, as an earlier post pointed out. It may in fact be inferior, or it may be superior, or it may be inferior in some ways and superior in others - we are free to hold such views, and we’re even free to hold them if they are dead wrong. If a person actually calls an approved Church liturgical practice “sacriligious,” he is denying the ability of the Church to properly celebrate its sacraments - that strikes me as heretical, or perhaps “cafeteria”. But if he merely thinks a liturgical practice is unwise, or leaves room for improvement, I don’t see the problem.

A Cafeteria Catholic is one who will take or leave Church teaching at will. Attending Saturday evening mass because one dislikes the stuffiness of the 10 AM Sunday mass doesn’t make one a Cafeteria Catholic, nor does attending the TLM because one thinks the ordinary form is less reverent. Both are following approved options, and neither is denying Church teaching.

Personal preferences are just fine. Condemning what the Church formally allows is the mark of a cafeteria catholic.

All those people in that conversation except for me were indeed cafeteria catholics. No question about it.

 

[Luger]

According to the OP, the priest, a baptized Roman who changed Churches in Seminary (after Ordination to the diaconate), raised the subject.

Such discussions probably happen more frequently than the other way around because their are areas where the EECs are seen as a refuge from the abuses in the OF. The clergy, however have to keep out of it in such a public setting.

He didn’t take refuge in the East. He wasn’t going to be ordained in the Latin Rite. He had no choice but to switch once he found a helpful bishop. The very sad part is that he’s a “traditionalist” Latin Rite cafeteria catholic to the core. He’s quite tolerable when he stays focused on the East but deeply embarrassing/offensive when he talks about the Latin Rite.

 

[Luger]

The use of EMHC’s at every Mass is a defective interpretation of the permission for them (according to Rome, not me). It is your judgment (if I were being passive aggressive: “usurping the Church’s” judgement ) that “conservatives” are “usurping the Church’s authority”. Most of those conservatives recognize the legitimacy of these options, but question their use on a prudential level.

Again, the name slinging is a poor excuse for reasonable conversation.

Stop right there!!

We are not talking about liturgical abuses!

We are talking about publicly judging/condemning things the Catholic Church formally teaches, allow and/or encourages. Don’t try to add the variable of abuse! If you want to do that you can start another thread.

That’s how so many people de-rail conversations and obfuscate the topic under discussion. They try to add situations that ARE NOT allowed by the Church. That’s not what we are discussing. The group I am talking about tried to do it as well and they became very frustrated when I pointed out what they were doing.

 

[Luger]

But still I wish everyone would stop using the fact that it is an indult to connote either its inferiority or being a sacrilege. Why would the Church even grant an indult for sacrilege? Perhaps they can also grant indults for divorce, remarriage, abortion, etc?

Indult doesn’t mean inferior or sacrilege. It just means there’s an extra process to gain authorization for the practice. In fact, CITH is already widespread. I haven’t travelled the world but in most places I’ve been CITH is allowed.

You’re exactly right.

I’m to the point where I think those who try to equate indult to are either woefully ignorant on the matter or they are knowingly lying in order to push their personal preferences.

 

[CDNowak]

Personal preferences are just fine. Condemning what the Church formally allows is the mark of a cafeteria catholic.

All those people in that conversation except for me were indeed cafeteria catholics. No question about it.

Really?

Now you force me to take an equal share in the hypocrisy: You, Luger, are usurping that very judgement you claim to be defending! The Church has not silenced debate on these issues. The Church, Herself, debates their prudence and where the line is between use and abuse. **You **have declared the debate over and the matter shut.

What is worse is that you are perpetuating you claims where those you are accusing cannot defend themselves.

Welcome, sir, to the cafeteria.

 

[Cable]

Abject ignorance seems to be rampant in all corners of the Church, sad to say…

We’re told, by a couple who will not go to the NO Mass, only Latin, that the NO Mass doesn’t have a valid Eucharist. Yikes!!! After addressing that whopper, we followed up w/ a copy of the well-worn, and comprehensive overview written by John Salza. Don’t know the outcome.

Soooo, I’d say that’s a cafeteria Catholic, to not only have a doubt (we’ve all had those), but to refuse to accept the Church’s authority on a matter, and apply your own way instead. Not to muddy the waters, but if a person is shown the Truth, regarding the authority of the Church, and they say “no, I don’t agree w/ this or that and not only that, but I’m not heeding it” isn’t that the same as a being a heretic?

When our Diocesan newspaper covered the ordination of new priests, their interviews revealed that at least 2 out of the 5 men got their calling through their altar boy experience and positive formation from the priest during that time. Wonder if we didn’t shoot ourselves in the foot on that one.

 

[Tide210]

Besides the nonsense on pages 2 and 3, page 1 was very informative to me. I grew up in a largely Catholic city and I moved to Alabama last year (bible belt). Now I more fully understand how Protestantism is linked to the American spirit.

 

[Luger]

Really?

Now you force me to take an equal share in the hypocrisy: You, Luger, are usurping that very judgement you claim to be defending! The Church has not silenced debate on these issues. The Church, Herself, debates their prudence and where the line is between use and abuse. **You **have declared the debate over and the matter shut.

What is worse is that you are perpetuating you claims where those you are accusing cannot defend themselves.

Welcome, sir, to the cafeteria.

I am not talkings about “debate.” I am talking about CONDEMNATION of things the Church allows. They wouldn’t allow “debate” they were simply making ignorant and bitter pronouncements.

You’re actually demonstrating how some try to justify their personal brands of cafeteria catholicism. Sorry, no sale.

 

[Newbie2]

boy…doesn’t this happen all the time? People think that they are just “expressing” their opinion…meanwhile looking down their noses at people who do CIH or something else they don’t agree with. Telling us that we don’t believe in the Real Presence because we take communion in the hand. At that point, it is not an opion or arguement…they make it sound like they have some authority on the matter.

Either you believe what the Church teaches or your don’t. If you don’t and you want to pick and choose…then you are a cafeteria catholic. If you think the Church can’t get it right with something as important as communion…what makes you think they have it right with birth control?

Me…I trust Holy Mother churches wisdom…and if I don’t understand…then I pray that someday I will.

I don’t see how picking each other off with critism is building up the Church. And even more disheartning is that I fear we do it with our priest. This side doesn’t like this…this side doesn’t like this…no wonder we have a lack of vocations!

But still I wish everyone would stop using the fact that it is an indult to connote either its inferiority or being a sacrilege. Why would the Church even grant an indult for sacrilege? Perhaps they can also grant indults for divorce, remarriage, abortion, etc?

Indult doesn’t mean inferior or sacrilege. It just means there’s an extra process to gain authorization for the practice. In fact, CITH is already widespread. I haven’t travelled the world but in most places I’ve been CITH is allowed.

I am not talkings about “debate.” I am talking about CONDEMNATION of things the Church allows. They wouldn’t allow “debate” they were simply making ignorant and bitter pronouncements.

You’re actually demonstrating how some try to justify their personal brands of cafeteria catholicism. Sorry, no sale.

I get a couple of notions out of this debate:

1. That there are Cafeterists of both “liberal” and “traditional” leanings. Many, methinks, only think of the “liberal” Cafeterists that for example disregard the Church teachings on ABC. “Traditionalist Cafeteriests”, for example, will take an indult that they disagree with and deem it totally unacceptable, not only as a personal preference but for anyone who participates. Both are picking and choosing which Church teachings are acceptable albeit in a slightly different manner.
2. That discussing personal preferences in the merits of practices which are permitted is fine, but that there is a line that can be crossed in deeming such practices unacceptable when, in fact, the Church deems them acceptable.

This is where “Pharisee-ism” or “Legalism” can raise it’s head. For example, I interpret such and such teaching in a certain way, such teaching having not been explicitly explained in detail by the Church. I then pronounce everyone who disagrees with my interpretation to be in error, i.e. not to be following the Church and by default (perhaps by a matter of degree), implicitly or explicitly a heretic.

Such goes too far beyond discussion or debate; I would be giving myself ecclesial authority that I simply do not have.

One of the solutions in avoiding “Legalism”, methinks, is for CAFers to make clear that their interpretation is their opinion, rather than stepping over the line and implying that their opinion=an authoritative opinion and that all should therefor follow their “teaching”.

There’s nothing wrong in saying, “IMHO, the Church is saying such and such” even though I may be all wet in my opinion. It is a far different thing in saying “The Church says such and such and all of you that disagree are heretics.”

 

[Layman]

We are talking about publicly judging/condemning things the Catholic Church formally teaches, allow and/or encourages

I don’t think the Church teaches or encourages CITH and EMHCs at Mass. They’re allowed, that’s all. I’d like to see where even a liberal Bishop (apart from St. Cyril) promotes either and what arguments he uses.

 

[CDNowak]

…

Let me apologize for the tone of my last post.
Setting aside completely the topics discussed, for the moment.

Luger, your posting one side of a situation, with you assessment of said situation coming through rather heavily.

The labeling, as I have maintained, short-cuts any discussion whether it is a “liberal” or “conservative” labeling the other. This thread is a perfect example. As far as I can tell (based on your account) the reason there was no debate was that the only person capable of advocating for the practices in question (you) refused to engage, rather passing the judgment of “cafeteria”.

My opinion: Your aggressiveness on the issue has caused me to doubt your objectivity. It seems, from the OP, like you are responding to a personal affront. You seem to be looking for validation of your judgement, based on hearsay. As I said in my previous post, this is a cheap shot (to put it in perspective: if you had given any indication of who the priest was it would be calumny at least, if not libelous).

 

[ConstantineTG]

I get a couple of notions out of this debate:

1. That there are Cafeterists of both “liberal” and “traditional” leanings. Many, methinks, only think of the “liberal” Cafeterists that for example disregard the Church teachings on ABC. “Traditionalist Cafeteriests”, for example, will take an indult that they disagree with and deem it totally unacceptable, not only as a personal preference but for anyone who participates. Both are picking and choosing which Church teachings are acceptable albeit in a slightly different manner.
2. That discussing personal preferences in the merits of practices which are permitted is fine, but that there is a line that can be crossed in deeming such practices unacceptable when, in fact, the Church deems them acceptable.

This is where “Pharisee-ism” or “Legalism” can raise it’s head. For example, I interpret such and such teaching in a certain way, such teaching having not been explicitly explained in detail by the Church. I then pronounce everyone who disagrees with my interpretation to be in error, i.e. not to be following the Church and by default (perhaps by a matter of degree), implicitly or explicitly a heretic.

Such goes too far beyond discussion or debate; I would be giving myself ecclesial authority that I simply do not have.

One of the solutions in avoiding “Legalism”, methinks, is for CAFers to make clear that their interpretation is their opinion, rather than stepping over the line and implying that their opinion=an authoritative opinion and that all should therefor follow their “teaching”.

There’s nothing wrong in saying, “IMHO, the Church is saying such and such” even though I may be all wet in my opinion. It is a far different thing in saying “The Church says such and such and all of you that disagree are heretics.”

Another favorite pastime of Cafeteria Catholics on both ends of the spectrum here is throwing out statistical information which has no basis but their own opinion, or probably some personal blog somewhere on the internet which is as reliable as wet coal. These made up numbers are being passed on as facts even though they are not sourced from any study or survey at all and in the end only misleads people. I thought as good Christians we are not supposed to bear false witness. I guess they chose not to obey that commandment as well.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

We have these problems because we are not perfect, we are simply mankind. Satan works very hard to keep us arguing about what is not essential, so that we can not follow what IS essential.

I really do not believe that Jesus cares if we receive the Eucharist in the hand or in the mouth. He cares that we receive it reverently, and that we truly believe that he indeed is that wafer or piece of bread.

As to servers at the Mass, you might remind your pastor that at Christ’s death, only one male associated with him was present, but at least two females were there (his mother and Mary Magdalene). Therefore, at the ultimate Mass, there were more female servers present than there were male.

 

[Layman]

We have these problems because we are not perfect, we are simply mankind. Satan works very hard to keep us arguing about what is not essential, so that we can not follow what IS essential.

I really do not believe that Jesus cares if we receive the Eucharist in the hand or in the mouth. He cares that we receive it reverently, and that we truly believe that he indeed is that wafer or piece of bread.

As to servers at the Mass, you might remind your pastor that at Christ’s death, only one male associated with him was present, but at least two females were there (his mother and Mary Magdalene). Therefore, at the ultimate Mass, there were more female servers present than there were male.

The pseudo ‘back to basics’ trend has left us with stripped-down churches and a stripped-down, edited Mass. It also suggests that our forefathers, for hundreds of years, were wrong in having the TLM said as-was.

I don’t see that the changes have wrought great good. Time to give the TLM and the old devotions a try. Modernism has nowhere left to go, except towards greater farce.

**At the very least, provision should be made for those that want this Mass and interference with it, stopped. **

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

I get a couple of notions out of this debate:

1. That there are Cafeterists of both “liberal” and “traditional” leanings. Many, methinks, only think of the “liberal” Cafeterists that for example disregard the Church teachings on ABC. “Traditionalist Cafeteriests”, for example, will take an indult that they disagree with and deem it totally unacceptable, not only as a personal preference but for anyone who participates. Both are picking and choosing which Church teachings are acceptable albeit in a slightly different manner.
2. That discussing personal preferences in the merits of practices which are permitted is fine, but that there is a line that can be crossed in deeming such practices unacceptable when, in fact, the Church deems them acceptable.

This is where “Pharisee-ism” or “Legalism” can raise it’s head. For example, I interpret such and such teaching in a certain way, such teaching having not been explicitly explained in detail by the Church. I then pronounce everyone who disagrees with my interpretation to be in error, i.e. not to be following the Church and by default (perhaps by a matter of degree), implicitly or explicitly a heretic.

Such goes too far beyond discussion or debate; I would be giving myself ecclesial authority that I simply do not have.

One of the solutions in avoiding “Legalism”, methinks, is for CAFers to make clear that their interpretation is their opinion, rather than stepping over the line and implying that their opinion=an authoritative opinion and that all should therefor follow their “teaching”.

There’s nothing wrong in saying, “IMHO, the Church is saying such and such” even though I may be all wet in my opinion. It is a far different thing in saying “The Church says such and such and all of you that disagree are heretics.”

EXACTLY! You got it:thumbsup:

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

The pseudo ‘back to basics’ trend has left us with stripped-down churches and a stripped-down, edited Mass. It also suggests that our forefathers, for hundreds of years, were wrong in having the TLM said as-was.

I don’t see that the changes have wrought great good. Time to give the TLM and the old devotions a try. Modernism has nowhere left to go, except towards greater farce. I respectfully disagree…you may not think has done any good…but I do…and I would not go to the TLM…nor could I get my husband to convert if all we had was the TLM

At the very least, provision should be made for those that want this Mass and interference with it, stopped. I have no problems with that…provided there are enough priests…our parish only has one. But I do know that there is a church here in town that does the TLM once a month.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The pseudo ‘back to basics’ trend has left us with stripped-down churches and a stripped-down, edited Mass. It also suggests that our forefathers, for hundreds of years, were wrong in having the TLM said as-was.

If what you say is true, then does that mean the TLM says that the early, simple Mass the Apostles used is also wrong because it was replaced eventually by the TLM?

See, the replacement is not about the previous form being wrong, but the Church has to move with the sign of the times. They need a Mass that people of today will respond to. And to this you will reply, “but the people should conform to God, not God to the people.” First, the Mass is not God. God is God. The Mass is only our form of worship of God, and this form has changed and evolved through the ages. Even the TLM itslef has evolved in form. Second, the reason why Jesus appointed a fisherman as the rock of His Church, fishermen don’t cast their nets into the water and just wait for the fish to run into the net. They move the boats to where the fish are. Pope Paul VI saw that the boat needed moving, and thus introduced the new form of Mass in the effort to catch more men.

I don’t see that the changes have wrought great good. Time to give the TLM and the old devotions a try. Modernism has nowhere left to go, except towards greater farce.

Sorry to say sir that you may have been shortsighted. The Church is expanding in many parts of the world. Granted that in Europe the population is shrinking and North America is only supported by immigration, but still overall there is a growth in the faith. I wouldn’t be quick to say its thanks to the OF Mass we have today, but the fact is this growth is happening in parts of the world where the OF Mass is used. So it may be a big part or a small part of the growth, but it does contribute somewhat.

 

[Lutheranteach]

Why cafeteria Catholicism? Well, one can, and I often see, that the reason for it is disobedience and pride. But I think there is also something else there. The analogy I can make is that religion may be the software we use to run our moral lives. If we view parts of a software package as obsolete, have used them without success, view the directions as clunky and too difficult to understand or comprehend, see other programs we can add to the package that seem to work better, we use them. Some (converts) dump the entire software package altogether and go to a different operating system.