Cafeterianism

[pearl]

You're playing with words. It was a shift in the teaching of the Church which brought about the change of attitude toward other religions.

A dogma specifies a particular teaching as being contained in the deposit of faith. A dogma may be developed in understanding. Not all church teaching is dogmatic.

"The whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration a formation of consciences in the faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient of the Deposit of Faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration, with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character." John XXIII

In the present order of things, Divine Providence is leading us to a new order of human relations which, by humanity's own efforts and even beyond its very expectations, are directed toward the fulfillment of God's superior and inscrutable designs. And everything, even human differences, leads to the greater good of the church.' John

 

[joe1776]

The schism following Vat II had nothing to do with dogma. It was a protest against the liturgical renewal. .

dogma: a belief or set of beliefs that people are expected to accept without asking questions about them

Nostra Aetate
In 1965, the Second Vatican Council made historic changes to church policies and theology. Among them was Nostra Aetate, Latin for "In Our Time," a document that revolutionized the Catholic Church's approach to Jews and Judaism after nearly 2000 years of pain and sorrow.

Section four of Nostra Aetate repudiates the centuries-old "deicide" charge against all Jews, stresses the religious bond shared by Jews and Catholics, reaffirms the eternal covenant between God and the People of Israel, and dismisses church interest in trying to baptize Jews.

For the first time in history Nostra Aetate called for Catholics and Jews to engage in friendly dialogue and biblical and theological discussions to better understand each other's faith. After intense debate and some strong opposition, Nostra Aetate was approved by the world's Bishops and Cardinals in Rome on October 28, 1965. Nostra Aetate also calls for the church to dialogue with other world religions.
Nostra Aetate

 

[metis]

So, what Church doctrine are you saying is being ignored the way that some states ignore the enforcement of prostitution? The one you described doesn't sound like it needs to be ignored.

Since Vatican II, the Church has become quite ecumenical, thus pretty much dropping judgmentalism towards other Christian groups and even other religions. However, it still feels that it has more of the correct approach than others have, so it's not taking the position that all are equal along this line.

Also, one should remember that, as Catholics, we have the right of drawing our own conclusions, such as the Catholic book "Let Your (Informed Conscience) Be Your Guide" points out. Look at how many Catholics disagree with the Church's stand on birth control, for example.

IOW, the Church has the right and the obligation to teach what it thinks is correct, but we have the right as Catholics of discernment.

 

[joe1776]

Since Vatican II, the Church has become quite ecumenical, thus pretty much dropping judgmentalism towards other Christian groups and even other religions. However, it still feels that it has more of the correct approach than others have, so it's not taking the position that all are equal along this line.

Okay, I agree. But, I still wonder why you thought that the pre-Vatican II priests who taught that the Church was the only path to salvation were not aligned with the teaching of the Church in their day. But, that's OK. I think we're on the same page now.

Also, one should remember that, as Catholics, we have the right of drawing our own conclusions, such as the Catholic book "Let Your (Informed Conscience) Be Your Guide" points out. Look at how many Catholics disagree with the Church's stand on birth control, for example

.I think the book you are referring to is outdated. If I understand the current Catholic explanation of conscience, it's not possible to inform it. The idea that conscience might be informed was predicated on Aquinas's notion that the judgments of conscience were judgments of reason. I don't recall the current Catholic definition but I recall it being more aligned with intuition rather than reason. But, we're going off-topic here...

 

[joe1776]

A dogma specifies a particular teaching as being contained in the deposit of faith. A dogma may be developed in understanding. Not all church teaching is dogmatic.

This website presents the conservative Catholic case against Vatican II. It asserts that Vatican II created a new religion.

Of interest in our discussion:

The Catholic Religion teaches: The Catholic Church is the only way to salvation and only the Catholic religion has equal rights

Vatican II teaches: There are many ways to salvation and that all religions should have equal rights.

VATICAN II & THE CURRENT CRISIS

 

[pearl]

Was the Church controlled by the liberals or conservatives prior to Vatican Two?

Vatican II was a battleground between the all powerful and conservative Roman Curia and the more liberal bishops. And this battle continues today. Its a political power play in many ways. The Pope selects those bishops he will elevate to cardinal, and it is the cardinals who select the future pope. John Paul II and Benedict XVI chose more conservative bishops, Francis has gone with those more moderate.
Benedict XVI, then Joseph Ratzinger, who was a theological advisor to the bishops at Vat II, in his book, 'Theological Highlights of Vatican II' he gives a clear picture of how heated the debates were. Vat II was to be an ecumenical Council.
In comparison, the church of Trent was closed in on itself in defense against the Reformation, Pope Francis has a statue of Martin Luther, and I hear, one of Hans Kung, which possibly means that Francis will revisit papal infallibility.
In an audience before a group of Greek seminarians, Pope John XXIII said:
"I am not infallible."
When that statement had had the desired effect, he explained:
"The pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra.
I will never speak ex cathedra, therefore I am not infallible."
Sources:

“Listening” magazine, Volumes 1-2 (1966), page 181;
Aquinas Institute of Philosophy and Theology.

“Commonweal” magazine, Volume 102 (1975), page 144
Commonweal Publishing Corporation.

Nothing could be published with a nihil obstat or imprimatur unless it accorded with the doctrinal stance of the church.

The nihil obstat or imprimatur doesn't mean the church is in agreement with the author, only that the work does not contain heresy.

 

[pearl]

This website presents the conservative Catholic case against Vatican II. It asserts that Vatican II created a new religion.

Of interest in our discussion:

Its an apologetic site and as such is bias against the Council. An Ecumenical Council together with the presiding pope is the highest authority of the Church.
What many Catholics do not realize this is the SAME teaching church it has always been. And this same church has gone through many changes and will continue to do so when needed.

 

[joe1776]

Its an apologetic site and as such is bias against the Council. An Ecumenical Council together with the presiding pope is the highest authority of the Church.
What many Catholics do not realize this is the SAME teaching church it has always been. And this same church has gone through many changes and will continue to do so when needed.

I didn't offer it as an unbiased source. i doubt that such a thing exists on Vatican II. I offered it because it claims that the Catholic Church holds to the position that I said it held prior to Vatican II --- that it is The One True Church and the only path to salvation.

 

[pearl]

I didn't offer it as an unbiased source. i doubt that such a thing exists on Vatican II. I offered it because it claims that the Catholic Church holds to the position that I said it held prior to Vatican II --- that it is The One True Church and the only path to salvation.

What you fail or refuse to understand is that the Catholic church interprets its own doctrine as it does Scripture, not only its meaning in history's time and culture, but what is the meaning for the life of the Church today.

. Para. 819: "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" (LG 8 § 2) are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements" (UR 3 § 2; cf. LG 15). Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him (Cf. UR 3), and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity" (Cf. LG 8).

 

[joe1776]

What you fail or refuse to understand is that the Catholic church interprets its own doctrine as it does Scripture, not only its meaning in history's time and culture, but what is the meaning for the life of the Church today.

First of all, I don't refuse to understand anything and I resent the implication.

I don't understand what you wrote in this post and the quote you offered with it has to do with our discussion. Would you like to give it another try?

The issue on the table is: What was the Church's position prior to Vatican II on other religions. I maintain that through the first 30 years of my life, until 1965,Catholics were told that Protestant, Jews and Muslims were condemned to Hell. I've offered supporting evidence that you have rejected. The latest of my evidence you called "biased" because it is offered by traditional Catholics who oppose the results of Vatican Two.

A bias is something that throws a judgment off course. What I offered supported my claim as to the Church's position before Vatican Two. You labeled it a "bias" simply because it disagreed with your position in our debate.

I don't care whether the traditionalists are right or wrong in their stand against Vatican Two and the current Church. What matters to me is that their stand offers the traditional position of the Church which supports my argument in this discussion.

 

[pearl]

. I maintain that through the first 30 years of my life, until 1965,Catholics were told that Protestant, Jews and Muslims were condemned to Hell.

But what you refuse to consider is that this word of mouth in the pews was never an 'official' position of the Church. The Church does not condemn anyone to hell. edit to add
Keep in mind in the time we are considering, Church pronouncements, teaching etc. were interpreted first by the bishops in their respective diocese, then interpreted by the priests who handed their interpretation to those in the pew.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I grew up in what could be considered a "Cafeteria Catholic" household, which is to say that my family chose what doctrines were important to follow and which ones were not. My grandmother was the only one in the family that went to mass every Sunday, said grace before meals, attended every holiday service, and gave tithe to the Church. The rest attended Sunday mass sporadically, attended holiday services only if it was convenient, and that was pretty much totality of their practice.

Is it acceptable in your religion to pick and choose what doctrine to follow and to leave out ones you don't want to as you would picking out food from a cafeteria service line? Does not following all doctrine to the letter somehow diminish your closeness to God? Why or why not?

I'd say I worship with a diverse set of people so we are the cafeteria. People are vary diverse because we worship is personal community centered. We help people in person and get to know and help each other personally.

So, the only thing about pick and choosing is that a person may throw out sources that doesn't help their personal spirituality, they're goal isn't to help others, and they are looking for people who believe the same thing. A lot of people are ex-cradle christians so they not take the bible as anything other than other books that help us (to them) how to live.

I don't think we, as a unit, pick and chose. Sometimes we have Pagan wisdom. Sometimes Buddhist (western) meditation thoughts. Depending on the congregation depends on how much they use the bible in their sermons. A lot of services are lay lead so we use sources like personal testimonies as inspiration and other times personal struggles to the congregation. It really depends.

 

[metis]

The idea that conscience might be informed was predicated on Aquinas's notion that the judgments of conscience were judgments of reason.

Exactly, as that even dates back to the fairly early Church, at least to a point, as it was to a large extent Hellenized, especially influenced by Aristotle and his use of both "reason" and "essence".

 

[joe1776]

But what you refuse to consider is that this word of mouth in the pews was never an 'official' position of the Church

I'm not refusing to consider it. I'm denying it. I'm saying that you're wrong. That's what the debate is about! Moreover, I've offered evidence to support my position that you reject.

My position is that what I've offered is the Church's traditional position. The last link I sent you to support my case was the arguments of Catholic traditionalists who reject Vatican 2. They contend that the true position of the Church is still as I claimed it was before Vatican 2. You reject that opinion as "biased."

 

[joe1776]

Exactly, as that even dates back to the fairly early Church, at least to a point, as it was to a large extent Hellenized, especially influenced by Aristotle and his use of both "reason" and "essence".

Agreed.

But I see trouble ahead for the Church on this because science over the last 20-30 years has been rejecting the notion that the judgments of conscience are judgments of reason. Using their language, the "rationalist" theory is losing out to the "intuitionist" theory.

If the judgments of conscience are intuitive, the Church can't inform it. It isn't something taught and learned. If conscience is intuitive, Aquinas was wrong, Aristotle and Kant and most moral philosophers were wrong (Except Hume).

If the judgments of conscience are intuitive, the Church shouldn't be giving moral advice on birth control, abortion, euthanasia or anything else.

Social scientists doing research on the issue appear to agree that conscience is intuitive but they don't agree on much else. They are still at odds on what role reason plays in moral judgment.

 

[pearl]

traditional po

There is a distinction between 'tradition' and the 'Deposit of Faith.' There are not two Roman Catholic churches. there is but one, yesterday, today and tomorrow. The 'evidence' you point to reflects a narrow understanding to a particular time. The final word on what the Church meant and means by its own statements belongs to the Church. There always has been and will always be factions within the Church who disagree.

 

[metis]

But I see trouble ahead for the Church on this because science over the last 20-30 years has been rejecting the notion that the judgments of conscience are judgments of reason. Using their language, the "rationalist" theory is losing out to the "intuitionist" theory.

I don't see that happening, especially with this pope, as he's driving the conservative bishops to drink as it is.

Social scientists doing research on the issue appear to agree that conscience is intuitive but they don't agree on much else. They are still at odds on what role reason plays in moral judgment.

It more appears that conscience is more of a learned behavior that also affects the subconscious, thus can be intuitive in that way. For example, slavery used to be all fine & dandy centuries ago in many parts of the world but is much less so today. However, someone should tell my wife that.

Even within Buddhist circles there's debate on this idea of intuition versus cognition, and Zen is more the former and Theravada being more the latter.

 

[joe1776]

There is a distinction between 'tradition' and the 'Deposit of Faith.'

If you are going to debate this with me, there's no distinction between the two because I don't know or care what "Deposit of Faith" means. When I say that my version of the Church's stance on being The One True Church and the only Path to salvation was its traditional position, I mean it's the position it held for centuries.

When the priest shocked you at age 12 by claiming that Protestants were condemned to Hell, he wasn't saying it as part of a fringe group of priests. He was stating the Church's traditional position held until Vatican Two.

The final word on what the Church meant and means by its own statements belongs to the Church. There always has been and will always be factions within the Church who disagree.

Granted.

However, there's no reason that I, or any other non-Catholic, should accept that. Because of its size, the policies and positions of the Church are well-known. When they change, and the Church makes moral progress as it did with Vatican 2, the Church will insist it never changed anything because it was always right -- and only previously misunderstood.

The Church has made moral progress over the years but uses deception to cover it up because of its reluctance to admit that it was ever wrong. The cover-ups of the problem with abusive priests, rather than to confront the problem openly, was the Church's traditional modus operandi.

 

[paarsurrey]

I grew up in what could be considered a "Cafeteria Catholic" household, which is to say that my family chose what doctrines were important to follow and which ones were not. My grandmother was the only one in the family that went to mass every Sunday, said grace before meals, attended every holiday service, and gave tithe to the Church. The rest attended Sunday mass sporadically, attended holiday services only if it was convenient, and that was pretty much totality of their practice.

Is it acceptable in your religion to pick and choose what doctrine to follow and to leave out ones you don't want to as you would picking out food from a cafeteria service line? Does not following all doctrine to the letter somehow diminish your closeness to God? Why or why not?

A good post.
Regards

 

[pearl]

The One True Church and the only Path to salvation was its traditional position, I mean it's the position it held for centuries.

For centuries it was the One church, to be outside that church was to be outside of Christ and therefore outside the means of salvation.

Because of its size, the policies and positions of the Church are well-known.

If anything this thread disproves that assumption.

The cover-ups of the problem with abusive priests, rather than to confront the problem openly, was the Church's traditional modus operandi.

True, but that is a false comparison, as the cover up had nothing to do with the body of doctrine.