Should Cafeteria Catholics go Apostate?

[Khalid]

Originally Posted by sw85

Again, the OP isn't asking if anyone should be expelled or chased away from the Church. He is simply asking a prudential question: whether it is better for Catholics who refuse to be in communion with the Church, in the long run, to remain in the Church or to leave it.

This is something reasonable people can discuss and agree or disagree over without implying a judgment on whether anyone "deserves" or "ought" to be in the Church. No one's talking about that, and this kind of misrepresentation is both extremely unhelpful and highly uncharitable.

I think this can be phrased more clearly as, "should those who break communion [i.e. excommunicated latae sententiae] with the Church and are obstinately unrepentant remain nominal members?"

[Khalid]

Originally Posted by sw85

We already see the scandal wrought by mischief-makers like VP Biden or Nancy Pelosi; and the damage they are doing to their own souls by continuing to receive communion, inducing others to sin, and misrepresenting the Church to the world is surely incalculable.

As far as those politicians that attempt to preach to the faithful as if they were the Pope, all sorts of contradictions of doctrine and abominations, they need to dust off the bell, book, and candle, and the old anathematization, to show the world clearly and distinctly that their teaching is not compatible with Christianity, and that the Church cuts their rotten branches off of the trunk.

[wynnejj]

Dublin archbishop says lapsed Catholics should admit their non-belief

[sw85]

Originally Posted by TimothyH

It's not a discussion any of us should be having

With due respect, who are you and when was it decided that you are the sole arbiter on what conversations Catholics may and may not have, on these forums in which you are not a moderator and didn't decide the rules?

Originally Posted by TimothyH

because every single one of us has sins just as bad as them and none of us are worthy to approach the altar of Jesus Christ.

Anyone who doesn't believe that their sins are just as bad as anyone else really needs to see a priest. Anyone who says, "Hey, I'm doing OK comared to that guy" has big problems in thieir spiritual life and needs to hae a long talk with a good priest.

And if anyone happens to be doing reasonably well in avoiding sin, well congratulations then, but I have news for them... It aint anything they did. God did that for them. It was a gift.

Remember that God has prepared the feast for the prodigal son but for the faithful son he has prepared work. Our reward for being a faithful son is work - dirty hands, blisters and sore knees.


-Tim-

This has *nothing to do* with the OP's question. Nothing whatsoever. I have no idea what it is you think you're even responding to.

The OP isn't declaring that cafeteria Catholics must immediately get the hell out because he's better than them, so your earlier post (and this one) is a giant non sequitur. He's simply asking the prudential question of whether or not it is better for those Catholics who refuse to be in communion with it to remain or leave -- better for themselves, better for the Church at large, or both. People are allowed to ask prudential questions like this; there is absolutely zero reason for them to be subject to this kind of uncharitable, hectoring, wiser-than-all-of-you shtick from the self-appointed PC police. Heck, the Holy Father himself has said he would prefer a smaller but purer church, so clearly these kinds of discussions are not in principle off-limits, unless you want to presume to lecture him, too.

[sw85]

Originally Posted by Khalid

I think this can be phrased more clearly as, "should those who break communion [i.e. excommunicated latae sententiae] with the Church and are obstinately unrepentant remain nominal members?"

Sounds better!

Originally Posted by wynnejj

Dublin archbishop says lapsed Catholics should admit their non-belief

The Holy Father himself has said at least once he wants the Church to be smaller and leaner but also holier and purer. Think his ordered reforms of the LCWR and his attempts to reconcile the SSPX. He's said more than once recently that disobedience only harms the Church; brother JR here at CAF has suggested that he will soon insist on American Catholics getting in line behind the bishops against the HHS mandate. And of course his merely being Pope made nominally Catholic leftists apoplectic. Since clearly he's not going to forcibly expel any of these people, it must be the case he thinks it would be better for them to leave on their own, if they're not going to repent and obey God's Church.

[triumphguy]

Originally Posted by Serap

Most Catholics I know use ABC, support homosexual marriage and sex before marriage. Should these Catholics remain in communion with the faith? All of them accept the Eucharist during mass.

Should cafeteria Catholics go apostate?

To "go apostate" means to publicly or formally state your non belief in a system of belief.

I'm not sure most Cafeteria Catholics are aware enough of their position to state it formally or publicly. In fact most would publicly deny that they are not Catholic, but that they hold modern views similar to most Catholics.

I was an "unconscious" heretic myself for a while. I hadn't applied Church teaching to my own life and relationships, nor had I actively sought out the truth regarding some aspects of my life.

I'm glad I stuck around.

Maybe what is needed is the kind of catechesis that challenges our beliefs in light of what we think we believe.

[wynnejj]

I assume the OP is referring to the type of Cafeteria Catholic who has been fully catechized and knows what is categorized as a grievous sin and egregiously chooses steadfastly not to acknowledge the Church's stance on certain grievous sins. That is they defiantly choose to continue specific grievous practices and still present themselves to receive the Holy Eucharist.

Under such circumstances, I would agree with the archbishop in Ireland, Diarmuid Martin, that they should leave the Church rather than receive the Holy Eucharist defiantly unworthily. They are truly an apostate in every way, except declared.

[Tony the mad]

Originally Posted by hn160

From the Catholics that I know and from the Catholic politicians that see and read about in the news, I could become Catholic because they pick and choose what Catholic Church teaching they want to believe and uphold such as abortion, homosexual marriage and adoption to name a few. Look at Nancy Pelosi, Vice President Biden and the Late Ted Kennedy. I don't support any of those positions. Were any of those politicians denied Communion?

It would not surprise me if one or more of these were denied communion. I would disagree with that, though. We live in a democracy not a dictatorship. Representatives have a job to represent their community. If I thought that a politician who represented me would vote for a certain position to appease his/her church leaders I would vote him/her out no matter how much I agree with them.

Our Bishops and our leaders need to focus on having the plank removed from their own eyes before focusing on the splinters in others. If they were halfway decent at being leaders of their flock we wouldn't have near as many fallen away Catholics nor a single pro-life representative in Catholic dominated areas.

[Tony the mad]

Originally Posted by Khalid

As far as those politicians that attempt to preach to the faithful as if they were the Pope, all sorts of contradictions of doctrine and abominations, they need to dust off the bell, book, and candle, and the old anathematization, to show the world clearly and distinctly that their teaching is not compatible with Christianity, and that the Church cuts their rotten branches off of the trunk.

None of the politicians that was mentioned preach as if they were Pope. They represent their community and their personal political opinion. For example, the current (Democrat) majority leader is a Mormon and pro-life amongst other positions. Yet, I would never think, without evidence, that he represents his Mormon faith in his speeches, decisions, and votes. Nor do I think that he SHOULD represent his Mormon faith. His duty is to represent his state.

As far as the Church cutting off rotten branches remember the parable of the wheat and the weeds. When the evil-doer sowed the weeds the field workers asked to pull up the weeds and the master said no because it may damage health plants nearby. Let Christ and the Holy Spirit prune the branches. Too often when the Church does it themselves they pull up healthy plants near by. Just as bad they are not able to fully remove the dead plants which provide fuel for fires that destroy the majority of the crop.

[wynnejj]

Originally Posted by Tony the mad

It would not surprise me if one or more of these were denied communion. I would disagree with that, though. We live in a democracy not a dictatorship. Representatives have a job to represent their community. If I thought that a politician who represented me would vote for a certain position to appease his/her church leaders I would vote him/her out no matter how much I agree with them.

First, the Catholic Church and the rules of its house is not a democracy. How the Catholic Church conducts its business is NOT dictated by the laity or a democratic society. The keys to bind and loose were never conferred upon the laity or a democratic society.

Second, Catholic politicians are not to sell themselves as a product that includes a non-negotiable. If they don't get elected, that is society's fault, not the Catholic politician. If society votes to allow a non-negotiable and Catholic politicians will not campaign on non-negotiables, are you saying that they need not apply? Or are you saying that they should apply for the job of representative on the plank of a non-negotiable?

Third, If I thought that a politician who represented me would vote for a certain position to appease his/her church leaders I would vote him/her out no matter how much I agree with them. Huh? Can't you see that when you cut out the nonsense, the idea is silly.

[St Francis]

Originally Posted by Tony the mad

It would not surprise me if one or more of these were denied communion. I would disagree with that, though. We live in a democracy not a dictatorship. Representatives have a job to represent their community. If I thought that a politician who represented me would vote for a certain position to appease his/her church leaders I would vote him/her out no matter how much I agree with them.

I vote for someone who will honestly work for the best for our community or nation, not someone who will look only from one point of view. He or she may not agree with me, but I don't expect an indirect mob rule where our politicians do nothing more than fight for any silly thing we want. I expect them to know more than I do, and to be able to think about it more clearly.

I would never vote for someone who proclaimed their religion when running for office and turned his back on the teachings of that religion after winning.

Even tho I was afraid of religious politicians who stuck to their guns before I "got religion," I did think what Fr Charles Curran was doing (teaching that abc was all right at Catholic U) was outrageous, because he was saying he was Catholoc and teaching against the Church's teachings. That made no sense to me.

I want my politicians to be people of honesty and integrity. Politicians who claim one thing and act another lack unity within themselves (integrity) and are not honest. That is not the kind of politician I care to vote for.

Our Bishops and our leaders need to focus on having the plank removed from their own eyes before focusing on the splinters in others. If they were halfway decent at being leaders of their flock we wouldn't have near as many fallen away Catholics nor a single pro-life representative in Catholic dominated areas.

I agree. It would be great if they started proclaiming all the teachings of the Church. This would challenge each of us with the teachings we are not so good at accepting, and either draw us further in, or make it clearer that we do not belong.

[Matilda Bennett]

Please remember to refrain from discussing particular political figures or parties on this forum. Thank you for your cooperation.

[Abu]

triumphguy #51
Maybe what is needed is the kind of catechesis that challenges our beliefs in light of what we think we believe.

That is precisely what is needed and it needs to be from the pulpit at Sunday Masses to help the participants to the fullness of truth, as well as in Catholic Newspapers, EWTN and elsewhere.

[TheRealJuliane]

Originally Posted by Abu

That is precisely what is needed and it needs to be from the pulpit at Sunday Masses to help the participants to the fullness of truth, as well as in Catholic Newspapers, EWTN and elsewhere.

Wouldn't that be a revival, though????

[Abu]

It should be a revival of faith and reason and a very relevant POST-SYNODAL APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION (1988) CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI OF HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II ON THE VOCATION AND THE MISSION OF THE LAY FAITHFUL IN THE CHURCH AND IN THE WORLD will be very useful.

Coinciding with the 50th anniversary of the opening of Vatican II, the twentieth year since the publication of the Catechism, and the first-ever Synod on the New Evangelization, 2012 has been declared the “Year of Faith” by Pope Benedict XVI.

With the 2012 worldwide Synod on the New Evangelization, we must consider anew what strategies are congruent with the task of preaching in our time.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesqua...-faith-in-2012