Ship of Fools: Can One Be a "Cafeteria Catholic?"

Thread: Can One Be a "Cafeteria Catholic?" Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025436

Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on :

I've heard this term used repeatedly to describe one who appears to "pick and choose" which Church teachings he or she is willing to accept. Needless to say, it's not a term of endearment. Those who made the accusation typically said it was impossible to be a true Catholic and not accept the Church's authority on all matters.

At one the term pretty well described me. I liked a lot of what I learned in Catholic schools and later in theology classes, but, like many of my contemporaries, I couldn't accept the teachings on issues such as papal infallibility and sexual matters- especially birth control. But when I met my wife I started going with her to mostly mainline protestant churches, and decided I fit in better there.

What do you think? Is a "Cafeteria Catholic" really a Catholic?

[thread title spello corrected. B62]

[ 24. May 2013, 09:09: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Squirrel:

What do you think? Is a "Cafeteria Catholic" really a Catholic?

This is like one of those "is X a Christian" questions, isn't it, where X is a Mormon, a Christadelphian or whatever else.

As I understand it, from the point of view of the Catholic Church, if you were baptized or otherwise received into the Catholic Church, and have not formally left it, you are a Catholic (although possibly a very bad one). One of our resident Catholic canon geeks can probably explain how far a Catholic has to go in schism or heresy to be "not a Catholic". My understanding is that excommunication is not enough to stop you being a Catholic.

Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :

I grew up being told it was "all or nothing", you either believed that the Church was right about everything or you were not a Catholic. I decided that I couldn't be and went off in search of something else. I have since met people with a more nuanced understanding of the situation so I am no longer entirely sure. All I know is that people often base their understanding of the Church on received wisdom and prejudice rather than fact or accepted practice.

Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:
I grew up being told it was "all or nothing", you either believed that the Church was right about everything or you were not a Catholic. I decided that I couldn't be and went off in search of something else. I have since met people with a more nuanced understanding of the situation so I am no longer entirely sure. All I know is that people often base their understanding of the Church on received wisdom and prejudice rather than fact or accepted practice.

We are all 'cafeteria Christians' - we regard some parts of the Bible as significant as they stand and others as 'needing to be understood in terms of ...'.

It's just a way of feeling superior to others while doing exactly the same as them.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Squirrel:
Is a "Cafeteria Catholic" really a Catholic?

Formally, yes; i.e. your name is on the parish register. In reality, no.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Where do we find that reality?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

It's a bit moot anyway. It's not like you can make yourself believe something. I can't, anyway.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Interesting that, almost as if our beliefs are an argument for determinism!

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

How is a "Cafeteria Catholic" any different from a "Cafeteria Anglican" or even a "Cafeteria Presbyterian"?

Come on Presbyterians! Hands up! Who actually believes in predestination? Who actually, among you even know what predestination is?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting that, almost as if our beliefs are an argument for determinism!

The same thought's crossed my mind.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting that, almost as if our beliefs are an argument for determinism!
The same thought's crossed my mind.

And you had nothing to do with it!

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
How is a "Cafeteria Catholic" any different from a "Cafeteria Anglican" or even a "Cafeteria Presbyterian"?

I suppose because the RCC insists (at least in its written rules, if not in on-the-ground reality) on a very high level of adherence to the practices and assention to the beliefs that it prescribes. Most Christian groups are more relaxed about such matters.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

You can assent to, say the perpetual virginity of the BVM as being Catholic Teaching, but I don't see how you can make yourself personally believe it.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

Why not?

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Why not?

As K:LB said upthread, we can't force ourselves to believe something. We can act as if we believe something but that's not the same thing, even if it might look the same from another person's perspective.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I guess it depends on what you mean by 'belief'. You could take this as an assent to doctrine, even though you may have internal doubts about it.

On the other hand, the determinist argument (well, one of them), is that I don't instigate my thoughts, therefore, if I have the thought 'this doctrine is false', I can't control that thought. But do I now believe that it's false? Not sure.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

From what's been said in the Purg thread about why there's no been no appearance of a new denomination for socially liberal Catholics, it's clear from people's experience that the church's official stance is not necessarily upheld in individual parishes.

But like Bob Two-Owls, I was brought up to believe it's all or nothing. So I left. Or rather, when I returned to Christianity after a lapse, I didn't return to my church of origin but to Methodism and then Episcopalian Anglicanism.

Like stonespring in that other thread, I'd feel "illegitimate" taking communion at a Catholic church knowing my beliefs or lifestyle were considered sinful or anathema or not up to scratch or not Catholic enough by the official RCC, even if the local priest and parish were welcoming.

As SCK has said, the RCC demands a particularly high level of belief in and adherence to its doctrines. (Of course, whatever church I'm in, I'm still a sinner; that's a different thing).

However, as I said on the other thread, stonespring among others has shown that there are different ways to handle this, and many people have squared it with their conscience to be "cafeteria Catholics" --a more nuanced approach, as Bob Two-Owls says. And perhaps I should try and respect this approach more, rather than remaining stuck in the Catholic mindset which says, "But then they aren't real Catholics" !

If the OP means, Can one be a cafeteria Catholic and still be considered, in the eyes of the church, as a Catholic in good standing, I would say, no.

How exactly the church sees you I am not sure--would need to hear from a Catholic expert well versed in that sort of thing (IngoB?). As a sinning Catholic parishioner but not a "proper" Catholic, I suspect....?

It's an interesting thread topic--I think we've also touched on it in Jade Constable's thread about whether Roman Catholics know the RCC's teaching on the Real Presence.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Squirrel:
Those who made the accusation typically said it was impossible to be a true Catholic and not accept the Church's authority on all matters.

The Church does not have authority on all matters, but only on those of faith and morals. Furthermore, the Church exercises that authority infrequently and with rather varied intensity. There is in fact very little a Catholic absolutely must believe in. This is obscured by the fact that a select few "contentious" doctrines (and disciplines) are being endlessly squabbled about.

I once compiled a list of 243 "de fide" RC doctrines as listed by Ludwig Ott. That's actually not a big number if you think about it. And furthermore, a lot of those doctrines would be "trivial" (like: "There is only one God." or "Not only holy members belong to the church, but also sinners." or "The church established by Christ is catholic.") or "readily acceptable" (like: "Materia remota of the sacrament of baptism is true and natural water." or "The reception of the Eucharist is not necessary for the salvation of minors." or "God protects and guides through His providence all creation.") or "partly repetitious" (like: "Sanctifying grace heals the soul." plus "Sanctifying grace makes the righteous a friend of God." plus "Sanctifying grace makes the righteous a child of God and gives him title to inheriting heaven.") or "theoretical" (like: "The inner, super-natural grace is absolutely necessary for the beginning of faith and salvation." or "All is one in God, unless an opposition through relation is present." or "The act of hypostatical union was effected by the three Divine Persons together.") to most RCs.

It would be an interesting exercise to compile a more appropriate list of things that a RC layperson should care about and believe in. I mean, a list that doesn't have book length like the Catechism...

quote:
Originally posted by Squirrel:
At one [time?] the term pretty well described me. ... But when I met my wife I started going with her to mostly mainline protestant churches, and decided I fit in better there. What do you think? Is a "Cafeteria Catholic" really a Catholic?

I like how you have answered your own question there...

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Anyone who has been baptised has become a member of the Church.The effects of baptism are not udone even if one does not practise or even believe.None of us is perfect - we all fall short - some more than others.Jesus Christ by virtue of His sacrifice on the Cross has redeemd us all and offers us salvation if we wish to take it.
Of course we shouldn't be 'cafeteria Catholics' but few people know EVERYTHING about Catholicism.
A true 'cafeteria Catholic' is a person who does know what the established doctrines of the Church are but indicates that he doesn't believe in them.
Ultimately it is God who is the judge ,not us.We have to remind everyone that we can about God's salvation.Where there is life there is hope,so all are welcome to count themselves as members of the Church.

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
There is in fact very little a Catholic absolutely must believe in.

The part I don't actually get is, what are you supposed to do if you don't believe one of the 235 or 600 or 5 or however many it's meant to be?

As has been said, we don't appear to have a choice about what we believe at any given point in time. We have a choice of what we do about it if we disbelieve something of course, and I presume a good Catholic who disbelieves something the Church teaches should be constantly open and willing to reassess their disagreement (indeed I've been told that this is the case by more than one Catholic priest). But what you seem to be saying is that if you believe only 234 out of 235, you cease to be a Catholic?

You might have noticed over the years that I have, at times, swayed somewhat towards Rome. I'm actually largely in agreement with the Catholic Church on most things excepting a certain Dead Horse, certainly closer than I am to mainstream Protestantism (if there is such a thing) but the solemn statements I would have to make in order to gain entry are a bar I can't cross because they're absolute.

All it would take is a bit of wriggle room for me to say something like "The Church almost certainly teaches the truth in all matters of faith and morals most of the time" and I'd be through the door and happily reserving the right to quietly disagree with the odd bit of the official teaching like every Catholic I actually know in real life. But the wriggle room isn't there so I have to side with Article XIX.

[edit for gibberish correction]

[ 24. May 2013, 18:31: Message edited by: GreyFace ]

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

This is where faith comes into play.We may not understand everything,but if we can say that we trust what our Lord is saying then we shouldn't worry about the bits we don't understand.

If on the other hand we positively disagree with some important element of Church teaching,then we have to ask ourselves just how important that element of the teaching is,how important is it to me personally and how important do I think it is to the generality of Catholics or indeed why is it that I differ from the point of view expressed by the Catholic church.Is it a belief which is contained in the apostolic creeds or is it some part of Catholic teaching on the way in which we relate to our fellow human beings ?

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
How is a "Cafeteria Catholic" any different from a "Cafeteria Anglican" or even a "Cafeteria Presbyterian"?

Come on Presbyterians! Hands up! Who actually believes in predestination? Who actually, among you even know what predestination is?

There are churches that have doctrinal statements that more or less are required to sign up. I think the term is a confession. Some churches seem to try to avoid this. The reality is probably somewhere in between for all denominations. I can't recall where I read it, but there was something about Canadian Roman catholics and their use of birth control specifically not conforming to requirement not to according the requirements of their denomination. I have also seen some Mennonites dance. Thus, I think most people pick and choose to a degree consciously, and otherwise probably out of lack of information.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

So many categories, so little time:

For the RCC:

-A Catholic is any one who is baptized Catholic or is baptized elsewhere but later converts to Catholicism. Committing mortal sin, heresy, or being excommunicated do not make a person cease to be Catholic.

-Does schism (leaving the RCC or founding another Christian Demomination) or apostasy (leaving the RCC and joining another non-Chritian religion, or atheism, if affirmed publicly, make a person no longer a Catholic? I really don't know. In most cases all a lapsed Catholic (or ex-Catholic, if such a thing exists in the terminology of the Church) needs to return to return to full communion with the RCC is to go to confession, unless their excommunication is of a type that the local bishop or the Pope has not delegated to all priests to be able to lift. (If it is one of those excommunications, which are rare, they would need to go to the local bishop or the Pope to have it lifted.

-As for membership in the Church (which is different that status as a "Catholic," which is more of a term of Canon law than a theological term, all validly baptized Christians unit outside of the RCC are members of the Church. The RCC teaches that the Church subsides in the RCC, but that all Baptized Christians are members of the Church, even if they are not in full communion with the RCC (and never were). It strikes me as strange that in the instant after a non-Catholic's baptism, all their sins have been wiped away, but they are kit in full communion with the RCC. I guess you could argue that that person would not experience the full graces of the Sacrament of Baptism until entering full communion with the RCC, but for me the question is, if a non-Catholic does immediately after baptism, is there anything that might keep them from going straight to heaven (or even being admitted to purgatory) that they would not have had if they had been baptized in the RCC?

-Finally there is the question of whether non-Christians have any membership in the Church whether they want to or not. Some of the writings of Vatican II seem to suggest that the Church extends to include all of humanity although only baptized Christians (or those who die with a baptism of desire or blood, ie martyrdom) can be said to be members of the Church per se. I never really understood this either.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Squirrel:
I've heard this term used repeatedly to describe one who appears to "pick and choose" which Church teachings he or she is willing to accept. Needless to say, it's not a term of endearment.

I've heard it also, and it seems a somewhat uninspired metaphor .

"I fancy believing in the Immaculate Conception today. No, hang on, that slice of Arian heresy looks tasty..."

Not a remotely fair or adequate description of most people's thought process.

If people believe that the laity should leave all the thinking to the clergy, why don't they just come out and say so ?

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on :

I think to some extent that depends on which items you have placed on your 'tray of belief', and the thought and reflection you have given to those choices - not to mention how you live them in your daily and devotional life. If you are a denomination which practices infant baptism, then I don't see how you can then complain if people find they are unable to accept every single belief as they develop in their education and critical thinking. Of course different beliefs vary in their importance and some changes it could be argued create a break in and of themselves. I've never found belief to be a static thing (I would be slightly concerned if it was).

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If people believe that the laity should leave all the thinking to the clergy, why don't they just come out and say so ?

To be fair, this isn't quite the RCC position as I understand it; rather it's that (officially, at least) one is obliged to suspend rational thinking when the Church promulgates any doctrine that one finds difficult or troubling.

The Pope and his associates are the primary channel of communication from God, therefore if I find myself in disagreement with them then I must be in error and must submit to that which God has spoken through his Church. To repeat, AIUI!

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

A catholic is never obliged to suspend rational thinking,but rather to ask himself/herself why his/her 'rational thinking' not be in harmony with the 'rational thinking' expressed by the magisterium.
The Nicene Creed is a major statement of Catholic/Christian belief.If a Catholic cannot accept this,then he/she must ask why,but the Catholic is entitled to follow his/her conscience.
The conscience should be 'informed' properly on matters of important doctrine.
Most Catholics simply leave this to the church to define important matters of faith,rather than sorting out doctrines which they may only vaguely understand.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Some of the writings of Vatican II seem to suggest that the Church extends to include all of humanity although only baptized Christians (or those who die with a baptism of desire or blood, ie martyrdom) can be said to be members of the Church per se. I never really understood this either.

A Catholic friend told me the Catholic bishop is in charge of my soul whether I agree to that or not. To me, that's an abusive attitude, depersonalizing.

I suppose it can be meant kindly, but so many Catholics have told me over the years only Catholics go to heaven, the idea that some bishop thinks he gets to choose my eternal fate comes across as a potential threat, not as kindness.

[ 26. May 2013, 17:03: Message edited by: Belle Ringer ]

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

You simply shouldn't believe everything that Catholic friends tell you.Just trust the pope.He could be your catholic friend.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

I think that what your Catholic friend may have been trying to tell you, is that a bishop,just like the priests who act in his name,has the 'cure of souls'.This means in everyday language that they are responsible for the care of the souls in their parish or diocese.
It's not only Catholics who use this term'cure of souls' certainly Anglicans do and perhaps Presbyterians and Lutherans.
It is from this expression 'cure of souls' which we get in English the word 'curate'.It is usually used in the English speaking world as the word for a helping priest in a parish whereas in some other language groups it is used for the parish priest who has the 'cure of souls'.

I know that Catholics say that the pope is infallible (when speaking ex cathedra on an important matter) but this infallibility does not extend to every utterance out of the mouth of everyone who claims to be a Catholic.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Being responsible for the 'cure of souls' in no way gives the bishop or the priest the right to judge your fitness or otherwise to enter the heavenly realms.I don't think that that was what your 'Catholic friend' attempted to say,but it may well be your wrong interpretation of what you Catholic friend said.

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

SouthCoastKevin:

quote:
As K:LB said upthread, we can't force ourselves to believe something. We can act as if we believe something but that's not the same thing, even if it might look the same from another person's perspective.

"Force" is an odd word here, and I wonder if your not confusing belief with personally thought out agreement.

Many aspects of modern science are, to me, really hard to swallow, but I accept that Science has a legitimate claim to be accepted. It will sometimes be wrong, but it is not irrational for me to believe things that I think are quite odd.

I can see why Catholics would view the authority of the Church in a similar way. Plus isn't acting as if you believe something functionally the same as believing. Actions speak louder than words.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

What a strange, not to mention quite off-the-wall point of view regarding bishops, Belle Ringer.

The only way that I can figure it is that, in his diocese, the bishop is primus inter pares and has a care for all in his diocese. But even bishops have confessors, and are not responsible for you personally - only you are. With the help and advice of your spiritual advisor.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
SouthCoastKevin:

quote:
As K:LB said upthread, we can't force ourselves to believe something. We can act as if we believe something but that's not the same thing, even if it might look the same from another person's perspective.
"Force" is an odd word here, and I wonder if your not confusing belief with personally thought out agreement... isn't acting as if you believe something functionally the same as believing.

By 'believe something' I mean 'consider to be true'. I can happily accept an authority's view on something and act as if I believe that view to be true even if I don't in reality (yet) believe it to be true.

In the context of science, it could be something that I don't understand but I can accept the scientific consensus on. In the world of faith, there might be an issue on which my church or some person whose wisdom I trust says one thing, but I currently believe something different. Because I accept the authority and wisdom of that church / person, I will act as if they are correct even if at the moment I cannot honestly say I share their view on the particular issue. And it wouldn't surprise me to find that my view gradually comes into line with the view which I have decided to follow.

So 'believing' and 'acting as if I believe' are different (in my head, at least!) but, yes, they'll often look the same from the outside, I'd say.

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Some of the writings of Vatican II seem to suggest that the Church extends to include all of humanity although only baptized Christians (or those who die with a baptism of desire or blood, ie martyrdom) can be said to be members of the Church per se. I never really understood this either.
A Catholic friend told me the Catholic bishop is in charge of my soul whether I agree to that or not. To me, that's an abusive attitude, depersonalizing.

I suppose it can be meant kindly, but so many Catholics have told me over the years only Catholics go to heaven, the idea that some bishop thinks he gets to choose my eternal fate comes across as a potential threat, not as kindness.

I have never heard that, and think it utterly mad. Some ultra conservative Catholics can believe some barking mad stuff that would have no relation to any dogma whatsoever. A cure of souls would be the normal way of looking at a bishop or priest's responsibility but not as some kind of SS Division Leader.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I can happily accept an authority's view on something and act as if I believe that view to be true even if I don't in reality (yet) believe it to be true.

Just to add, this does mean that I accept a certain amount of authority but there are some things I would never do, whoever was urging me to do it.

Surely this is the same for all of us, though; it's just a matter of degree, really. I mean, you Roman Catholics - if (in theory!) the RCC issued a decree that all Christians must, oh I don't know, send death threats to your country's head of state, I'm guessing you wouldn't do it. It's just that you might do most things your Church tells you to do, while I will probably be slightly less likely to do what my church tells me to do.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
The part I don't actually get is, what are you supposed to do if you don't believe one of the 235 or 600 or 5 or however many it's meant to be? As has been said, we don't appear to have a choice about what we believe at any given point in time. We have a choice of what we do about it if we disbelieve something of course, and I presume a good Catholic who disbelieves something the Church teaches should be constantly open and willing to reassess their disagreement (indeed I've been told that this is the case by more than one Catholic priest). But what you seem to be saying is that if you believe only 234 out of 235, you cease to be a Catholic?

Frankly, I find it difficult to say when one "ceases to be" a RC. But if you seriously disbelieve a RC "de fide" dogma, and are a RC, then you are excommunicated automatically. (*) However, there is belief and then there is belief. It is obstinate denial and doubt that make you a heretic, it is not disbelief in a general sense much less a lack of intense belief. While the RCC rather obviously has a large system of propositional theology, and takes some of that very seriously, "being a RC" is not really about that. As an analogy, I would say that RC doctrine is to "being a RC" is like traffic law to being a driver. You should obey the rules when you drive on the road. And some of those rules are being taken very seriously, to the point that if you run a red light too often, you may lose your driver's license. But obeying traffic law is merely a condition for being a good driver, that does not suffice on its own. And traffic law neither teaches you how to drive practically (switching gears etc.) nor does it tell you where you actually are driving to. Traffic law simply sets certain limits within which driving should happen.

This analogy allows me to make my point about belief. Say you hit a speed limit of 20 mph. It could be that you think "that speed limit is a really good idea, there's my son's school over there." You are a firm and glowing believer in that speed limit then. But it could also be that you think "what ever is the point of this bloody speed limit here, it makes no sense at all, I can go 60 mph here." OK. But what do you do? If you then accelerate to 60 mph, you are obviously violating traffic law and if caught will be in trouble. You are then a firm and committed disbeliever in this speed limit. But if you instead drive 20 mph, but all the time roll your eyes and mutter obscenities under your breath, what shall we say? Are you a believer or a disbeliever?

Both. Neither. But as far as the traffic law goes, you are obviously good. And to come back from the analogy, you would also be good (not excellent...) if you "grudgingly go along" with some core dogma. This is really nothing but "by their fruits you shall know them" applied to determine "sufficient acceptance". It would of course be preferable if you were all fired up and inspired by that dogma, but the Church will make do (and this means your salvation will make do) with you not actively opposing it, with not disbelieving it in a fighting sense. If you have enough belief to hang in there, then you can still viably say "I believe, help my unbelief."

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
You might have noticed over the years that I have, at times, swayed somewhat towards Rome. I'm actually largely in agreement with the Catholic Church on most things excepting a certain Dead Horse, certainly closer than I am to mainstream Protestantism (if there is such a thing) but the solemn statements I would have to make in order to gain entry are a bar I can't cross because they're absolute.

No, I have not noticed that you are swayed toward Rome. Because frankly, the decision for Rome cannot depend on a check list of beliefs like that. Rome is the answer to "where does Christ want me to be?" It is not the answer to "who has the best collection of doctrines?" It can be part of one's discernment to look at doctrines, perhaps as a kind of evidence for Divine inspiration, or whatever. But while you are still doing that, you are nowhere near being swayed. The Church is prior to doctrine: one believes in doctrines because of the Church, not in the Church because of doctrines. "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God." (John 6:68-69) Spoken by Peter about Christ, of course, but that is your situation also. You cannot construct your entire faith by careful weighing of options and compiling what seems sensible to you. Then you trust in natural reason to save you, and it won't. I'm hardly opposed to reason, but it is merely a means to find a good place for jumping. Yet you must jump the abyss, reason won't find a bridge for you.

As for the "absoluteness" - well, dogma is absolute, for it is Divine. You however are not, and hence you need not be absolute in your belief. But you must be trying, you must hang in there. See above. And if you are not willing to do even that, then why on earth should the RCC accept you as a member?

---
(*) "Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith", canon 751 + "an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication", canon 1364.1. I should note that there is plenty of wiggle room, like "a person who violated a law or precept by omitting necessary diligence is not punished", canon 1321.2, or the impossibility to incur any ecclesiastical punishment before sixteen years of age, canon 1323.1. But informed and serious dissent of core dogma by an adult is just not being tolerated. Officially.

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
The only way that I can figure it is that, in his diocese, the bishop is primus inter pares and has a care for all in his diocese. But even bishops have confessors, and are not responsible for you personally - only you are. With the help and advice of your spiritual advisor.

Actually I think the idea that the bishop is responsible for all Christians in his diocese is a reasonable inference from the imperfect communion teaching. It doesn't have to be mystical - the actions of the Catholic bishop of the diocese in which I live reflect on me as a Christian, I'm quite likely to listen to something he says by virtue of his position, and my own actions reflect on the Catholic Church to some extent by virtue of the claims she makes to my membership even though I'm under the direct jurisdiction of the Bishop of Durham. Or would be if we currently had one.

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The Church is prior to doctrine: one believes in doctrines because of the Church, not in the Church because of doctrines.

I don't argue with this but starting from a position of not being sure where the Church precisely lies in an age of at least three major branches of Christianity and countless denominations, I don't see any other means by which an enquirer can sort through the competing claims than to test both doctrines (including those about the historical faith) and fruits. Speaking of which, I should look at your de fide list again.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
A Catholic friend told me the Catholic bishop is in charge of my soul whether I agree to that or not. To me, that's an abusive attitude, depersonalizing.

Are you sure your Catholic friend was not referring to the cure of souls, which is the responsibility of each ordinary in conjunction with his incumbents? That would be fairly uncontroversial.

But if by 'in charge' he meant that your bishop could direct your eternal life in directions contrary to your will I'm sure you were quick to tell him/her what bullshit that was.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
How is a "Cafeteria Catholic" any different from a "Cafeteria Anglican" or even a "Cafeteria Presbyterian"?

Come on Presbyterians! Hands up! Who actually believes in predestination? Who actually, among you even know what predestination is?

You rang?

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Rather than 'Cafeteria Catholic' it would be more positive to say that you are an 'Independently-minded Catholic'. I would suggest that there are an awful lot of Roman Catholics with only one or two children who fall into this category.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It would of course be preferable if you were all fired up and inspired by that dogma, but the Church will make do (and this means your salvation will make do) with you not actively opposing it, with not disbelieving it in a fighting sense.

Does this mean that a Catholic can utterly disbelieve any dogma they like, so long as they don't actually tell anyone that they disbelieve it?

I mean, your traffic analogy is good but unlike speed limits most dogmas don't have any effect on how we live our day-to-day lives. Whether Mary was Immaculately Conceived, for example, doesn't change anything I'll do or say this year. I'm struggling to imagine anything about my life that would have to change if I were to start acting as if I believed in it.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Does this mean that a Catholic can utterly disbelieve any dogma they like, so long as they don't actually tell anyone that they disbelieve it? I mean, your traffic analogy is good but unlike speed limits most dogmas don't have any effect on how we live our day-to-day lives. Whether Mary was Immaculately Conceived, for example, doesn't change anything I'll do or say this year. I'm struggling to imagine anything about my life that would have to change if I were to start acting as if I believed in it.

Obviously you can get away with disbelieving many, indeed most, dogmas as you long as you shut up about it and keep up appearances. The same also applies to sins more generally. But you can ever only get away from man, and the human aspect of the Church, you can not get away from God, and the Divine aspect of the Church. So let's assume this is not about whether you can fool the RCC / the parish priest into believing that you are a good Catholic - that's easy enough - but whether you can be a good (or at least acceptable) Catholic in the eyes of God.

The point of applicability of dogma to your life is an important one, but I would read this just the other way around. If the Immaculate Conception really won't change anything you think, say or do this year (note: thinking is also an action), then why would you go around "utterly disbelieving" it? In terms of the analogy, there are traffic laws specifically about motorbikes. But I don't own a motorbike, and I don't ride one, so I don't care about those laws. But not in the sense that I'm breaking them or protesting them or otherwise fighting them. I have a basic assumption that they are probably for the best as far as motorbikes go, and I leave it at that. If however I was bitching hard about some motorbike law, then this has to be about something. Perhaps I feel that it somehow impinges my rights as car driver, perhaps I'm ticked off at the traffic authority in general and use this to vent, perhaps a good friend got punished because of this law, ... And it is then with regards to this something that my previous comments about "at least play along, if grumbling" apply. While bitching, I accept the restrictions to my car driving, I continue obeying the laws issued by that traffic authority where they apply to me, I agree that my friends shouldn't have broken the law as it stands, ...

If however some dogma truly is of no particular relevance to you, then let your "whatever" be an "if you say so". Leave it alone assuming that it is OK somehow. That is not to say that you are forbidden to think about this if it becomes relevant to you. It is simply saying that as long as you don't care you do it in a "trusting" way, just as I trust that the traffic authorities made some sensible rules for motorbikes without being concerned by them.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The point of applicability of dogma to your life is an important one, but I would read this just the other way around. If the Immaculate Conception really won't change anything you think, say or do this year (note: thinking is also an action), then why would you go around "utterly disbelieving" it?

I don't, particularly. I don't think of it at all, excepting when it comes up in discussions. Neither do I generally think about whether Krishna is the eighth avatar of the Supreme God Vishnu, but that doesn't mean I could "just go along with it in a trusting manner" were such acceptance to be required of me in some hypothetical future.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Rather than 'Cafeteria Catholic' it would be more positive to say that you are an 'Independently-minded Catholic'. I would suggest that there are an awful lot of Roman Catholics with only one or two children who fall into this category.

"Pick and choose" is by definition negative. It can't be framed positively.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Oh twaddle, people make choices all the time, it's called being human and using your brain. Even the Pope seems to be doing this at the moment, and it sounds a lot more compassionate than earlier Catholic inflexibility.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Even the Pope seems to be doing this at the moment, and it sounds a lot more compassionate than earlier Catholic inflexibility.

Which Papal choices would those be, Chorister?

Tell us more about this "earlier Catholic inflexibility"?

[ 29. May 2013, 21:18: Message edited by: Trisagion ]

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
The RCC teaches that the Church subsides in the RCC,

I am rather certain that the Catholic Church does not in fact teach this [Razz]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The point of applicability of dogma to your life is an important one, but I would read this just the other way around. If the Immaculate Conception really won't change anything you think, say or do this year (note: thinking is also an action), then why would you go around "utterly disbelieving" it?
I don't, particularly. I don't think of it at all, excepting when it comes up in discussions. Neither do I generally think about whether Krishna is the eighth avatar of the Supreme God Vishnu, but that doesn't mean I could "just go along with it in a trusting manner" were such acceptance to be required of me in some hypothetical future.

And that's perfectly fine, of course. Except if you are or intend to become a Vaishnavist Hindu. Then I would say that you are still fine to not be particularly concerned with this teaching, if it is not a (currently) relevant part of your spiritual life as Vaishnavist Hindu. But your mental attitude to those "unused" parts of your faith then should be be warm and friendly, not cold and hostile - in my opinion. It goes with the territory, it is part of your spiritual belonging. To me it makes no sense to approach your own spiritual path as unrelenting sceptic. That's second-guessing your own good judgement. One has to be OK with where one has decided to go, in a general sense, or one should decide to go somewhere else that looks better...

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And that's perfectly fine, of course. Except if you are or intend to become a Vaishnavist Hindu.

Indeed. However, the chances are far greater (albeit not that great on their own) that at some point in a hypothetical future I will be in a position of having to seriously consider joining the RCC - ideally through a genuine fusion of our respective denominations rather than a one-sided takeover, but that's as maybe. The point is that Christian Unity is a worthy goal, and therefore those dogmas that stand in the way - and how important it actually is for everyone to believe them - are also worthy of consideration.

quote:
To me it makes no sense to approach your own spiritual path as unrelenting sceptic. That's second-guessing your own good judgement.

The way I see it, to blindly accept anything a religious leader says simply because I happen to like him or her is to utterly abdicate my own good judgement. As a sceptic I may never be fully immersed in the wonder and mystery of the faith, but I'll also never get sucked into a cult that ends up handing round the cool-aid. That seems like a fair trade.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The point is that Christian Unity is a worthy goal, and therefore those dogmas that stand in the way - and how important it actually is for everyone to believe them - are also worthy of consideration.

Again I ask, how can that dogma stand in your way if in your own words you are "struggling to imagine anything about my life that would have to change if I were to start acting as if I believed in it." I put it to you that you are just making excuses there, using this as a proxy. There may be good reasons that do prevent your unity with the RCC, but this dogma surely is not one of them.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The way I see it, to blindly accept anything a religious leader says simply because I happen to like him or her is to utterly abdicate my own good judgement. As a sceptic I may never be fully immersed in the wonder and mystery of the faith, but I'll also never get sucked into a cult that ends up handing round the cool-aid. That seems like a fair trade.

Why do you mischaracterise what I've been saying in terms of "liking a religious leader"? I didn't like JPII much, who was pope when I became RC. It's early days, but I don't think that I will like F, who is pope now. I kind of liked BXVI, but more for his theology than his papacy. Why do you talk about blindly accepting, when I never asked for such a thing? I informed myself rather comprehensively before I decided to become RC, and I'm no slacker at thinking things through now.

However, I think it is right to "sentire cum ecclesia", to think with the Church. I have chosen to be an "insider", to be part of the Church. So primarily I think with her, not against her. In particular, in case of doubt I will side with the Church, not set myself apart from her. She has my allegiance by default. Joining a faith means nothing but accepting a specific bias, some things become thereby your things. An attitude of aloofness and cold objectivity is actually wrong then. One must have a feeling of kinship, a warmness of heart and an agreeability of mind, for this Church. It is a sharing of life, not just a tick mark on some sheet of paper.

I think I'm entirely capable still of judging when I'm getting "sucked into a cult that ends up handing round the cool-aid." I resent the suggestion that I'm in danger there. I have switched religions before in my life, and I was pretty intense in the one I left behind. I remain master of my life, including my spirituality. But in religion, being your own master simply means that you get to chose what or who will lord over you. You cannot be Lord yourself, you cannot walk to the stars. Every religion knows this, and if you wish to "get" religion then you cannot remain a sceptic. Abusive cults are a serious systemic risk of religion, but there is no reward without risks.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
The RCC teaches that the Church subsides in the RCC,
I am rather certain that the Catholic Church does not in fact teach this

subsists?

quote:
Haec Ecclesia, in hoc mundo ut societas constituta et ordinata, subsistit in Ecclesia catholica, a successore Petri et Episcopis in eius communione gubernata, licet extra eius compaginem elementa plura sanctificationis et veritatis inveniantur, quae ut dona Ecclesiae Christi propria, ad unitatem catholicam impellunt.

Lumen gentium =

quote:
This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:
"Pick and choose" is by definition negative. It can't be framed positively.

How about "being more concerned with truth than with conformity ?"

And I thought subsisting was something to do with eking out a bare existence (as opposed to making a comfortable living) ?

Best wishes,

Russ

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0