Get a load of this argument in favor of cafeteria Catholicism

[Dave]

A while back I read a statement from a certain ex-priest in which he tried to say that picking and choosing what one wants to believe and obey is a good thing. He first cited how orthodox Catholics often say that the Church isn't a cafeteria where you choose what you want and leave the rest. Well, then he said, "But Jesus instituted the Eucharist during the context of a banquet. And at a banquet you take what you want."

How would one go about responding intelligently to such a claim? I mean really, it's one of those things where you just want to roll your eyes and say to such a person, "Could you honestly be this dumb??!!" But of course, that's not exactly an intelligent response but rather a response based on emotion.

Edited May 2, 2006 by Lil Red

[Brother Adam]

And it would be rather disrespectful to the priest. The last supper was part of the Todah, or thank offering during passover. I would print off all of the strict observations made by Jews when they had this particular meal. It was by no means "take what you want", rather there are very strict guidelines for the consumption of the meal. It seems this ordained man of God has little understanding of the covenantal relationship that we belong to in relation to Jesus in the Eucharist.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Brother Adam' post='966892' date='May 1 2006, 11:18 AM']
And it would be rather disrespectful to the priest.
[/quote]
ex-priest, I thought?

But as for responding intelligently to that claim, I don't think you can. It's not an intellectual position and it's almost not worth responding to. Like a throwaway statement.

[LSW]

God help us

[Brother Adam]

Oh...I did not see the ex. I would still be respectful though. Dignity of the Human Person and all that.

[Socrates]

Dumb de dumb dumb DUMB!

[MichaelFilo]

A priest can never unpriest himself. You ought to know that.

God bless,
Mikey

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' post='967694' date='May 1 2006, 11:19 PM']
A priest can never unpriest himself. You ought to know that.

God bless,
Mikey
[/quote]

Laicization or excommunication rather changes things though.

[cappie]

Cafeteria Catholics use Vatican II as an excuse stating that things have changed in the Catholic faith and that it is their prerogative to do as they wish. Cardinal Ratzinger, (Benedict XVI) states clearly in the book "The Cardinal Ratzinger Report," that it is absolutely incorrect to refer to Pre-Vatican Council II and Post-Vatican Council II, as if there were changes in the Church's position in matters of faith and morals. The only changes in that respect have sprung from erroneous interpretations of the Council. Pope John Paul II stated in his talk to the Bishops in Los Angeles in 1987:

"It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church on a number of questions, notably sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage. Some are reported as not accepting the clear position on abortion. It has to be noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church's moral teaching. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the magisterium is totally compatible with being a "good Catholic," and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching of the Bishops in the United States and elsewhere."

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Dave' post='966869' date='May 1 2006, 11:05 AM']
A while back I read a statement from a certain ex-priest in which he tried to say that picking and choosing what one wants to believe and obey is a good thing. He first cited how orthodox Catholics often say that the Church isn't a cafeteria where you choose what you want and leave the rest. Well, then he said, "But Jesus instituted the Eucharist during the context of a banquet. And at a banquet you take what you want."

How would one go about responding intelligently to such a claim? I mean really, it's one of those things where you just want to roll your eyes and say to such a person, "Could you honestly be this dumb??!!" But of course, that's not exactly an intelligent response but rather a response based on emotion.
[/quote]

My response...

Christ didn't ask if the Apostles what they wanted to eat and drink. Christ said eat my flesh and drink my blood.

[b]St. Matt. 26:26[/b] ..."[color="#FF0000"]Take and eat; this is my body[/color]."

[b]St. Matt. 26:27-28[/b] ..."[color="#FF0000"]Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins[/color]."

There were no options to choose what we wanted to believe about it or not. The feast of unleavened bread is not a proper analogy of the Church teachings. For anyone who thinks it is has very little knowledge of Christ as proven by the very Scriptures that hold his words.

[b]St. Matt 16:19 [/b]
[color="#FF0000"]I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." [/color]

[b]St. Matt. 18:17 [/b] [color="#FF0000"]If he refuses to listen to them, [b][u]tell the church[/u][/b]. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.[/color]


Christ said that the Church has binding authority. Binding on earth and in Heaven... Christ never referred to what else is on the table at the last supper. The Church says that we may not pick and choose what to believe, we must believe what the Catholic Church teaches... therefore that is bound on earth and in Heaven... if you choose to go against the Church that God gave the power to loose and bind you will be in the wrong. This does put someone's soul in grave danger. God knows your heart, and your heart can deceive you... you need to examine yourself very carefully and you better be sure that you are not deceiving yourself to get away with a sin, least there will be no chance of salvation for your soul. Better to be cold than lukewarm... better that you never learned of the truth than to turn your back on it.

[b]2 Peter 2:19[/b]
They promise them freedom, though they themselves are slaves of corruption, for a person is a slave of whatever overcomes him.
[b]20 [/b] [u]For if they, having escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of (our) Lord and savior Jesus Christ, again become entangled and overcome by them, their last condition is worse than their first. [/u]
[b]21 [/b] [u]For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment handed down to them. [/u]
[b]22 [/b] What is expressed in the true proverb has happened to them, "The dog returns to its own vomit," and "A bathed sow returns to wallowing in the mire."


God Bless,
ironmonk

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Dave' post='966869' date='May 1 2006, 11:05 AM']
Well, then he said, "But Jesus instituted the Eucharist during the context of a banquet. And at a banquet you take what you want."
[/quote]

True. Does that mean he feels this justifies orgies as well? Didn't they eat from the same bowls? Pass stuff around? woo hoo!

[missionseeker]

Wasn't it the Passover meal?

Weren't there specific foods that they HAD to eat?

Weren't there specific reasons for doing so?


I could be wrong...