Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by SalixIncendium, Feb 9, 2019.
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?
Everyone is "picking and choosing", even those who "pick" all of it, and "choose" to do everything they're told. Choosing not to take responsibility for one's own beliefs by claiming to be "totally faithful" to someone else's does not absolve one of the responsibility for having done so. Though there are a significant number of people who seem to think it does.
And since we are obliged to make our own choices regarding such beliefs and actions, I think we should acknowledge the responsibility that comes with that, and seriously consider the choices we are making, why we are making them, and what the results of our having done so, are.
Just as at a cafeteria, some aspects tend to be compulsory, while others are far more optional. In my faith, the village Hindu, unfamiliar with the variances between sects, and oblivious to contradicting tenets, often uses the cafeteria model. Hindus devoted to one sect will be less selective, but still have personal ideas that they focus on more. So just like at a cafeteria, they may taste it all, and then go back for seconds of selected items.
That is pretty much the default assumption for a random Brazilian, if no better information is available.
I would assume however that baptisms and funerals would be attended fairly often, even though it is generally considered bad form to actually ask whether the people invited consider themselves Catholics.
I am no Catholic myself, but I was presumed to be one nonetheless - to the point of being prepared to and actually receiving the Eucharisty, as a matter of fact.
It is acceptable behavior for most people, in as much that the average Brazilian does not really want to have a clear notion of what other people's beliefs are. There is a widespread acceptance of what I should probably call understated syncretism, very situational.
Even atheists are generally expected to keep silent about their atheism and go through the motions, presumably out of respect for the situations and the expectations of others.
I somewhat sympathise and even support such a view, to a limited extent. I happen to believe that having a common language and social protocols is a big part of religious practice, while convergence of god-concepts is optional at best.
But it would be much better if these disagreements could be plainly made and accepted as such. That is quite rare.
My family were a mixture of cafeteria Catholics (except Nan, who was very much a real one) and Anglicans, who are probably cafeteria by definition! They didn't seem any the worse for it.
As a polytheist, I don't really have any doctrines other than a belief that the gods exist and it's good to have a relationship with them. Which gods you worship is your choice. But I am strict about daily worship, observing the festivals, and making offerings, including to appropriate charities.
I do have reservations about those cafeteria pagans who pick a god from this pantheon and a goddess from that one, and worship a very small number. I always think it's spiritually limiting: there are gods who have things to teach you that you might not think of.
Does not following all doctrine to the letter somehow diminish your closeness to God? Why or why not?
Arrogant people need to feel superior to others. Arrogant Catholics will think of themselves as superior Catholics (closer to God) when they resist change and stick with tradition.
There are Catholics today who would like the Church to return to its long-held stance that Heaven is reserved for Catholics only.
I would want to hear answers to some questions. First, is what you're doing a matter of not believing very deeply or not caring very much? Second, what are your choices motivated by. Third, are you considering attending services and so forth to be not a very important part of your beliefs?
I'm not sure how arrogance comes into play here. Are you suggesting that traditionalist are somehow more arrogant than progressives?
In the Catholic faith, there is a hierarchy of closeness to God, for example, pope, cardinal, bishop, etc. In your view, is arrogance associated with this hierarchy?
And yes, I was raised to believe that Heaven is reserved for Catholics only. If a Catholic believes otherwise, does this diminish their standing in the Church?
I've met some people, particularly syncretic people, who view religions more like a gymnasium than a cafeteria. The machines vary in quality but all of them are there to help you. It's not possible nor recommended to utilize all of them so you should pick the ones best suited to your (spiritual) body and will help you grow the most.
Not being a religious person at all, I can't confirm whether that is a healthier or less healthy way to approach it, but I thought the viewpoint was interesting.
Yes, as a general rule, traditionalists are more arrogant than progressives. That's because we humans are making moral progress toward equality. Arrogant people hold to traditional views and resist that change.
People ambitious for leadership in any field are usually arrogant, IMO, even when they mean well.
It's my understanding that the Second Vatican Council back in the 1960s altered that position.
Would one worship at a cafeteria?
Usually a label placed on progressive Catholics by conservative Catholics who often accuse the Pope of being a cafeteria Catholic, or worse a heretic. Its best left to one's conscience.
The falsely of this was corrected a Vat II. No longer was the hierarchy modeled after the pyramid but at the center of the community in service to, as Francis keeps reminding them.
It's not that the position was altered, but that the teaching was clarified that no salvation outside the church was never an official teaching of the Church. It is God who saves, not the church.
So, you're saying that the Church's teaching wasn't wrong. It was merely misunderstood for umpteen centuries?
If this is the case, why must parishioner confess sins to a priest, perform the penance as directed by said priest, and receive absolution in order to receive Holy Communion?
But how do they know which they need? I presume the people who go to gyms (not me!) get the advice of a trainer, but unless you believe in gurus you're on your own. And the idea that the gods are "there to help you" seems very arrogant, very New Age.