Allergic to tradition

  • Thread starter Thread starter Spyridon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
anon64350612 said:
Would it be fair to say we really are like sheep?
Click to expand...
We are sheep. We should be happy we are sheep. We depend on the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd appointed 12 shepherds to be our pastors. The original shepherds appointed successors to care for the sheep. Unfortunately, many shepherds have neglected the sheep for decades.
 
Also, when one sheep goes astray, there are usually a few (if not more) that go with it! They blindly follow who or what ever is in front of them.
 
anon64350612 said:
Also, when one sheep goes astray, there are usually a few (if not more) that go with it! They blindly follow who or what ever is in front of them.
Click to expand...
The sheep trust their shepherd. They have been trained to obey whatever the shepherd commands. This leads some sheep to obey a shepherd who disobeys the Good Shepherd. The sheep have good intentions. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Blind obedience is an occasion of sin.
 
Then why does the Bible repeatedly refer to us as sheep? Just asking. You do not have to agree (by the way I said “like sheep” I did not say we are sheep.) Nor did I say anything about factually correct, I said would it be “fair to say?” Again, people are free to disagree but I think we are all easily led, especially when we are not aware of being led.
 
Sheep do have souls… Just not an immortal, rational human soul.

But they do have a nutritive-animal soul.
 
Saxum said:
They literally can’t speak Catholic language: they don’t know Latin and it’s related culture.
Click to expand...
Speaking as one who knows Latin better than the generations of my family dating back to at least the 1800’s, Latin language and culture has had very little to do with the actual experience of being Catholic in my family. It was only necessary for priests and religious, scholars, and altar servers. There were plenty of priests who struggled with it, too.

Latin is a nice thing, I like knowing it, but I would fall in the “scholar” category. I’m not sure where you get the idea it was so essential given that many Catholics in previous eras knew a bare minimum of the words to “get by”, had little or no comprehension of it and once you go back enough years, were largely illiterate anyway.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Speaking as one who knows Latin better than the generations of my family dating back to at least the 1800’s, Latin language and culture has had very little to do with the actual experience of being Catholic in my family
Click to expand...
You say Latin had little to do with the actual experience of being Catholic in your family. But most of them heard Latin spoken or sung at least once per week. This exposure to the language would have left its mark. I’m sure your ancestors would have known basic prayers, the permanent parts of the Mass, and some chants like Pie Iesu and Agnus Dei.

All Catholics were familiar with those prayers and chants. They may not have been fluent but the basics of Latin connected them to a larger culture. At the very least, all Roman Catholics across the world could worship together in harmony. An American or British Catholic could attend Mass in Spain and pray despite not knowing a word of Spanish. Latin united Catholics in prayer.

John XXIII echoed my sentiments on the eve of Vatican II when he promulgated Veterum Sapientia. Vatican II confirmed the importance of Latin in the Constitution on the Liturgy.
 
I would argue that the “Catholic” language is charity, mercy, faith, piety, devotion, truth, tradition. It doesn’t matter what language you speak, the “language” of Catholicism transcends worldly language barriers and exists across all ethnolinguistic divides.

Although I agree with @Saxum to a degree, in that if you are Roman Catholic that you should at least know the most basic prayers (both devotional and liturgical) and responses for Mass in Latin (the Pater Noster, the Credo, the Ave Maria, the Gloria Patri, the Signum Crucis, the Gloria in Excelsis, the Sanctus et Benedictus, the Agnus Dei).
 
Last edited:
Perhaps the problem is that people don’t want judgments made about them. I am sure this is not what OP intended, but it feels like he is saying that one must do all of the things in his post in order to be traditional. I embrace many traditions of the Catholic Church. I enjoy both EF and OF masses, own a brown scapular, and other things which are considered traditional. However, I do not veil, I wear both skirts and pants, and do not fast from midnight as I would faint in church if I did.

I don’t mind if others do these things, but to tell others to do these things which are not mandated can make people feel as if they are being judged for not doing enough.

As long as one is following the laws of the Church, I see no reason to care about his extra personal devotions and practices.
 
LittleWay16 said:
Perhaps the problem is that people don’t want judgments made about them. I am sure this is not what OP intended, but it feels like he is saying that one must do all of the things in his post in order to be traditional.
Click to expand...
Not at all what I meant.

I meant people who are opposed to these traditional practices - not just people who don’t practice them themselves (I would be condemning myself if that were the case).

I’m talking the sort of people who if the Agnus Dei is sung in Latin, will approach the Priest after Mass and warn him “I really dislike Latin in the Mass and was disappointed we sang the Agnus Dei in Latin today.” I’m talking the sort of person, who if he walks into Church and begins to hear an organ playing will do an about-face back out the door because he cannot tolerate the organ. I’m talking someone who if praise and worship music is sung he’s happy as can be, but if Gregorian chant is chanted, you better watch out because now he’s enraged.
 
Last edited:
For me it has to do with “why”. Is it just because something has “ancient origin and immemorial practice”? And the someone invented theology to support it?

What is the meaning and purpose and why do you want to sing Sanctus et Benedictus and Agnus Dei should be sung in Latin? Is vernacular not good enough? Is Latin holier?
 
Rebellion; it’s as the sin of witchcraft. I think drums and electric guitars are the answer.
 
You realize you’re talking to a boomer woman who is a De Montfort consecree of nearly 15 years, wears a head covering, says a daily rosary, has a family altar, enough holy cards to stock a small store, chalks the front door for Epiphany, has holy water fonts on all floors, is teaching the kids their prayers in Latin. . .

Don’t tar all ‘boomers’ with the same brush, any more than you might want to be labelled with all the supposed ‘bad things’ for your particular generation. 😁
 
It was just a tongue in cheek comment, I did not mean it seriously.
 
I know, that’s why I put the ‘big grin’ at the end, to show that I knew you weren’t serious (and it was funny. Let’s face it, people in the boomers made some AWFUL decisions! As do all of us at times!)
 
I don’t. I love tradition. I do get my hackles up though when I do something sanctioned by the Church and am vilified for it. I.E. I’ve been told communion on the hand was ‘sacreligious’. I did communion on the tongue for a bit, then once I hit a guy who wasn’t used to it and we fumbled Jesus. I was horrified. After that I was back to the hand because I wanted to make sure I didn’t risk dropping a consecrated host. But to some people that isn’t good enough.

So basically for me, I love tradition. I will work what I can into my life. I’ll encourage others who want to do so. But I won’t sweat it if I do something that is novel but still sanctioned by the Church.
 
I don’t know who you’re encountering that reacts to those disciplines that way. It seems a bit of an extreme reaction. I’m not a liturgically traditional guy; I like the ordinary form, and find plenty of meaning in the modern liturgy. But if you like the traditional disciplines, why would that bother me?

I know a few folks who want a return to all of those disciplines (and TLM). Honestly, when they start on the topic, I cringe. I cringe because they believe that if we just go back to the way things were, all will be right with the Church. This greatly bothers me because I think it ignores the very real, very significant change in culture that began even before Vatican II. These friends also seem to think that anything from Vatican II is garbage, and as one loyal to the Church, this also bothers me.

The Vatican II documents talk about the importance of the liturgy evolving to fit the times and so that the laity may fully participate in the sacrifice of the mass. That does not mean the substance of the mass should be changed (it shouldn’t!). It does mean, though, that we are not locked into disciplines that fit the times 1,000 years ago simply because that’s how things were back then.

In my rambling, I would guess that what most folks fear that these “little” things are cover for a whole scale return to the pre-Vatican II liturgy. That fear may be unreasonable, but I bet that it’s a factor.
 
Spyridon said:
Okay I’ve got to ask.

What is up with some Catholics who seem to have an allergy or a strong, knee-jerk reaction to anybody suggesting pious Catholic traditions or practices be observed?
Click to expand...
I think if you just observe whatever traditions you like, rather than advocate that others should do so also, you’ll have less kickback.

Most people don’t care to go “old school”, but don’t have a beef if you want to do it yourself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top