A la carte Catholics; a bad thing? (C. Responses please)

lmaopml

So what do you think about the menu? Should it be an 'eat all you want fest' ( and this is better ) 'or' are 'A la Carte' people 'less' somehow?

I've often seen people express the opinion that Catholics today who 'make their peace' with God in their own way are out of sinc, they are out of touch etc. and while I would agree in an educated way, I can't write them off either, I think some of them are probably better people than I....actually, I'm sure of it! They have a 'simple' faith...

I will admit I'm often astounded at the lack of knowledge as to 'why' we do this that or the other from my fellow Catholics, ( I'm sure most faiths have their fair share of these ) but still....

...what about people who are 'a la carte..'? a teen say for instance who uses contraception?

It's very difficult to be a perfect Catholic, and without a doubt the thing that draws me to it, is that it isn't in any way 'bendy' in so far as the big things in life are concerned that we have to take responsibility for....It doesn't 'change' and meld....It's really constant..

However, I wonder about the 'a la carte' people and how much we welcome them? I hate seeing an opinion that uses them as a pawn too...

I myself believe that God loves the 'a la carte' person as much, and perhaps even more in some cases..

What do you think?

Festus

Does C.Responses stand for Christian or Catholic?

as a Catholic I've been advised that 'a la carte' Catholics are more usually known as Anglicans or Protestants :)

as a Christian I would suggest that someone going 'off piste' should satisfy themselves that they are not breaking any Christian rules - I think it's called an informed conscience.

take your example of the teenager using contraception. You do not say if it is a boy or a girl.

is it a boy protecting himself from a nasty infection or an unwanted pregnancy?

is it a girl protecting herself from a pregnancy should she be raped? :eek:

it might help is you can elaborate on the sex of the teen and why they are users.

it is difficult enough to be a perfect Christian and even more difficult to be a perfect Catholic.

i don't know yet of going a la carte is good thing but if you are a parent of a teen using contraception would you not rather they waited until they were married before making such a decision?

as to the rights and wrongs and why RC has an issue that is for later.

which is better: sex with one or more people you never see again and never having sex with a virgin, and then you marry someone who isn't a virgin or marrying a virgin as a virgin?

lmaopml wrote: »

I will admit I'm often astounded at the lack of knowledge as to 'why' we do this that or the other from my fellow Catholics, ( I'm sure most faiths have their fair share of these ) but still....

This is sometimes the most interesting part of Catholicism. There is a wealth of knowledge and exploration in the history and current teachings that helps explain some of the more difficult areas.

In addition to the Bible and the Cathecism this place helps loads - link

lmaopml wrote: »

I myself believe that God loves the 'a la carte' person as much, and perhaps even more in some cases..

God loves everyone and wants all to find His Truth and live by it. Going a la carte in a restaurant is usually more expensive. is it spiritually worth it?

lmaopml

God loves everyone and wants all to find His Truth and live by it. Going a la carte in a restaurant is usually more expensive. is it spiritually worth it?

Yes, but should God be seen as some multi choice questionaire where you get top marks or not? Surely the most important thing is that 'we' collectively aren't perfect judges? Or at least that's the underlying teaching I get from Jesus, that we all approach him differently but it's the individual honesty that is judged??? not the, 'how philisophical and biblically aware we are??...Can we lose ourselves and honesty in such endeavors?

You see, this is the thing I often wonder about, I'm quite sure that there should always be education available, but I'm not so sure about those who have a simple faith or belief which may not always coincide with what is 'right'! should they be seen as a liability? I really love the people who are a liability? I find them so honest sometimes, it's really refreshing.....

One of the things that drew me to the Catholic church, is that it is full of people who are 'sinners' and aren't quite so sure about everything; I found it endearing..

philologos

Festus wrote: »

as a Catholic I've been advised that 'a la carte' Catholics are more usually known as Anglicans or Protestants :)

No, no, no :pac:

The difference is Protestants generally have a more "sola scriptura" view of their faith. They expect it to be written in the Bible, and to analyse it within its Biblical content before accepting it as Gospel.

Let me answer the OP's question though. I think it is impossible to be a Catholic, and not be alacarte given the huge amass of church dogma.

However, if by alacarte you just mean people who are effectively lapsed but still have some place for God in their lives. I don't consider that bad at all. At least such people could be said to be amenable to the Gospel already, and will be able to seek it further at a later stage.

I wouldn't consider a nominal Christian a bad thing, I would just hope that they would seek a fuller grasp of the truth.

PDN

As a non-Catholic I guess I take the whole dogma thing more lightly. I would prefer that people think through what they believe and why they believe it rather than just accepting what someone else has told them.

For example, as a church minister myself I would hope that our members would be in agreement over the core beliefs that are foundational to Christianity (eg the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Resurrection, the Second Coming, Justification by Faith) but beyond that I would positively encourage them to be a la carte Pentecostals!

hinault

A la carte Roman Catholics.

Depends how you define a la carte, doesn't it?

Does a la carte mean those who only attend church for christening/weddings/funerals?

I attend Mass every Sunday and Holy Days of obligation and I try to observe the tenets of my faith as best I can.

To the person who attends Mass every day, I could be defined as an a la carte RC!


In respect of knowledge of the background and history and culture of RC'ism, it is my view that instruction came from Catechism,
homilies and from my parents who handed on the faith to me and my siblings.

What i do know is that the older I have become the more important my faith has become to me.

Mr. Incognito

You mean as a Christian should you JUDGE other Christians by their adherence to the Man made Church rules.

I think I know the answer to that without having to look the Bible up.

gigabit

PDN wrote: »

As a non-Catholic I guess I take the whole dogma thing more lightly. I would prefer that people think through what they believe and why they believe it rather than just accepting what someone else has told them.:)

Excellent point. I firmly believe to be considered Catholic you must obey all dogma. They are not optional beliefs that you may pick and choose.

I was at a christening last week and some women looked like they were overdressed for a strip club. Also people were going out for smoke breaks like they would in a pub.

Is this is the future of the RCC, if it is then I cannot see how they will exist in another century if humanity survives that long.

mcmickey

An individual should be the authority for their own conscience. It is they themselves who have the knowledge ncessary for salvation and holiness.
Those who retain scriptural faith are assured of God's favor.

lmaopml

LOL, Jackass, I've heard a few people saying that about Catholics who maybe only attend mass every now and then, and yep, I'd agree it doesn't make them protestant....It just makes them out of touch Catholics.

Mr.Incognito, that's not what I meant at all.

PDN, I would agree with the basic tenets, it's what makes us all Christian.

Hinault, that's a great response. I've found that my faith matters more to me now, and understanding it better, than when I was younger....That's why being a la carte at a time in ones life is no big deal to me...

The reason why I brought it up however, is because I've often seen 'other' people, especially outside the Church, being very critical of how people practice their Catholic faith, and people inside going as far as saying they are 'not really Catholic, or a liability....Vatican II catholics blah blah. Or even worse saying that people who only touch base during certain times are the main reason why the Church is continuing in Ireland, and that they really don't care ...just want a 'day out' for the sacraments etc.

I myself think this is terribly unfair, as nobody really knows the heart of others, or their relationship with God.

I never really understood the 'tut tut' mentality, whether they're in the pew behind me, or outside the door looking in and casting judgement...

I've often felt like defending my A la Carte friends and their freedom to come and go at times....

Onesimus

lmaopml wrote: »

LOL, Jackass, I've heard a few people saying that about Catholics who maybe only attend mass every now and then, and yep, I'd agree it doesn't make them protestant....It just makes them out of touch Catholics.

Mr.Incognito, that's not what I meant at all.

PDN, I would agree with the basic tenets, it's what makes us all Christian.

Hinault, that's a great response. I've found that my faith matters more to me now, and understanding it better, than when I was younger....That's why being a la carte at a time in ones life is no big deal to me...

The reason why I brought it up however, is because I've often seen 'other' people, especially outside the Church, being very critical of how people practice their Catholic faith, and people inside going as far as saying they are 'not really Catholic, or a liability....Vatican II catholics blah blah. Or even worse saying that people who only touch base during certain times are the main reason why the Church is continuing in Ireland, and that they really don't care ...just want a 'day out' for the sacraments etc.

I myself think this is terribly unfair, as nobody really knows the heart of others, or their relationship with God.

I never really understood the 'tut tut' mentality, whether they're in the pew behind me, or outside the door looking in and casting judgement...

I've often felt like defending my A la Carte friends and their freedom to come and go at times....

Hi Lmaol, I am a practising ( Orthodox Catholic call it if you will ) Catholic, and that to me is what being Catholic is all about, and even though many are baptised and confirmed in the faith, and who may not attend the sacraments as much as they probably should, I dont react with a ''tut tut'' attitude nor do I judge them unjustly for there is only one judge. But we are free to comment upon peoples behaviour towards their Catholic faith, just as long as we make sure we've taken the splinter out of our own eye first, before we seek to help take it out of our brothers eye. fr example, if someone tells me they are not fasting on Holy Friday and I rebuke them for it, yet me not fasting either then whats the point in that?

Rather, I react with compassion when I see so many of my brethren taking Holy Communion with the possibility ( I dont know their hearts ) of having mortal sin on their soul, thus commiting another mortal sin by doing so. I react with compassion for our Lord for its like seeing your own brothers and sisters just take a stick and beat him and you having to watch it and for our brothers and sisters I react not with a tut tut but with compassion also, because they are sending themselves to death for taking the Body of our Lord and not having gone to confession beforehand.

So to put it all into perspective, I seek not to condemn but to rebuke in a compassionate manner, but to be honest the only people I talk to about it are those close to me, I simply pray for those who reject the core truths of their doctrine and discipline and leave it at that, because at the end of the day, they have that freedom to do what they like, but there is a freedom that leads to love and a freedom that leads to death, and I'm afraid that those of us who choose to take Our Lords Body and reject the sacrament of confession or any other doctrine of the Church choose the latter and become liars when we stand in the pews on Sunday Morning and profess our creed beginning with the Words ''I believe''.

I just want to add one last thing, its not just they who get the tut tut attitude but many of us in the church who actually follow the true doctrines of the church get the tut tut attitude from them as well.

Festus

Jakkass wrote: »

No, no, no :pac:

Wasn't Henry VIII, first head of the Church of England not an a la carte Catholic?

It seems to me he wanted the Church to bend to his will so he could take more than one wife and took control of the Church in England so he could write his own menu.

Onesimus

Festus wrote: »

Wasn't Henry VIII, first head of the Church of England not an a la carte Catholic?

It seems to me he wanted the Church to bend to his will so he could take more than one wife and took control of the Church in England so he could write his own menu.

So in other words Festus what yer tryin to say is:

Catholic Church = Founded on the rock of Peter

Anglican Church = Founded on the balls of Henry the VIII?

Manach

Note that there were some Protestants who were willing to adhere to their faith during Mary's later reign, but that is historically correct,

Festus

Onesimus wrote: »

So in other words Festus what yer tryin to say is:

Catholic Church = Founded on the rock of Peter

Anglican Church = Founded on the balls of Henry the VIII?

Or lack thereof

Some Protestants and at least one poster I've seen on boards think the RCC is a satanic puppet and some Protestant conspiracy websites equate it with the Whore of Babylon.

Felt it was appropriate to remind the wider community that Protestantism ala the Anglican Church has its roots in a la carte Catholicism and Henry VIII could be described as having made whores of his queens. No offence intended - just had a bad experience with a sola scriptura nut - think he was a Baptist - once...

Funny think, I may be worng but I don't think us Catholics go around refering to other Christian demoninations as satanic whores - erroneous schismatics perhaps - so it gets me goat when it happens, especially as we're the first port of call when they get upset about openly gay vicars and women being ordained. Hey, we even accept married vicars so we can't be that bad.

Married priests with kids, now that's a la carte!

Onesimus

Festus wrote: »

Or lack thereof

Some Protestants and at least one poster I've seen on boards think the RCC is a satanic puppet and some Protestant conspiracy websites equate it with the Whore of Babylon.

Felt it was appropriate to remind the wider community that Protestantism ala the Anglican Church has its roots in a la carte Catholicism and Henry VIII could be described as having made whores of his queens. No offence intended - just had a bad experience with a sola scriptura nut - think he was a Baptist - once...

Funny think, I may be worng but I don't think us Catholics go around refering to other Christian demoninations as satanic whores - erroneous schismatics perhaps - so it gets me goat when it happens, especially as we're the first port of call when they get upset about openly gay vicars and women being ordained. Hey, we even accept married vicars so we can't be that bad.

Married priests with kids, now that's a la carte!

Not exactly, it is a practice not a dogma, but it is a rule we adhere to in the Roman rite, In the Eastern Catholic rite in communion with Rome there can be married Priests, but they must be Married before they became Priests and also should they become widowed they are not allowed to become married again, the same goes for Deacons within the Eastern Church.

Roman rite: Deacons can be married, Priests cannot be Married and are called to a life of Celibacy, one may think this practice to be unfair, but I think its wonderful and have no problem with it whatsoever.

The Anglicans that have returned to the Church are allowed now like the eastern rite to retain their litrugical practise but are fully Catholic in sound Doctrine, and Like those of the eastern rite, must be married before entering the Priesthood and not thereafter.

Protestants may have the incomplete view of the truth, but there are many good protestants out there who have done good things, we just pray for them to return to the Holy Catholic Church. I wouldnt want this thread to be hijacked by us and it to turn into a shouting match, so I'm gonna leave it at this. :pac:

Piano man

Onesimus wrote: »

Hi Lmaol, I am a practising ( Orthodox Catholic call it if you will ) Catholic, and that to me is what being Catholic is all about, and even though many are baptised and confirmed in the faith, and who may not attend the sacraments as much as they probably should, I dont react with a ''tut tut'' attitude nor do I judge them unjustly for there is only one judge. But we are free to comment upon peoples behaviour towards their Catholic faith, just as long as we make sure we've taken the splinter out of our own eye first, before we seek to help take it out of our brothers eye. fr example, if someone tells me they are not fasting on Holy Friday and I rebuke them for it, yet me not fasting either then whats the point in that?

Rather, I react with compassion when I see so many of my brethren taking Holy Communion with the possibility ( I dont know their hearts ) of having mortal sin on their soul, thus commiting another mortal sin by doing so. I react with compassion for our Lord for its like seeing your own brothers and sisters just take a stick and beat him and you having to watch it and for our brothers and sisters I react not with a tut tut but with compassion also, because they are sending themselves to death for taking the Body of our Lord and not having gone to confession beforehand.

So to put it all into perspective, I seek not to condemn but to rebuke in a compassionate manner, but to be honest the only people I talk to about it are those close to me, I simply pray for those who reject the core truths of their doctrine and discipline and leave it at that, because at the end of the day, they have that freedom to do what they like, but there is a freedom that leads to love and a freedom that leads to death, and I'm afraid that those of us who choose to take Our Lords Body and reject the sacrament of confession or any other doctrine of the Church choose the latter and become liars when we stand in the pews on Sunday Morning and profess our creed beginning with the Words ''I believe''.

I just want to add one last thing, its not just they who get the tut tut attitude but many of us in the church who actually follow the true doctrines of the church get the tut tut attitude from them as well.

That pretty much sums up my view aswell. St Paul talks about your second paragraph in 1Corinthians 11:23-30.
It's important to know that Catholicism allows for a small amount of a la carte subscribing, but only in the cases of private revelations. That is to say that all defined Church doctrine and dogma, including the Catechism, are to be held in uncompromising faith by all the faithful. However, private revelations, such as Marian apparitions or say the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich or Sister Mary Agreda, though approved by the Church as worthy of belief, or not binding on the faithful, and so Catholics do have that element of choice.
So for example, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is to be upheld by all the faithful, but a devotion to Our Lady is not absolutely required. (It was at Fatima that she asked us to pray the Rosary every day, but though that is highly commendable, a Catholic is not obliged under pain of sin to do that).

God bless:)

philologos

Festus wrote: »

Wasn't Henry VIII, first head of the Church of England not an a la carte Catholic?

That's utterly simplifying Protestantism, and indeed Anglicanism. I blame the Irish school curriculum on the Reformation for this.

Reformers such as Tyndale, Cranmer, Richard Hooker, John Donne and others were involved in bringing the Bible into English. The Reformation was already happening in churches before Henry VIII rejected Catholicism. On Sundays, when the priest would be preaching in Latin, people at the back of the service would be reading out the Bible in English. Gradual protest from the ordinary population was already taking place in churches.

Henry VIII was only a figurehead that allowed an acceleration in the spread of Protestantism within Britain.

That's only Anglicanism, then we have Lutheranism, Calvinism, Methodism and numerous other Protestant denominations.

Festus wrote: »

It seems to me he wanted the Church to bend to his will so he could take more than one wife and took control of the Church in England so he could write his own menu.

It seems as if you don't know the history concerning the English Reformation, at all!

Albeit not a comprehensive history, this documentary explains the process of how the English Reformation came into being particularly looking at bringing the Bible into English, and the persecution received from the former establishment for doing so.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6101527704063312894

Festus wrote:

Married priests with kids, now that's a la carte!

Is it?

1 Timothy 3:1-5 (NRSV) wrote:

The saying is sure: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once, temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?

1 Timothy 3:12 (NRSV) wrote:

Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well.

Titus 1:5-6 (NRSV) wrote:

I left you behind in Crete for this reason, so that you should put in order what remained to be done, and should appoint elders in every town, as I directed you: someone who is blameless, married only once, whose children are believers, not accused of debauchery and not rebellious.

Read what Paul says about the other apostles and Peter (Cephas) the rock of the church:

1 Corinthians 9:12 (ESV) wrote:

Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

This is also true of the Old Covenant:

Leviticus 21:7 (NRSV) wrote:

They [priests] shall not marry a prostitute or a woman who has been defiled; neither shall they marry a woman divorced from her husband. For they are holy to their God

Married ministers, make better ministers in my view, as they know how family situations work, and can relate to peoples problems better. Indeed, how can one expect marriage counselling from people who have never been married?

lmaopml

Errr, some strange twists and trysts since I last logged on..lol..

Anyways....

Piano man wrote: »

That pretty much sums up my view aswell. St Paul talks about your second paragraph in 1Corinthians 11:23-30.
It's important to know that Catholicism allows for a small amount of a la carte subscribing, but only in the cases of private revelations. That is to say that all defined Church doctrine and dogma, including the Catechism, are to be held in uncompromising faith by all the faithful. However, private revelations, such as Marian apparitions or say the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich or Sister Mary Agreda, though approved by the Church as worthy of belief, or not binding on the faithful, and so Catholics do have that element of choice.
So for example, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is to be upheld by all the faithful, but a devotion to Our Lady is not absolutely required. (It was at Fatima that she asked us to pray the Rosary every day, but though that is highly commendable, a Catholic is not obliged under pain of sin to do that).

God bless:)

Thanks guys...

Perhaps I'm putting it wrong when I say 'defend' a person who is displaying a la carte tendancies, I'm not saying that everybody should just go about making up their own rules.....and that should be entertained all the time etc. or even promoted, of course not! In fairness most Catholics are fully aware when they are really erring, but they may still stay 'connected' and really want to be connected......I don't like seeing them 'cut off' if you know what I mean....

What I am perhaps referring more to, is the people who know they have strayed away but don't want to be cut off either....They are still Catholic imo, and have the potential to return fully....So, I guess I don't like it when they are berated, not so much in a 'kind' way by people inside the church, but moreso by people outside....

Like prodigal sons if you will, they're still family....

I'm talking about serial 'tutters' who have the subtletly of a sledge hammer..lol...

I've often felt like telling them to go and 'tut' off :eek:

prinz

lmaopml wrote: »

Perhaps I'm putting it wrong when I say 'defend' a person who is displaying a la carte tendancies, I'm not saying that everybody should just go about making up their own rules.....and that should be entertained all the time etc. or even promoted, of course not! In fairness most Catholics are fully aware when they are really erring, but they may still stay 'connected' and really want to be connected......I don't like seeing them 'cut off' if you know what I mean....

I would take issue with people who spend 364 days a year belittling and ignoring Christian life etc and then turn up dutifully on Christmas Eve/wedding day/christening etc with their little darlings in tow. Those to me are people who are fully aware they are erring and couldn't care a toss in the world.

The other issue I have is with people who have all sorts of misconceptions etc about the RCC but for that I blame the education system and the RCC has to take it's share of the blame here. School is not the place for it. Faith should be fostered in the home and community, encouraged by the Church IMO.

lmaopml wrote: »

What I am perhaps referring more to, is the people who know they have strayed away but don't want to be cut off either....They are still Catholic imo, and have the potential to return fully....So, I guess I don't like it when they are berated, not so much in a 'kind' way by people inside the church, but moreso by people outside....

People who have lapsed can always return and ignore the naysayers, as long as they know to what they are returning to and why.

PDN

This thread seems to be confusing a la carte Catholics with lapsed Catholics, but I don't think the two are the same.

A lapsed Catholic would be someone who pretty well has left the Church but might show their face for cultural rites of passage such as christenings and weddings.

An a la carte Catholic would, I think, more describe someone who is broadly in agreement with key Catholic doctrines, who still attends mass and participates in the life of the Church, but has exercised individual freedom of conscience in one area or another (eg contraception) and says, "I choose not to accept that part of the Church's teachings.

lmaopml

PDN wrote: »

This thread seems to be confusing a la carte Catholics with lapsed Catholics, but I don't think the two are the same.

A lapsed Catholic would be someone who pretty well has left the Church but might show their face for cultural rites of passage such as christenings and weddings.

An a la carte Catholic would, I think, more describe someone who is broadly in agreement with key Catholic doctrines, who still attends mass and participates in the life of the Church, but has exercised individual freedom of conscience in one area or another (eg contraception) and says, "I choose not to accept that part of the Church's teachings.

Yes, that's what I meant, just went around the globe to say it... :pac:

Piano man

lmaopml wrote: »

Perhaps I'm putting it wrong when I say 'defend' a person who is displaying a la carte tendancies, I'm not saying that everybody should just go about making up their own rules.....and that should be entertained all the time etc. or even promoted, of course not! In fairness most Catholics are fully aware when they are really erring, but they may still stay 'connected' and really want to be connected......I don't like seeing them 'cut off' if you know what I mean....

What I am perhaps referring more to, is the people who know they have strayed away but don't want to be cut off either....They are still Catholic imo, and have the potential to return fully....So, I guess I don't like it when they are berated, not so much in a 'kind' way by people inside the church, but moreso by people outside....

Like prodigal sons if you will, they're still family....

Have a read of Romans 11:16-24 - Paul wrote the passage probably with the Jews in mind, but it is certainly applicable to the broken branches of Christianity, and the wild olive trees of other religions. Verse 24 is especially encouraging for lapsed Catholics.

PDN wrote: »

This thread seems to be confusing a la carte Catholics with lapsed Catholics, but I don't think the two are the same.

A lapsed Catholic would be someone who pretty well has left the Church but might show their face for cultural rites of passage such as christenings and weddings.

An a la carte Catholic would, I think, more describe someone who is broadly in agreement with key Catholic doctrines, who still attends mass and participates in the life of the Church, but has exercised individual freedom of conscience in one area or another (eg contraception) and says, "I choose not to accept that part of the Church's teachings.

Well yes, lapsed Catholics are not the same as a la carte Catholics, but both have the same root - a lack of duty and allegiance to the Church.
It should also be noted that a la carte Catholics who knowingly disregard the teaching of the Church for example in the case of contraception, yet insist on receiving Holy Communion, are in fact committing mortal sin. The point being that one cannot receive the sacrament worthily as either a lapsed or a self-proclaimed a la carte Catholic, and so these Catholics cannot participate in the fullness of the life of the Church.

God bless:)