Why the cafeteria catholicism?

[CDNowak]

I replied that we are all free to have our personal preferences within the direction set by the Church (abuses are a whole different discussion) but to publicly attack/denigrate what the Church formally allows as being defective or inferior is not only resoundingly ignorant, it’s also very bad form. They got very upset when I said their opinions were really nothing more than another flavor of cafeteria catholicism.

Why do some feel they can attack anything they want from the Church with complete impunity? As if it’s their right/duty to tell us not what the Church allows but what She should allow? Again, we are not talking about liturgical abuses. We are talking about things that are already allowed and in many cases encouraged by the Church.

Any ideas? Just simple ignorant and bitterness?

Such a conversation at an Eastern Catholic parish is, of course, bad form.

There are things in that list that, although tolerated by the Church are objectively “defective or inferior”, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, for example. Further having, and even sharing (in proper context) personal opinions on a matter (ie preference for one form of the Mass because it seems more reverent, etc) is well short of “attacking anything they want with impunity”. So, setting aside the poisoned well…

From what you have told us of the priest, it would seem that he does have some issues that should have been worked out prior to his ordination. However, I don’t think the constant accusations of Cafeteria Catholicism (in either direction) are at all helpful, they just sidestep whatever issue is at hand, perhaps because people are afraid to talk about ideas:shrug:. We should be striving for the ideal in all aspects of our lives (Be ye perfect, etc…) particularly in prayer, doctrine, and the liturgy. If we can’t discuss the ideal then we will have a lot of frustrated people as each person tries to implement their own ideal (or shudder to preserve the status quo).

 

[Bob_Aliano]

I like to look at this question from a reward/punishment perspective. There is the sense of immediate gratification from doing it our way rather than adhering to Church rules and the scriptures. Unless you have friends who are aware of your lapses there really is no pressure to stop the activity and conform. Parishes are generally so large and the congregation so detached there is unlikely to be any pressure to conform from that group. The Church itself has gone from one of vigorously preaching the dangers of sin to one that has an air of tolerance and mere suggestion of potential damnation. Even in the Liturgy we have gone from strict adherence to ritual to a menu from which we can select posture, secular/non-secular music attire etc. There is no longer a visible downside to non-conforming and being the spoiled brats that we are we take the easy path. We can even openly and publicly advocate abortion and not expect any serious reprimand even still being administered communion.

 

[choy]

The great ironies: the Eastern Catholics are where communion in the hand was preserved! Specifically, the Armenian Church!

i’m not sure if the Chaldeans preserved it as well. but they place the incense on a table between the Communion lines and people place their hands over the incense to purify it for receiving CITH. i am unsure how long this practice has been, even the CAF member aptly named Chaldean Rite who told me about it wasn’t sure how long that practice has been in place.

 

[snowbee]

Why do so many feel they can pick and choose not only what they accept but also feel that it’s OK to publicly attack that which is allowed by the Catholic Church?

There was a discussion after Divine Liturgy (this was in my eastern parish) last Sunday which included my Eastern Catholic pastor and he wanted me to join it. He and a handful of others railed on and on about:

• The OF Mass and how it was sacrilegious.
• Communion in hand and how it too was sacrilegious.
• The use of female altar servers. Again, sacrilegious.
• The use of extraordinary ministers of holy communion. Again, sacrilegious.

I replied that we are all free to have our personal preferences within the direction set by the Church (abuses are a whole different discussion) but to publicly attack/denigrate what the Church formally allows as being defective or inferior is not only resoundingly ignorant, it’s also very bad form. They got very upset when I said their opinions were really nothing more than another flavor of cafeteria catholicism.

Why do some feel they can attack anything they want from the Church with complete impunity? As if it’s their right/duty to tell us not what the Church allows but what She should allow? Again, we are not talking about liturgical abuses. We are talking about things that are already allowed and in many cases encouraged by the Church.

Any ideas? Just simple ignorant and bitterness?

Sacrilege is defined as: Profaning/unconsecrated or treating unworthily the people, places, objects, or sacraments that have been consecrated to God.
I agree with the above statements made by the pastor under that definition.
There are many reasons which have been spoken about many times before.
But worthy of note, in the early Church they also allowed CITH, but people lost faith in the Eucharist which is why they forced COTT.
Look at today, a bare 40 years after VII, 70% of Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence. I’d say that pretty sacrilegious to me.

 

[choy]

Sacrilege is defined as: Profaning/unconsecrated or treating unworthily the people, places, objects, or sacraments that have been consecrated to God.
I agree with the above statements made by the pastor under that definition.
There are many reasons which have been spoken about many times before.
But worthy of note, in the early Church they also allowed CITH, but people lost faith in the Eucharist which is why they forced COTT.
Look at today, a bare 40 years after VII, 70% of Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence. I’d say that pretty sacrilegious to me.

can you prove your statement?
i’ve read a study that points that its people’s devotion to the faith that drives the belief in Real Presence. a person who receives CITH and attends Mass weekly, 9 out of 10 believe in the Real Presence. so it has more to do with faith and devotion rather than mode of reception

 

[Luger]

Such a conversation at an Eastern Catholic parish is, of course, bad form.

There are things in that list that, although tolerated by the Church are objectively “defective or inferior”, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, for example. Further having, and even sharing (in proper context) personal opinions on a matter (ie preference for one form of the Mass because it seems more reverent, etc) is well short of “attacking anything they want with impunity”. So, setting aside the poisoned well…

From what you have told us of the priest, it would seem that he does have some issues that should have been worked out prior to his ordination. However, I don’t think the constant accusations of Cafeteria Catholicism (in either direction) are at all helpful, they just sidestep whatever issue is at hand, perhaps because people are afraid to talk about ideas:shrug:. We should be striving for the ideal in all aspects of our lives (Be ye perfect, etc…) particularly in prayer, doctrine, and the liturgy. If we can’t discuss the ideal then we will have a lot of frustrated people as each person tries to implement their own ideal (or shudder to preserve the status quo).

“Inferior?” Sure. “Defective?” Nope.

Nothing at all wrong with re-stating the Church’s direction/limitations on the use of EMsHC. In fact this priest’s own Byzantine recension allows them under specific circumstances. But to trying to usurp the Church’s authority of determining what’s right and what’s wrong is woefully bad form. It’s also cafeteria catholicism at its worst.

I’m just curious why some “conservatives” lament the quality in others (which is OK) when they seem to feel they can practice it as they wish. Odd…

 

[Luger]

Sacrilege is defined as: Profaning/unconsecrated or treating unworthily the people, places, objects, or sacraments that have been consecrated to God.
I agree with the above statements made by the pastor under that definition.
There are many reasons which have been spoken about many times before.
But worthy of note, in the early Church they also allowed CITH, but people lost faith in the Eucharist which is why they forced COTT.
Look at today, a bare 40 years after VII, 70% of Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence. I’d say that pretty sacrilegious to me.

This is a serious discussion and your comment is just silly. Please don’t try to de-rail with thread with such silly comments.

 

[CDNowak]

“Inferior?” Sure. “Defective?” Nope.

Nothing at all wrong with re-stating the Church’s direction/limitations on the use of EMsHC. In fact this priest’s own Byzantine recension allows them under specific circumstances. But to trying to usurp the Church’s authority of determining what’s right and what’s wrong is woefully bad form. It’s also cafeteria catholicism at its worst.

I’m just curious why some “conservatives” lament the quality in others (which is OK) when they seem to feel they can practice it as they wish. Odd…

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.

 

[Layman]

• The OF Mass and how it was sacrilegious.
• Communion in hand and how it too was sacrilegious.
• The use of female altar servers. Again, sacrilegious.
• The use of extraordinary ministers of holy communion. Again, sacrilegious.

Three of the four things here can be legitimately criticised. They’re novelties in the Roman Rite and there are arguments against them. The O.F./N.O. is a newcomer, too, so critiquing it is not irregular. Use of the word sacrilegious is legitimate if used in a general, everyday sense (what was held to be taboo has been impinged upon) but I guess the Church defines it as not, now, in terms of its rules. Otherwise it would be contradictory.

To go from this to criticising ‘Cafeteria Catholics’ is to shift the argument from things to persons. It’s bad reasoning.

It’s bad form for an Eastern Catholic priest to go on at length, in a group setting, about the Roman Rite.

 

[benedictgal]

Why do so many feel they can pick and choose not only what they accept but also feel that it’s OK to publicly attack that which is allowed by the Catholic Church?

There was a discussion after Divine Liturgy (this was in my eastern parish) last Sunday which included my Eastern Catholic pastor and he wanted me to join it. He and a handful of others railed on and on about:

• The OF Mass and how it was sacrilegious.
• Communion in hand and how it too was sacrilegious.
• The use of female altar servers. Again, sacrilegious.
• The use of extraordinary ministers of holy communion. Again, sacrilegious.

I replied that we are all free to have our personal preferences within the direction set by the Church (abuses are a whole different discussion) but to publicly attack/denigrate what the Church formally allows as being defective or inferior is not only resoundingly ignorant, it’s also very bad form. They got very upset when I said their opinions were really nothing more than another flavor of cafeteria catholicism.

Why do some feel they can attack anything they want from the Church with complete impunity? As if it’s their right/duty to tell us not what the Church allows but what She should allow? Again, we are not talking about liturgical abuses. We are talking about things that are already allowed and in many cases encouraged by the Church.

Any ideas? Just simple ignorant and bitterness?

You pose an interesting series of questions. I am curious. Are you bi-ritual? It seems rather strange that an Eastern Rite parish would have a discussion on the liturgical practicies of the Latin Rite.

Now, regarding the “cafeteria catechism”, we need to remember that some of the things that you enumerated in your post are indults that can be rescinded at any time. For example, the issue of CITH can be withdrawn if there is a risk of profanation of the Sacred Host. The same holds true for female altar servers. There are some dioceses and some parishes in the United States that will not allow them. The use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion is supposed to be, well, extraordinary. Unfortunately, what was supposed to be an extraordinary measure has, in many cases, turned into something ordinary, even though the Holy See has spelled out specific requirements, most notably in Redemptionis Sacramentum. Furthermore, EMHCs are not allowed to intinct; that is only for the priest to do. Intinction is one way to eliminate EMHCs altogether.

There is also some confusion, as I read your question, regarding just what a cafeteria Catholic is. A Cafeteria Catholic is one who picks and chooses what teachings he will believe. For example, he can support “abortion rights” and still claim to be a faithful Catholic. This does not compute because it goes squarely against Church teaching. The Cafeteria Catholic can also support contraception and same-sex marriage while holding on to some mistaken belief that he is still a faithful Catholic. This does not make sense because, again, this runs contrary to what the Church teaches.

As I stated before, what you enumerated were indults. While these are permitted, that does not necessarily mean that a person has to agree with them. In fact, each of these has raised legitimate concerns about their particular usage. However, with all due respect, for you to label people who have legitimate concerns about these practices as “Cafeteria Catholics” is, in my opinion, to misapply and misuse the term.

 

[Newbie2]

You pose an interesting series of questions. I am curious. Are you bi-ritual? It seems rather strange that an Eastern Rite parish would have a discussion on the liturgical practicies of the Latin Rite.

Now, regarding the “cafeteria catechism”, we need to remember that some of the things that you enumerated in your post are indults that can be rescinded at any time. For example, the issue of CITH can be withdrawn if there is a risk of profanation of the Sacred Host. The same holds true for female altar servers. There are some dioceses and some parishes in the United States that will not allow them. The use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion is supposed to be, well, extraordinary. Unfortunately, what was supposed to be an extraordinary measure has, in many cases, turned into something ordinary, even though the Holy See has spelled out specific requirements, most notably in Redemptionis Sacramentum. Furthermore, EMHCs are not allowed to intinct; that is only for the priest to do. Intinction is one way to eliminate EMHCs altogether.

There is also some confusion, as I read your question, regarding just what a cafeteria Catholic is. A Cafeteria Catholic is one who picks and chooses what teachings he will believe. For example, he can support “abortion rights” and still claim to be a faithful Catholic. This does not compute because it goes squarely against Church teaching. The Cafeteria Catholic can also support contraception and same-sex marriage while holding on to some mistaken belief that he is still a faithful Catholic. This does not make sense because, again, this runs contrary to what the Church teaches.

As I stated before, what you enumerated were indults. While these are permitted, that does not necessarily mean that a person has to agree with them. In fact, each of these has raised legitimate concerns about their particular usage. However, with all due respect, for you to label people who have legitimate concerns about these practices as “Cafeteria Catholics” is, in my opinion, to misapply and misuse the term.

Good grief, now there’s an official definition for “Cafeteria Catholic”? Is it in the Catholic Dictionary?

I’d disagree with you, BG. Someone who is picking an officially legitimate practice and calling it sacrilegious is mistaken. They’re picking and choosing which legitimate Catholic practices they agree with, and that = Cafeterianism.

May I point out the difference between not agreeing with a (legitimate) practice and calling such a “sacrilege”…BIG difference there.

Now if you’re saying that someone that just doesn’t like COTH or any other thing in the OP’s post and has their reasons for it isn’t necessarily a Cafeterian, then OK, I’d agree.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You pose an interesting series of questions. I am curious. Are you bi-ritual? It seems rather strange that an Eastern Rite parish would have a discussion on the liturgical practicies of the Latin Rite.

Now, regarding the “cafeteria catechism”, we need to remember that some of the things that you enumerated in your post are indults that can be rescinded at any time. For example, the issue of CITH can be withdrawn if there is a risk of profanation of the Sacred Host. The same holds true for female altar servers. There are some dioceses and some parishes in the United States that will not allow them. The use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion is supposed to be, well, extraordinary. Unfortunately, what was supposed to be an extraordinary measure has, in many cases, turned into something ordinary, even though the Holy See has spelled out specific requirements, most notably in Redemptionis Sacramentum. Furthermore, EMHCs are not allowed to intinct; that is only for the priest to do. Intinction is one way to eliminate EMHCs altogether.

There is also some confusion, as I read your question, regarding just what a cafeteria Catholic is. A Cafeteria Catholic is one who picks and chooses what teachings he will believe. For example, he can support “abortion rights” and still claim to be a faithful Catholic. This does not compute because it goes squarely against Church teaching. The Cafeteria Catholic can also support contraception and same-sex marriage while holding on to some mistaken belief that he is still a faithful Catholic. This does not make sense because, again, this runs contrary to what the Church teaches.

As I stated before, what you enumerated were indults. While these are permitted, that does not necessarily mean that a person has to agree with them. In fact, each of these has raised legitimate concerns about their particular usage. However, with all due respect, for you to label people who have legitimate concerns about these practices as “Cafeteria Catholics” is, in my opinion, to misapply and misuse the term.

Being an idult doesn’t make one thing bad or questionable. Don’t forget the EF was also an indult for a while. Did that mean that up to 3 years ago the EF/TLM Mass is bad or questionable?

And your description of Cafeteria Catholicism do apply to some Traditionalists in the sense that they choose to reject legitimate teachings and/or practices of the Church. Its not bad if its the preference of one form over another, but what is being discussed here is the outright rejection by some of legitimate teachings and practices by the Church.

 

[benedictgal]

Being an idult doesn’t make one thing bad or questionable. Don’t forget the EF was also an indult for a while. Did that mean that up to 3 years ago the EF/TLM Mass is bad or questionable?

And your description of Cafeteria Catholicism do apply to some Traditionalists in the sense that they choose to reject legitimate teachings and/or practices of the Church. Its not bad if its the preference of one form over another, but what is being discussed here is the outright rejection by some of legitimate teachings and practices by the Church.

I did not say that because something carries an indult it’s questionable. It’s what is done with the act itself that is grounds for legitimate concern. Insofar as the EF is concerned, there was even confusion about that, but, even as the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict made a strong case in his pre-papal writings that this form of the Mass was never abdicated. When he became Pope, he cleared away any confusion regarding the status of the EF.

My examples were not meant to single out any one group. These were the ones that were readily present in my mind.

 

[Digitonomy]

As I stated before, what you enumerated were indults. While these are permitted, that does not necessarily mean that a person has to agree with them. In fact, each of these has raised legitimate concerns about their particular usage. However, with all due respect, for you to label people who have legitimate concerns about these practices as “Cafeteria Catholics” is, in my opinion, to misapply and misuse the term.

I agree. It is not verboten to express reservations about approved practices or disciplines in the Church, and that goes whether such practices are indults or not. If it were otherwise, canon law and liturgical law could never change, because it would be sinful for anyone to suggest such a change.

There is nothing wrong with suggesting that the Church should dispense with female altar servers, or that the pope should refrain from wearing red slippers, or that all candidates to the priesthood should be required to marry before ordination. What makes one a Cafeteria Catholic is not simply disagreeing with Church instruction, but actually disregarding it.

However, as General McChrystal discovered, grumbling about policies, regulations, and the people who set them may be fine with your close associates, officials in the chain of command should be more discrete than to undermining the system with a larger audience. This is where the priest in question appears to have gone wrong.

 

[Luger]

I agree. It is not verboten to express reservations about approved practices or disciplines in the Church, and that goes whether such practices are indults or not. If it were otherwise, canon law and liturgical law could never change, because it would be sinful for anyone to suggest such a change.

There is nothing wrong with suggesting that the Church should dispense with female altar servers, or that the pope should refrain from wearing red slippers, or that all candidates to the priesthood should be required to marry before ordination. What makes one a Cafeteria Catholic is not simply disagreeing with Church instruction, but actually disregarding it.

However, as General McChrystal discovered, grumbling about policies, regulations, and the people who set them may be fine with your close associates, officials in the chain of command should be more discrete than to undermining the system with a larger audience. This is where the priest in question appears to have gone wrong.

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.

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.”

 

[benedictgal]

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.

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.”

But, the question remains. Why is this even discussed in an Eastern Rite church?

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

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.

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.”

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!

 

[CDNowak]

But, the question remains. Why is this even discussed in an Eastern Rite church?

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.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I did not say that because something carries an indult it’s questionable. It’s what is done with the act itself that is grounds for legitimate concern. Insofar as the EF is concerned, there was even confusion about that, but, even as the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict made a strong case in his pre-papal writings that this form of the Mass was never abdicated. When he became Pope, he cleared away any confusion regarding the status of the EF.

My examples were not meant to single out any one group. These were the ones that were readily present in my mind.

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.

 

[CDNowak]

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.

Indult doesn’t mean equal either, but any discussion here into why it may or may not be inferior is immediately taken into,… well the starting point of this thread.

Since we have come full circle, are we going around again?

(and there are important ways that indults are inferior, dealing with suppression and such).