Why the cafeteria catholicism?

[Newbie2]

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.

Personally, I think 99% of statistics are BS anyway.



Seriously, I don’t pay attention to statistics from sources that people quote on this forum. None of them.

EXACTLY! You got it:thumbsup:

Why, thank you.

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.

That’s true. However, some operating systems have inherent bugs.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Personally, I think 99% of statistics are BS anyway.

LOL

Seriously, I don’t pay attention to statistics from sources that people quote on this forum. None of them.

Well, if they can link to a site that shows a valid study, then there’s credibility. I have been in a discussion once where there was a survey regarding CITH and people’s beliefs in the Real Presence. It was a good study, problem was the interpretation of the statistics by people here. What I found in the survey is that 90% of people who receive CITH who attend Mass weekly do believe in the Real Presence. And it significantly drops off to those who doesn’t attend weekly. I think it was clear that CITH is not the culprit behind less belief in the Real Presence, but people’s devotion to the faith. Because it was dictated more by how often they go to Mass, not by how they receive Communion.

 

[Luger]

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.”

Well said.

 

[Luger]

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. **

Your comments have no place in this thread. They are doing nothing but obfuscating.

 

[saveusfromhell]

i’m not a tradionalist i have never been to latin mass but i have some serious concerns about cith and ministers for the eucharist. I appreciate their is people who believe in the real prescense who recieve CITH but why they prefer it to recieving COTT i don’t understand. could someone please explain why their preference for CITH