Traditional Catholicism TOO Conservative for Canadian Catholics?

[trickster]

I wanted to know other peoples’ opinion on this topic. Traditional Catholicism seems to be a very strong movement in the US, but I don’t see it as much of a “thing” here in Canada. Do you think that is the good sense of Canadians (and our much more “liberal” outlook) when compared to the American Catholic?

Bruce
Trickster

 

[YoungTradCath]

I think “movements” in general are stronger in the US than they are in Canada. However, I think it is dangerous to speculate about the “compatibility” of a certain “group” with a certain place. I think that renders the situation to a dull political issue, when it really is more than that.

 

[Filii_Dei]

I wanted to know other peoples’ opinion on this topic. Traditional Catholicism seems to be a very strong movement in the US, but I don’t see it as much of a “thing” here in Canada. Do you think that is the good sense of Canadians (and our much more “liberal” outlook) when compared to the American Catholic?

Bruce
Trickster

I’m afraid I must disagree. Traditional Catholicism (and I emphasis that I mean this very loosely) is a movement and attitude that is shared by all Catholic populations, but there are several reasons why it may seem strongest in the United States. Firstly, we must remember that Americans make up the largest proportion of this forum’s userbase. This means that traditional activities within an American context tend to be discussed more often.

Also, the United States has a larger Catholic population of (78 million versus Canada’s 13 million) which gives the movement the critical mass to have a strong voice in these issues and be reported more substantially in Catholic news outlets. It may also be significant that religion generally figures more prominently in public discussion in the United States, and so the traditionalist movement likewise has a greater prominence, even if there were one in another country that was equally active (in say, the United Kingdom, for example).

Lastly, we must be mindful that we cannot clearly delineate “Traditional Catholicism”. It spans a broad spectrum of attitudes that generally point towards the practice of the ancient traditions of the Church. There are many things like traditional OF masses (with chant, full propers, et cetera) and the correction of liturgical abuse that lie in a grey area and are far less prominent than, say, a Solemn EF mass.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I wanted to know other peoples’ opinion on this topic. Traditional Catholicism seems to be a very strong movement in the US, but I don’t see it as much of a “thing” here in Canada. Do you think that is the good sense of Canadians (and our much more “liberal” outlook) when compared to the American Catholic?

Bruce
Trickster

And what about the rest of the world…?

 

[GRATEFULONEjim]

It’s all good as long as you follow ALL the teachings of the Church as spelled out in the Catechism. It’s when you begin to pick and choose what teachings you are going to follow that it isn’t Catholicism any more. That is what many Catholics in the US do, and that is why traditionalism has taken over. There is still a long way to go. The Catechism sets the guidelines. And, the problem with liberals in any aspect, is that unless they made the guidelines, they don’t want to follow them.

 

[CrushModernists]

Hi.

It’s silly to consider “Traditional Catholicism” as simply the same as any another “movement” or “group” in the Church. Traditional Catholicism is true Catholicism. Unlike charismatic “Catholicism”, and various other “movements”, which are simply novelty, traditionalism is restoration. It is a restoration of the faith that has been passed on for centuries, of which was ripped apart, changed, and stuffed with novelty by modernists and liberals after the Second Vatican Council. In a state of normalcy in the Church, without the crisis, there would be no need for the term “Traditionalist”. There would be no remnant of traditionalism in the wilderness crying out for a restoration to holy tradition. The majority of the clergy would not be modernists.

God Bless.

 

[GRATEFULONEjim]

Hi.

It’s silly to consider “Traditional Catholicism” as simply the same as any another “movement” or “group” in the Church. Traditional Catholicism is true Catholicism. Unlike charismatic “Catholicism”, and various other “movements”, which are simply novelty, traditionalism is restoration. It is a restoration of the faith that has been passed on for centuries, of which was ripped apart, changed, and stuffed with novelty by modernists and liberals after the Second Vatican Council. In a state of normalcy in the Church, without the crisis, there would be no need for the term “Traditionalist”. There would be no remnant of traditionalism in the wilderness crying out for a restoration to holy tradition. The majority of the clergy would not be modernists.

God Bless.

As long as the Catechism is followed explicitly, you may have an opinion that one form is better than another, but all forms are equal doctrinally in the eyes of the Church.

 

[CrushModernists]

As long as the Catechism is followed explicitly, you may have an opinion that one form is better than another, but all forms are equal doctrinally in the eyes of the Church.

Hi.

Many leaders in the Church in the past 50 years have a record of embracing novelty. That does not make the novelty good. As I said above, Traditional Catholicism is true Catholicism. It is the faith that has been expressed for centuries and held sacred by our ancestors. Novelty is simply that, novelty. It’s similar to comparing a passed on, perfected recipe of food that has been passed on for generations, with grandmother teaching mother, and mother teaching daughter; with tinned food from the supermarket.

God Bless.

 

[TrueLight]

I wanted to know other peoples’ opinion on this topic. Traditional Catholicism seems to be a very strong movement in the US, but I don’t see it as much of a “thing” here in Canada. Do you think that is the good sense of Canadians (and our much more “liberal” outlook) when compared to the American Catholic?

Bruce
Trickster

The good sense?

 

[LoyalViews]

Excuse me, but California alone has more people than all of Canada, so the USA has a MUCH higher and denser population than Canada! Therefore, the USA having 78 million Catholics compared to their 313,361,530 population, puts Catholics in the minority, whereas there are 13 million Catholics in Canada to a total of 34,767,489, that gives Catholics a slight minority at around 40-41% of Canadians being Catholic, but God only knows how many are practising.

Given this, there are bound to be more traditional Catholics in the UA because of their higher amount of people, higher amount of Catholics. But to say there aren’t traditional Catholics in Canada is ridiculous. Just look at the different chapters of Una Voce, and the FSSP is only growing! The fact is, not all traditional Catholics have an internet presence – the local chapter of Una Voce here only got a website up last year or so.

You also have to take into account that there are a lot of Eastern Catholics in Canada, so I’d consider that when looking at the statistics too. Also, the SSPX just built a new house here, they are growing as well.

And I tend to think that anyone who accepts the Church’s authority, and obeys Her teachings, and attends Mass devoutly, and prays dutifullly, is a traditional Catholic. Any true Catholic is a traditional Catholic!

 

[Cran]

It appears to me, from an european perspective, that the US moves into a more conservative (sometimes fundamentalistic even) sphere, well demonstrated by the Republican candidates’ self-presentation and many laws that are passed.

So yes, I think US-Catholics have more of a “thing” for the traditional Catholic practices. In itself, that is neither good nor bad. While there is only ONE Catholic faith, there are many different forms to live the faith.

 

[Roy5]

Two summers ago we were visiting in Quebec, where my paternal grandparents were born and raised. The church in Grandma’s hometown was up for sale! A shock, as it was full each Sunday morning when I was a child. Upon inquiring I was informed that Quebec has become as secular as any place on earth. A common explanation offered was a backlash against earlier times when the Church pretty much ran the province.
My own thought is that Canada has closer ties with Europe, perhaps, and has gone the way Europe has traveled. The USA has a reasonably strong Catholic population and an even more zealous evangelical Protestant population, even though many (most?) Catholics and Protestants are inclined toward a fairly liberal version of Christianity - as I am. Traditional Catholicism just can't hold out in an era when the majority of believers of various affiliations are ready to join hands and sing Kumbaya together! The past fervent religious (and bigoted) tribalism of the past won't return, and I suspect that this makes Christ happy.

 

[LoyalViews]

My own thought is that Canada has closer ties with Europe, perhaps, and has gone the way Europe has traveled. The USA has a reasonably strong Catholic population and an even more zealous evangelical Protestant population, even though many (most?) Catholics and Protestants are inclined toward a fairly liberal version of Christianity - as I am. .

I agree with you 100% when you say that Canada has closer ties with Europe – it does. With the UK especially (politically, culturally, AND traditionally), and in Quebec, well France.

I don’t agree with your statement on people preferring a “liberal version of Christianity”…but, this is not the point of the thread.

 

[CarloMagnus]

Two summers ago we were visiting in Quebec, where my paternal grandparents were born and raised. The church in Grandma’s hometown was up for sale! A shock, as it was full each Sunday morning when I was a child. Upon inquiring I was informed that Quebec has become as secular as any place on earth. A common explanation offered was a backlash against earlier times when the Church pretty much ran the province.

 My own thought is that Canada has closer ties with Europe, perhaps, and has gone the way Europe has traveled. The USA has a reasonably strong Catholic population and an even more zealous evangelical Protestant population, even though many (most?) Catholics and Protestants are inclined toward a fairly liberal version of Christianity - as I am. Traditional Catholicism just can't hold out in an era when the majority of believers of various affiliations are ready to join hands and sing Kumbaya together! The past fervent religious (and bigoted)  tribalism of the past won't return, and I suspect that this makes Christ happy.

Blasphemy! Traditional Catholicism is here to stay because it is the truth! It is the closest truth to the THE truth in ages.

-Karl

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

I wanted to know other peoples’ opinion on this topic. Traditional Catholicism seems to be a very strong movement in the US, but I don’t see it as much of a “thing” here in Canada. Do you think that is the good sense of Canadians (and our much more “liberal” outlook) when compared to the American Catholic?

Bruce
Trickster

What do you mean by “good sense”? Are you suggesting that Traditional Catholicism is non-sensical?

• PAX

Edited to add: I posted this before I saw that TrueLight noticed your word choice as well.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

The past fervent religious (and bigoted) tribalism of the past won’t return, and I suspect that this makes Christ happy.

Are you suggesting that Catholicism is tribalism?

And how do you know what makes Christ happy? We have 2000 years of Tradition, traced back to Our Lord Himself, with infallible dogmatic teachings, to help us understand (as much as a human can understand) the mind and will and desire of God.

• PAX

 

[OraLabora]

With all due respect to non-Canadian posters, you appear assume that Canadian Catholicism is heterogeneous. It is far from it.

You have to distinguish between French Canada and English Canada, and within the latter, between old-stock Canadians (e.g. Irish, anglo-saxon, métis, etc), and immigrant populations of the 20-21st centuries. Each impose their cultural mark on Catholicism in Canada.

The area I live in is comprised mostly of old-stock Catholics, about 80-90% French, the remainder English. Vatican II in Quebec also coincided with the “quiet revolution” where French Canadians shook off the yoke of an oppressive, Jansenist Catholicism that impregnated every aspect of daily life, and resulted in an impoverished population, and also the yoke of a very corrupt, conservative, government. If a Catholic family didn’t pump out a child per year, a visit from the Curé was almost guaranteed. Families of 12-15 children were not uncommon.

I would say that French Canadian Catholicism, in its current incarnation, is made up of mainly liberals that can be, even in its clergy, very heterodox, but also of a small core of very orthodox Catholics. Both though tend to share one aspect in common: a much more live-and-let-live attitude. For instance I have never heard an announcement at any Mass in Quebec (French or English) specifying who can or cannot receive the Eucharist. Yet in a Cathedral in Hamilton Ont., such an announcement was made when I attended Mass there. I am a Benedictine Oblate of a very orthodox monastery (Solesmes congregation, Gregorian chant still used, etc.), yet never will they make such an announcement. In Hamilton it was even announced that only Catholics could bring the offerings forward. In our abbey the usher (an elderly monk) simply picks a family at random and never inquires about their status. I would thus say that in Quebec, primacy tends to be placed, for better or for worse, on conscience rather than on obeying rules.

In some ways that may be a reflection of our Latin roots compared to Anglo-Saxon Canada, we tend to be more exuberant that our Anglo compadres.

We had a very conservative archbishop of the diocese of Quebec, Cardinal Ouellette (sometimes touted as papabile…). He’s now back in Rome. His attempt to impose a traditionalism similar to what is seen on this forum was universally panned not only by Catholics in the pews but also his clergy. On the other hand I appreciated his clarity, but it was clear that being in Rome so long before coming back, he was out of touch with the Quebec situation. Quebecers rather need a long period of re-evangelization rather than imposition from above. Unless orthodox reform takes place in our hearts, any attempt at imposing on us seems doomed to failure. We can be stubbornly rebellious but also extremely conformist in our rebellion, in the sense that we want to be seen as being part of the “popular” gang. We have a new archbishop of Montreal, very conservative, replacing the fairly liberal Cardinal Turcotte. We’ll see how well that plays. More than likely we’ll (I mean we as a society, not myself individually) will continue to happily ignore the rules (speed limit signs in Quebec are merely a suggestion…)

I come from a mixed French-English background (old-stock on both sides), in fact French-Catholic mother and English-Anglican father (I was raised Catholic), so I can see it from both sides.

Interestingly I hover around Gregorian chant circles, and while many folks I hang around with are outwardly very big on liturgical tradition they are also very liberal in their lives.

As for me personally, I feel more comfortable, for all its warts, in the French Church. I seek mostly true inner conversion for myself, and as a rule I am not all that comfortable in strictly conformist situations. I think the Church is for everybody, no matter where anybody is on his or her faith walk. Conversion has to come from within, not exhorted from without, though you do need quiet, orthodox teaching. Sometimes the strident desire to exclude “liberals” and make disparaging comments about them on this forum really turns me off. Today’s liberal may be tomorrow’s true convert, a true prodigal son. By excluding them from Catholicism, we risk actually losing a soul.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Sometimes the strident desire to exclude “liberals” and make disparaging comments about them on this forum really turns me off. Today’s liberal may be tomorrow’s true convert, a true prodigal son. By excluding them from Catholicism, we risk actually losing a soul.

I agree that the quiet liberal in the pews should not be excluded. No one should be excluded from hearing Mass or hearing the teachings of the Church. However, the problem is when the liberal is not quiet, but instead begins preaching liberalism. The problem is compounded with the pastors preach liberal, heterodox doctrine. Then we risk not only losing the liberal’s soul, but the souls of all those who hear and believe their heterodox doctrines.

Let’s take homosexuality as an example. I think our Churches should be filled with those struggling with homosexuality. Let them hear Mass! Let them hear the truth! But as soon as they begin to preach the homosexual lifestyle, or try to alter Church teachings, or make political gestures against the Church (such as wearing a rainbow sash and trying to receive communion en masse), then it is no longer about “excluding” them, but about protecting the truths of our Faith so that those truths may be handed on untarnished.

• PAX

 

[Melchior_1]

OraLabora paints an accurate picture of Quebec. What he experienced in Hamilton is reflective of the entire Diocese of Hamilton, which is where my home town resides (at least from a clergy perspective).

My current diocese is the home base for the Companions of the Cross, so there’s obviously a very strong charismatic scene here. They’re a highly orthodox group, I recommend people look into them. The local FSSP parish had a sizable schismatic portion running about, but the Priest there put the hammer down and I think most of the folks there have submitted. Solid guy runs the parish there, and he gets along famously with others in the diocese.

Between those two Societies plus local run of the mill parishes, we’re blessed to have everything covered.

That said; Nation’s Capital. We have lots of people here who think the Church is “out of touch”. Good thing is, very few are in leadership positions within the Church.

 

[OraLabora]

I agree that the quiet liberal in the pews should not be excluded. No one should be excluded from hearing Mass or hearing the teachings of the Church. However, the problem is when the liberal is not quiet, but instead begins preaching liberalism. The problem is compounded with the pastors preach liberal, heterodox doctrine. Then we risk not only losing the liberal’s soul, but the souls of all those who hear and believe their heterodox doctrines.

Let’s take homosexuality as an example. I think our Churches should be filled with those struggling with homosexuality. Let them hear Mass! Let them hear the truth! But as soon as they begin to preach the homosexual lifestyle, or try to alter Church teachings, or make political gestures against the Church (such as wearing a rainbow sash and trying to receive communion en masse), then it is no longer about “excluding” them, but about protecting the truths of our Faith so that those truths may be handed on untarnished.

• PAX

Human nature being what it is, I dont think we can silence liberals. People will hear both messages and it’s up to us to decide. Pascal’s wager, if not conscience, suggests that safety is on the orthodox, not the heterodox, side.

We should be conservative and impatient in doctrine, but welcoming and patient in pastoral care. Sometimes true conversion only comes on the death bed. If God can be that patient, so can we.