Cafeteria Catholics
There are very few Catholics that remain faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church. That is not uncommon throughout the history of the Church. For instance, in the fourth century, the Church was invaded with a heresy called Arianism. Arianism taught that Jesus was not actually God, but a being created by God – very similar to the teachings of the Jehovah Witnesses. Back then, Arianism was so prominent that a bishop once said “The whole has become Arian!” But eventually the truth won. The Church is God’s church.
So it is not surprising that many Catholics today are not faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church. They pick and choose which part of Catholicism they like. They are called by the faithful cafeteria Catholics. It is like they are presented an assortment of Catholic teachings and practices and they choose which one they want to put on their plate. Like the Protestants, they exalt their own opinion over the judgement of the Church. But at least the Protestants are honest enough to admit they are not Catholic. These Catholics convince themselves that they are Catholics even though they refuse to submit to the pope and the Church councils in all things – which is the fundamental teaching of Catholicism. They lean on their own understanding instead of God’s established hierarchy in bringing His truth to us.
Cafeteria Catholics on the Left
Many Catholics lean toward the Left, that is, they feel that the Church is too rigid. They may put the Church’s teaching of social justice on their plate but want to leave off its teachings on birth control. They feel that they should go to Mass on Christmas and Easter, but they disagree with the Church that it is a mortal sin to refuse to meet your Sunday obligation of going to church. Many Catholics take communion every Sunday and have not gone to Confession for years, even though the Church teaches that it is a mortal sin not to go at least once a year. Many Catholics would condemn a man who went to a prostitute, but are themselves have sex outside of marriage, although the Church teaches that all sex is a mortal sin outside of marriage. And many Catholic politicians and voters say that they are personally against abortion for themselves, but then pass legislation for making it easy for others to get an abortion. The Church itself condemns not only the person who performs or gets an abortion, but anyone who in any way helps someone to get an abortion. Many remain Catholic and continue to receive communion even though they are divorced, without a Church annulment, and receive communion, even though the church condemns it. I remember once seeing a magazine called The Gay Catholic, as if it is possible to be a practicing homosexual and a practicing Catholic, but the Church still teaches against it.
Many of these people are sinning in ignorance. They are not aware of what the Church teaches on these matters. So I am not judging any particular person. I cannot see their hearts. But many are not ignorant. They simply do not care what the Church teaches. People who know in their hearts what the Church teaches and deep down know that the Church is right are endangering their souls. I cannot tell which one is sincere and which one is not. So I do not judge the condition of their souls, but that does not mean I am not very concerned. If my friend smokes cigarettes, I would warn him that this may kill him. It may not. He may not die from that. But it is a possibility. And if I love him, I will warn of that possibility.
Ironically, Catholics who refuse to accept the full teachings of the Church use the same the same old Protestant argument of sola scriptura – where does it say that in the Bible? Where does it say in the Bible that I must receive an annulment? Where does it say in the Bible that I cannot use a condom? Where does it say in the Bible that I must go to church every Sunday? Usually people who use this argument have themselves never read the Bible from cover to cover. So how would they themselves know that the Bible never taught it? I have shown on this website that all the teachings of the Catholic Church are supported in the Bible. It is a myth that Catholic teaching contradicts the Bible in any way. Besides, since this is a Protestant argument, cafeteria Catholics should then be honest to themselves and become Protestants. When a Protestant stands before God and finds out that the Catholic Church is right (which I believe he will find out), at least God is more likely to see that at least he followed God the way he thought was sincerely right. But I think it will be less likely that God will be so merciful to the Catholic who refused to follow Catholic teaching. It could be that God will judge that he was a hypocrite – if he says he is a Catholic, he should live like a Catholic.
I like to ask a question to my fellow Catholics. On a scale of 1 to 10, how sure are you of going to heaven, 10 being absolute certainty. The Catholic Church teaches that a person cannot be absolutely certain of going to heaven unless it was revealed by special revelation. I know for myself that I would probably give myself, by the grace of God, an 8 or a 9. A 9 is pretty good, but given that that you are risking that your eternal soul is at stake, a 90% chance of making it to heaven should still cause anyone concern. If I was to have surgery where there is a 1 in 10 chance that I may die on the table, I would be very concerned that I may one those who do not make it. Currently, the unemployment rate is at 10%, and people are worried that they might be laid off, although there is a 90% chance that they will not be laid off. So why do we take our salvation for granted? The risk of eternal hell, no matter how small that chance you think may be, it is far more serious than dying on an operating table or losing a job. So how can we gamble with our souls and assume that the Church is wrong and we are right? For instance, you may feel that the Church is wrong on divorce. But from even your perspective is there not a slight chance the Church could be right? Can you gamble with your eternal soul that the Church is wrong?
Another analogy for Cafeteria Catholics is Russian-roulette Catholics. Russian-roulette is taking a revolver, emptying all the chamber except for one bullet, pointing that gun to your heads and pulling the trigger. That is what these Catholics are going. When the Church says that something is mortal sin, the Catholic is gambling that the chamber is empty. There is no bullet. They think that abortion may be OK when the Church says its murder. They think that birth control may be OK when the Church says it is a mortal sin. But if they were to be honest with themselves, they have to admit that that there is a chance that the Church is right and they are wrong. There may be a bullet in the chamber after all! So then what if when you face God on judgment day and find out that you were wrong and the Church was right? You may think that God may have mercy on you because you sinned in ignorance, you sincerely thought you were right. Yes, God may have mercy on you, but maybe He will not. That is why it is Russian-roulette. Considering that your immortal soul is at stake, is it really worth to take that chance?
Cafeteria Catholics on the right
There are other cafeteria Catholics on the right. These Catholics feel that the Catholic Church has become too lenient. They yearn for the old pre-Vatican II days. They feel that the Catholic Church, not just individual bishops and priest, but the whole magisterium of the Church has abandoned traditional Church doctrine and practice.
These Catholics do the same things as those on the left does. They pick and choose what they want on their plate. But this time, they only choose what was prepared on the table before Vatican II. They look at any popes or Councils before Vatican II as being infallible. Vatican II and on has been corrupted, so we cannot trust anything they have to say. They argue that we must have the Tridentine Latin Mass, and having any Mass other than Latin Mass is of devil. I wonder how Jesus feels that He and His disciples, according to these Catholics, are of the Devil because they had the first communion in Aramaic. In fact, since most of the Christians in the first century were Jewish, they no doubts had Mass in Aramaic, not Latin. Now, do not misunderstand me. I enjoy the Latin Mass very much. But that does not mean I believe that the Norvus Ordo is of the Devil. Any Mass where there is the consecration of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus is holy. To say that any Mass, simply because of the way it is said, is of the Devil, is to denigrate the miracle of transubstantiation that is taking place. Consider the first the Lord’s Supper took place. Jesus just held up the bread and said “This is my body”. That’s it! It had nothing else from the Latin Mass. Now, please do not misunderstand me. Christ gave Peter and the apostles, along with their successors, the authority to enhance this to the beautiful experience we have today. But if the successors to the apostles decided to open up the Mass to other vernaculars, and even change the wordings, who are we to say that they are wrong.
Actually, Vatican II never did forbid the Latin Mass, and neither did any of the popes. Many individual liberal priests and bishops took upon themselves to abolish the Latin Mass, and convincing many laymen that this is what Vatican II was all about. But it actually said that we should continue with the Latin Mass. These same clergymen introduced some very liberal beliefs and practices into the local churches, saying that this was the “spirit of Vatican II”, which is pure bunk! If it is not explicitly stated from the Council, no Catholic is bound to obey it. Never mind what is the “spirit of Vatican II”, I am only concerned what Vatican II actually taught. The “spirit of Vatican II” is too subjective, too ambiguous, too open to many interpretations. At any Council, there are many different bishops invited. Some are orthodox. Some are liberal. At the Nicene Council, even Arian heretics were there. So I do not care what were the intention of some the liberal invitees at the Council. I just want to know what was actually written in the text. The Holy Spirit ensures that nothing heretical is written, even if it may be against the intentions of some of the writers.
Unfortunately, some of these Catholics on the right could not stand the innovation that some of the priests were doing in the name of “the spirit of Vatican II”. I can sympathize how they feel. But many of them decided to leave the Church and start their own “Catholic” Church. Some Catholics start the Society of Pope Pius XII. Mel Gibson left the Catholic Church and started his own Catholic Church. Friends, this must not be! No matter how bad an individual church or diocese may be, we must not abandon the Church founded on the Rock, Peter, built by Jesus Christ Himself! He promised that the gates of death and hell shall not prevail against His church! We must not fall into the same mistake done by Luther and the Reformers! We cannot divorce ourselves from the Bride of Christ! We must have faith in God and stand strong, but still with humble obedience to those whom God has placed over us! Throughout history, the Church has been invaded by wolves in sheep’s clothing. But God would then raise a saint, or several saints to bring us back. Do not be disheartened. You may feel that the Church is utterly corrupt. But you need to read Church History. Just when it seems that the Church was so corrupt that it could no longer stand, God brought it back. We need to have more faith in God!
Some people call themselves Seda-Vacantists, which means “empty seat”. They argue that Pope John XXII was once a Freemason, which the Church declared a mortal sin for anyone to join. Since John XXIII committed a mortal sin, he is automatically excommunicated. So he cannot be a valid. pope And if he is not a valid pope, then there can be no valid popes after him. So they left the Catholic Church, saying it is no longer the true church.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Pope John was a freemason. Would that disqualify him from being our pope, and his successors are then also disqualified? Absolutely not! Here are my reasons:
1. This smacks of Donatism. This was a heresy propagated by Donatus, who said that if a priest or a bishop is in mortal sin, any of his priestly duties were invalid. The Church, over 1500 years ago before Vatican II, condemned this as heresy. If the sacraments are invalid by a priest living with mortal sin, then how can we ever know that the sacraments are valid? How do I know if priest is not secretly having an affair? Since I cannot follow my priest every minute of the day, I cannot know that for sure that he is living in God’s grace. If Donatism was true, then when I confess my sins to the priest, and he is secretly in mortal sin, then I would still be in my sins. If the priest is outside of God's grace, then when I take the Eucharist, I would be taking mere bread and wine. If this priest married my wife and me, we would then not be married in God’s eyes. But fortunately Donatism is totally false. My faith is not in the spirituality of the priest, but in the promises of Christ.
2. If you study Church History, there that been a few popes who did far more serious sins that joining the freemason.s There was a pope in the Middle Ages, Pope Alexander, who had a mistress. Having a mistress is obviously a mortal sin! This pope was automatically cut off from God’s grace and His Church. So then using these Catholics' logic, then his papacy was invalidated and his successors were disqualified. This means that the Catholic would have been disqualified for the last 600 years. That means the Council of Trent is disqualified! That means Pope Pius XII is disqualified! We might as well become Protestants!
3. It is wrong theology to say that a pope is a successor to anyone except Peter. It is not accurate to say that Pope John Paul II succeeded Pope John Paul I. Pope John Paul II succeeded Peter.
4. Although a pope can change it anytime he wishes, but for a long time a pope has not been directly chosen by the previous pope. Instead, the pope is selected by a college of cardinals, who were selected by the previous pope as well as the popes before him. So after Pope John XXIII died, the college of cardinals was a mixture of some cardinals appointed by Pope John XXIII, but others were selected by Pope Pius XII. So in order to invalidate Pope Paul VI, the Sedavcantists must prove that the majority of those who voted for Paul VI were appointed by John XXIII! Frankly, I do not see how it possible to prove this.
These Catholics are making the same mistake that the Protestant Reformers made. The Reformers said that the Church lost the gospel, so it is no longer the true church. These schismatic “Catholics” say that the Church lost the right liturgy, or it became corrupt, and so it is no longer the true church. In both cases, man’s individual reason is elevated over the body of Christ, whom Christ established to be the “pillar and foundation of truth”.
Conclusion
On both sides there are many Catholics who want to pick and choose what part of Catholicism they want. On the left side, they tend to pick and choose depending on the lifestyle they want to still embrace and still be able to call themselves Catholic. On the right, they pick and choose what period of Catholicism they want to embrace. They usually choose the days of Camelot instead of the Catholic Church today. At least those on the right seem to have a sincere desire to serve God. But in their zeal on trying to serve God they are blinded by the fact that they are falling into the same false logic the Catholics on the left and Protestants have fallen - of thinking that an individual can rely on his own understanding to find God and His Truth, rather than humbly submitting to God’s revelation through His church, the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15).
