'Mainstream' Catholicism

[DL82]

I had some spiritual advice from the pastor of my current parish recently. We talked about a number of issues, and I unburdened myself about a range of things. He said that the language I used and the obligations I considered myself to be under suggested to him that some of the advice and guidance I have been given in the past was not in the ‘mainstream’ of contemporary Catholic spirituality. Basically, that I behaved and sounded like a pre-conciliar Catholic, like some of his older parishioners (I’m only 30, but did spend a lot of time around Latin Mass Catholics and listening to the Friars of the Immaculate).

Anyway, I want to give this advice the due consideration it deserves. What does ‘mainstream’ Catholicism look like? What are the sources and foundations on which Catholics in the 21st century build their understanding of the faith? I think that up until now I have been uncharitable toward modern Catholicism, because it seems so amorphous and lacking in the specific intellectual categories which made scholastic theology easy to define. Where would I go to get a better (but still orthodox) understanding of the contemporary faith?

 

[PaulfromIowa]

We cannot comment without specifics.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

If you want a very recent view, my son (who has applied for the seminary) listens to Catholic Stuff You Should Know podcasts. I think they are former seminarians, some now priests or brothers, discussing the Catholic faith. I’m not sure; I’ve only listened to a few of them but they are very good.

catholicstuffpodcast.com/

You can get more than what’s listed on the page from the podcast feed:
feeds.feedburner.com/catholicstuffpodcast/DpqF

And there’s even more stuff here:
catholicstuffpodcast.com/audio/?C=M;O=D

These guys are young, and pretty realistic – not “preachy” – about Catholicism.

Alan

 

[coachdennis]

We cannot comment without specifics.

Mainstream is such a meaningless term without context. Are we talking about doctrine? Disciplines? Private devotions?

 

[Edmundus1581]

Yes, “Mainstream Catholicism” is ambiguous. Here are a couple of suggestions as to what your pastor could mean.

You may be following teachings and regulations which are, quite simply, at variance with the current discipline of the Church through its bishops. An instance would be someone who tells you that you must abstain from meat on every Friday (and not just in Lent, outside the UK), or says that attending a Protestant service is a sin. Both of these disciplines have been changed by legitimate Church authorities and your pastor may be cautioning you against following incorrect advice. In doing so, he has probably identified that you are getting information from questionable sources.

OTOH, you may be simply preferring an older, more traditional Catholicism. If this is the case, then you are very entitled to your preferences. I share the same preferences! Some pastors seem to want to “modernise” the parish and so banish or discourage more traditional practices. If your pastor is such then he may want to support his case by appealing to “mainstream Catholicism”. Such pastors, are, in my experience, a minority, but if this is your situation then your can either look for another parish, or wait patiently for better days which will eventually come.

These are just a couple of instances of what someone could mean by “mainstream Catholicism”. There are probably more.

These problems of “pastor or tradition” are often hard for the individual to resolve. Start by accepting everything that has been communicated through your bishop, and also presume that your pastor is in communion with your bishop, and thus exercising his decisions.

ps. I did a brief search “Friars of the Immaculate” and couldn’t find much, but what I found suggested more of the first problem I mentioned above, than the second.

 

[JRKH]

I agree with the above posters that it is very difficult to comment without specifics…but at the same time…we do not want you to disclose anything that you are not comfortable with.

My suggestion to find out what is “mainline” and “orthodox” Catholicism would be to consult The Catechism. Can’t get any more orthodox than that - particularly as regards to specific obligations you might be under.

Peace
James

 

[coachdennis]

I agree with the above posters that it is very difficult to comment without specifics…but at the same time…we do not want you to disclose anything that you are not comfortable with.

My suggestion to find out what is “mainline” and “orthodox” Catholicism would be to consult The Catechism. Can’t get any more orthodox than that - particularly as regards to specific obligations you might be under.

Peace
James

Of course, reflecting on my comment to the OP, perhaps a better approach is to ask the priest for greater clarification of what HE meant. After all, he said it.

 

[floresco]

Anyway, I want to give this advice the due consideration it deserves. What does ‘mainstream’ Catholicism look like?

What the word ‘mainstream’ evokes for me is being like a normal average Catholic. I do not see it as a positive thing. I am constantly seeing stories about large proportions of Catholics who do not believe in the Real Presence or who disobey Church teaching on birth control, etc.

It seems unlikely that this is what he meant, but it still seems odd. I would think that we ought to strive to be orthodox or faithful Catholics, not mainstream ones. Perhaps he was talking about the tendency among traditional Catholics to base devotional practices on older Canon law that is not required. For example, we might follow the Eucharistic or Lenten fast as it used to be prescribed. But there is not anything wrong with this if one realizes it is a voluntary devotional practice rather than a requirement of the Church.

 

[coachdennis]

What the word ‘mainstream’ evokes for me is being like a normal average Catholic. I do not see it as a positive thing. I am constantly seeing stories about large proportions of Catholics who do not believe in the Real Presence or who disobey Church teaching on birth control, etc.

It seems unlikely that this is what he meant, but it still seems odd. I would think that we ought to strive to be orthodox or faithful Catholics, not mainstream ones. Perhaps he was talking about the tendency among traditional Catholics to base devotional practices on older Canon law that is not required. For example, we might follow the Eucharistic or Lenten fast as it used to be prescribed. But there is not anything wrong with this if one realizes it is a voluntary devotional practice rather than a requirement of the Church.

Again, the OP needs to speak with the priest about this for clarification.

This is why so many people who post on CAF could relieve themselves of so much stress and confusion if they would go directly to the person who said something to them, instead of asking cyberworld.