How is "tradition" for lay people like the spirituality of the religious?

[Cat]

One of my sisters in Christ posted the following paragraphs in another thread here on Traditional Section, and I hope she doesn’t mind if I start a new thread and ask a question about the sentence that I have highlighted below:

"I don’t know. It feels like the less I know about what this Pope is doing, the more peace of mind I have. Every thing just seems to cause so much confusion, problems and lend itself well for those who want to promote unorthodox thinking. I am sick and tired of reading news in the secular papers of how the Pope is definitely going to change all the “problems” in the church.

Now you may say, that sort of changes will never be introduced. BUT, there are lots of people hoping for those changes. These actions makes them more hopeful and encourage them to pursue their agendas in the Church. It’s like adding gasoline to the fire. The Pope might not light the match himself but the fire will rage. I am tired of hearing my parish priest tell the congregation that this Pope will change all traditions (with a beaming smile) and that everything will be “different”.

For you its probably ok because all you meet are probably your fellow Franciscan buddies who have a good formation. But give a little thought to the lay people who have to put up with this. It used to be that at the end of the day, I could look up to the Pope and still have comfort that I am doing the right thing. Now I have to second guess myself everyday whether anything even matters and re-convince myself that it does.

So I am not sure you appreciate the magnitude of the problem here for a lay person who sees these breaks from traditions. You always make it sound like we are fussing over things when tradition for us lay people is like your spirituality as a Franciscan. Just as you would be upset if a Franciscan superior decided to enforce Dominican spirituality on you (why? Because it is not traditional), so are faithful lay people upset when the man at the helm is doing something completely different from how things used to be. "

End of quote. Back to my question–I don’t understand the sentence that I have boldfaced highlighted above.

How is “tradition for us lay people like spirituality as a Franciscan”?

Remember, I’m ex-Evangelical Protestant, so my “tradition” doesn’t go back more than a hundred years or so. I thought, according to the Bible, that tradition is made for us. We are not made for tradition. To me, “tradition” is a framework that helps us to make sense of our lives and faith, but it is NOT our faith or our spirituality. It’s just the framework.

Could someone please explain? I think it would help me (and perhaps others) have more empathy for Catholics who lean towards “traditionalism.”

Thanks.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Well what I mean is that traditions allow a faithful person to make sense of and enjoy the truths of the faith.

The traditions in one sense dictate the vehicle that is used to communicate the truths. In another sense, traditions give guidelines to the faithful on how to better construct a society that is favorable toward moral living. I am of the camp that both senses of the meaning of tradition are important.

In the first sense, traditions are meanings that we have come to associate with certain actions and objects. They speak to us and communicate and remind us of through the truths we have come to associate them. So the different clothes of a Pope for an example communicate implicitly to us that he is the Pope and not just a priest in a setting of many. That also communicates to us implicitly what we associate with the Pope using perhaps the meanings behind the symbols in part of his clothing. This is perhaps more understandable in church architectures. The way a Church is built, the pillars used, the different symbols incorporated all convey meaning. The meaning is not something inherent to the objects but something known through tradition.In this sense, these traditions are important because they give us a rich expressive language of the truths of our faith.

One objection may be whether we can perhaps construct a new tradition in how we associate meaning with new set of objects of rearrange our association. Yes we can but it will be much inferior to one that was developed over 2000 years.

Now in the second sense, traditions refer to values that have been developed around moral values to better help us keep the moral commandments. For an example, if we were to tell someone that it is wrong to entertain impure thoughts but we promoted immodesty in dress, we create an environment that does not lend itself to keeping morality.

In the same way, it does not help to say dress modestly in a way that does not tempt others for no one might know what constitutes as the line for what causes temptation. In this sense, the guidelines for modesty develop over time in a society as it tries to avoid temptation. So it is sort of a trial and error process that gathers knowledge over centuries. Then this knowledge will be passed down as part of tradition.

Does this mean that since they are not the moral values themselves, they can be discarded without much care? I believe no. Why? Because they give the individual insight on how to live their lives or shape social expectations to better facilitate moral living.

Now in the case of spirituality in an order, I perceived it in this case as being a way of living out the truths of the gospel. This way, in that sense constitutes a tradition if you will on how to pray, what to do, what not to do, what certain expressions mean etc. So I was equating this with traditions for lay people since traditions tell the lay people of how to communicate and live the gospel truths. It also helps them identify heuristically what is contrary or problematic to the faith. In this sense, I felt that there was a similarity.

I thought that if this similarity was understood, the good Brother will understand why it is so important for the lay faithful and why it causes so much distress when traditions are discarded. It is like losing a set of treasures.

There is also a secondary problem. Since traditions of the second sense are meant to revolve around safe guarding underlying moral truths, the discarding of the traditions can lead people to easily conclude that the underlying truths are not binding as well. I think the modesty case is a very good example of this. With the discarding of the traditional standards on how one should dress, society today has started to consider that there is in-fact no need to not tempt others. In fact, we have arrived at the point where society promotes the individual who likes to dress in a way that tempts others.

So I feel that we must be very careful in discarding any traditions and if anything, they must organically evolve.

 

[Eufrosnia]

The other so-called “problems” I assume she’s referring to are the articles published that some people think the Catholic church should allow female ordination, contraception, etc? If so, she should be aware that it is not only the “secular media” who sometimes writes about this, but also many religion-based people think this, and, as we have seen in recent polls, even a large number of Catholics think this (if we are to believe the polls published on CAF recently, it is the majority of Catholics who think this, but I know many say these polls are not accurate).
So your friend would be in error by thinking this is some sort of “secular media” idea or invention.

But…having said that…I think most of the secular, non-Catholic religious, and Catholics who do think the doctrinal changes, above, would be good…still understand these changes won’t happen.They all pretty much understand the doctrines will not change and that if they did, it would not be the Catholic religion anymore.

I am actually the person being referred to by Cat. I did mean all secular material.

So what you said highlights my main concern. There are those in the Church itself who pursue these changes. When someone gives the media a chance to portray possibility of change, it gives them hope. This in turn leads them to act more vigorously in their parishes to bring about this change they perceive is coming.

I have met many a priest and lay person who does not understand that doctrinal change = end of Catholic faith. Perhaps that is another aspect with respect to Catholic education that requires strengthening in the Church. Nevertheless, there will always be bad apples. We should act in a way that does not encourage these bad apples or others to join them. When we act differently, our actions get portrayed in light of hope for these errors which in turn adds fuel to the fire within these bad apples.

 

[McCall1981]

I am actually the person being referred to by Cat. I did mean all secular material.

So what you said highlights my main concern. There are those in the Church itself who pursue these changes. When someone gives the media a chance to portray possibility of change, it gives them hope. This in turn leads them to act more vigorously in their parishes to bring about this change they perceive is coming.

I have met many a priest and lay person who does not understand that doctrinal change = end of Catholic faith. Perhaps that is another aspect with respect to Catholic education that requires strengthening in the Church. Nevertheless, there will always be bad apples. We should act in a way that does not encourage these bad apples or others to join them. When we act differently, our actions get portrayed in light of hope for these errors which in turn adds fuel to the fire within these bad apples.

This EXACTLY sums up how I’m feeling too. Thank you for stating it so clearly.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Remember, I’m ex-Evangelical Protestant, so my “tradition” doesn’t go back more than a hundred years or so. I thought, according to the Bible, that tradition is made for us. We are not made for tradition. To me, “tradition” is a framework that helps us to make sense of our lives and faith, but it is NOT our faith or our spirituality. It’s just the framework.
Could someone please explain? I think it would help me (and perhaps others) have more empathy for Catholics who lean towards “traditionalism.”
Thanks.

In my experience, many of the people who adhere to “tradition” do so because it is what they know, it is comforting, familiar. And since most people (myself included:blush really don’t like change, it is just easer to cling to “what we have always done”.

Now, I don’t think that is a “bad thing”, but like anything, one must be careful not to hold on to something so tightly that one does not have an open hand to receive grace in an unexpected way.

Whenever I read threads that debate “tradition” I have to chuckle, as all I can think of is this!

 

[Melchior_1]

A good example of this is in my parish, where I have heard a couple of people say “we should move the tabernacle to behind the alter where it should be”. I casually mentioned that the Benedictines have had a side chapel for fifteen hundred years, one person was genuinely surprised, the other didn’t even want to hear it; it had to be moved to the middle, because “that’s where it should be”.

Later on the first one woman asked me where I actually preferred the tabernacle. I told her “Francis came up with the idea of moving it to the middle. Of course that’s my preference. But I’m not about to write off a 1500 year tradition because I like something else better”.

Back in the 1300’s, what would have happened if people said “keep your religious ‘tradition’ outside of our parish(es), we want the tabernacle to not be moved to behind the alter”? What would have happened if people said “the prayers we have are fine, we don’t actually need the this ‘Rosary’ you speak of”. The same complaints some have with the Divine Mercy chaplet could also be applied ton the Rosary.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Great examples!!
Another really good example is the topic of “veiling”.
There are many threads about this and often times I see many calling for all women to wear them. The funny thing is that many think that the “mantilla” style lacy, scarf thing is what was worn by all when “covering” was the rule, when in reality, most women wore hats. And, from stories I have heard from those who were there, there was almost always a fair amount of “competition” among the ladies to have the “best” hat. Which, for me, is reason enough to dipense with the requirement for women to cover their heads.
The manilla was mostly ethnic (Italian & Hispanic) and worn by old ladies.

A good example of this is in my parish, where I have heard a couple of people say “we should move the tabernacle to behind the alter where it should be”. I casually mentioned that the Benedictines have had a side chapel for fifteen hundred years, one person was genuinely surprised, the other didn’t even want to hear it; it had to be moved to the middle, because “that’s where it should be”.

Later on the first one woman asked me where I actually preferred the tabernacle. I told her “Francis came up with the idea of moving it to the middle. Of course that’s my preference. But I’m not about to write off a 1500 year tradition because I like something else better”.

Back in the 1300’s, what would have happened if people said “keep your religious ‘tradition’ outside of our parish(es), we want the tabernacle to not be moved to behind the alter”? What would have happened if people said “the prayers we have are fine, we don’t actually need the this ‘Rosary’ you speak of”. The same complaints some have with the Divine Mercy chaplet could also be applied ton the Rosary.

 

[McCall1981]

To the above two posts.

I’ve said this before, but for the people that are concerned, the main worry is larger changes possibly coming later on, not do much the shoes or the washing of feet by themselves

 

[Melchior_1]

To the above two posts.

I’ve said this before, but for the people that are concerned, the main worry is larger changes possibly coming later on, not do much the shoes or the washing of feet by themselves

And as I said before, you’re setting yourself up for a fall if you elevate things that could (and already have in some case) to the level of things that cannot change. Because your expectations for the former will eventually mirror the latter. And when the practices change, you’ll be upset because you’ve started treating them in the same fashion as doctrine.

 

[Cat]

To the above two posts.

I’ve said this before, but for the people that are concerned, the main worry is larger changes possibly coming later on, not do much the shoes or the washing of feet by themselves

I’m hearing this argument on other threads (and from a few Catholics that I know in my off-line life), and I just don’t get it.

Why worry about the future? Jesus Himself said, “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof!”

This kind of reminds me of the people who insist on eating Tic Tacs with only 2 little calories instead of Life Savers with 10 BIG CALORIES! C’mon, stop worrying about the little calories, when it’s the pizza and Mt. Dew that’s putting on the pounds, not the Life Savers.

It seems to me that this kind of over-thinking and worrying about what “might” happen paralyzes people and makes them act obsessive-compulsive. After all, if any little tiny thing changes, it could lead to big DISASTERS! So I must never ever allow any changes in the way I practice my faith, and the Church must always keep doing things exactly the way she has ALWAYS done things, or ELSE the Church will be destroyed!

No, that’s not sound thinking at all. Besides, the Lord assured us that hell will not prevail against His Church. Don’t we trust Jesus?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

To the above two posts.

I’ve said this before, but for the people that are concerned, the main worry is larger changes possibly coming later on, not do much the shoes or the washing of feet by themselves

I get that, but what I don’t understand is why do you feel that way?

Doctrine & Dogma cannot change. And no amount of changing disciplines & practice is going to change that. In fact, disciplines & practices must change if they are going to mean anything, because our perceptions & realities change.

The foot washing ritual encompasses so much more than just the institution of the priesthood. It was a concrete example of what the apostles were to do- to spread the Gospel, to be servants of men, for the glory of God. In the 21st century no one should be “scandalized” by women participating in this rite. It, IMHO, in no way, shape or form, opens the door to the ordination of women. I look at it as an example that all of us, men & woman, clergy, religious & lay, are called to Love one another as He loved us.

 

[Cat]

Well what I mean is that traditions allow a faithful person to make sense of and enjoy the truths of the faith.

The traditions in one sense dictate the vehicle that is used to communicate the truths. In another sense, traditions give guidelines to the faithful on how to better construct a society that is favorable toward moral living. I am of the camp that both senses of the meaning of tradition are important.

In the first sense, traditions are meanings that we have come to associate with certain actions and objects. They speak to us and communicate and remind us of through the truths we have come to associate them. So the different clothes of a Pope for an example communicate implicitly to us that he is the Pope and not just a priest in a setting of many. That also communicates to us implicitly what we associate with the Pope using perhaps the meanings behind the symbols in part of his clothing. This is perhaps more understandable in church architectures. The way a Church is built, the pillars used, the different symbols incorporated all convey meaning. The meaning is not something inherent to the objects but something known through tradition.In this sense, these traditions are important because they give us a rich expressive language of the truths of our faith.

One objection may be whether we can perhaps construct a new tradition in how we associate meaning with new set of objects of rearrange our association. Yes we can but it will be much inferior to one that was developed over 2000 years.

Now in the second sense, traditions refer to values that have been developed around moral values to better help us keep the moral commandments. For an example, if we were to tell someone that it is wrong to entertain impure thoughts but we promoted immodesty in dress, we create an environment that does not lend itself to keeping morality.

In the same way, it does not help to say dress modestly in a way that does not tempt others for no one might know what constitutes as the line for what causes temptation. In this sense, the guidelines for modesty develop over time in a society as it tries to avoid temptation. So it is sort of a trial and error process that gathers knowledge over centuries. Then this knowledge will be passed down as part of tradition.

Does this mean that since they are not the moral values themselves, they can be discarded without much care? I believe no. Why? Because they give the individual insight on how to live their lives or shape social expectations to better facilitate moral living.

Now in the case of spirituality in an order, I perceived it in this case as being a way of living out the truths of the gospel. This way, in that sense constitutes a tradition if you will on how to pray, what to do, what not to do, what certain expressions mean etc. So I was equating this with traditions for lay people since traditions tell the lay people of how to communicate and live the gospel truths. It also helps them identify heuristically what is contrary or problematic to the faith. In this sense, I felt that there was a similarity.

I thought that if this similarity was understood, the good Brother will understand why it is so important for the lay faithful and why it causes so much distress when traditions are discarded. It is like losing a set of treasures.

There is also a secondary problem. Since traditions of the second sense are meant to revolve around safe guarding underlying moral truths, the discarding of the traditions can lead people to easily conclude that the underlying truths are not binding as well. I think the modesty case is a very good example of this. With the discarding of the traditional standards on how one should dress, society today has started to consider that there is in-fact no need to not tempt others. In fact, we have arrived at the point where society promotes the individual who likes to dress in a way that tempts others.

So I feel that we must be very careful in discarding any traditions and if anything, they must organically evolve.

I do not agree with your statement that any “new” tradition will be inferior to tradition developed over 2000 years.

I’m not saying that all traditions (small “t”) should be trashed, but I don’t think that new traditions should be considered “poor cousins” to the old traditions.

 

[jwinch2]

To the OP, this is how.

remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2013-0331-MJM-magdalene-cross.htm

…After Jesus’ body had been placed in the tomb, Mary Magdalene, the penitent, went to anoint it with spices that first Easter morning. Not finding the Body she began to weep, and seeing someone whom she thought was the gardener, she asked him if he knew where the Body of her beloved Master had been taken: “Sir, if thou has removed him, tell me where thou hast laid him and I will take him away.”

Jesus said to her, “Mary!” Turning, she said to him, “Rabboni.” Imagine that moment!

Jesus then said to her, “Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father, but go to my brethren and say to them, ‘I ascend to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

Mary Magdalene had thus been chosen by Our Lord himself to be apostle to the apostles. She went forth and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord and these things he said to me.” John, 20: 15-18. Hers was an honor so great that in the early centuries of the Church, Mary Magdalene’s feast was celebrated with the Mass of an Apostle.

Magdalene had walked with Our Lord, witnessed His passion and death, and yet kept the faith even after witnessing the horrors of the Crucifixion. “God is dead,” the Romans told her, but she paid no mind then even as we should pay no mind now.

In times of great despair and loss of faith, Magdalene emerges as the powerful patroness of hope and perseverance. She is not a doctor of the Church, but she shows what love of Christ can attain even for poor, ignorant sinners, and how God crowns such love with His predilection.

She wept for Christ because she could not find Him. "The Angels said to her ‘Woman, why are you weeping?’ She said to them ‘Because they have taken away my Lord and I do not know where they have laid Him’.’ ”

Today, as the doors of our churches close, our families divide, and the Mystical Body of Christ suffers unspeakable persecution from within and without, we too do not always know where to find Him. And hope becomes the virtue that is the assailed the most.

Some say ours is the worst time in history, and yet what must it have been like for Magdalene at that cataclysmic moment when the Messiah breathed His last and gave up His spirit?

She watched the physical Body of Our Lord expire on the Cross. And, yet, far from despairing on that first Good Friday she wept and prayed and never ceased to seek His Adorable Face.

If His death on the Cross did not crush her faith, what cause have we to despair even as the Mystical Body of Christ seems to be expiring (in its human element) in our own day? Easter Sunday will come…Mary knew it and so must we.

It is sometimes suggested today that tradition-minded Catholics, in their arrogance, see themselves as being “more Catholic than the Church”. If there be any truth to this it is to be sadly lamented. But one wonders if Magdalene wasn’t accused of something similar, standing beneath the cross after all but one of the apostles had fled. Who does she think she is? Peter isn’t even there!

It was love, not arrogance that inspired Mary to stand at the foot of the Cross when even Peter was absent. So, too, it is love—love for Our Lord and His Church—that inspires Catholics today to cling to the Church and Traditions of the ages, even, alas, when many of the apostles seem to be hiding for fear of the Jews.

And it should also be readily admitted that fear is also a powerful motivator. We’re all afraid to depart from Tradition for fear that our faith will fail us. After all, Christ prayed even for Peter himself that his faith would not fail. “And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not.” (Luke 22)

Who among us is fool enough to presume that salvation is easily within our grasp, especially now when the bulwarks of the old Faith that stood strong against the gates of hell for a thousand years have been either crushed or severely compromised. We remain paralyzed with fear, our arms wrapped around Tradition like Mary’s around the Cross.

We look at the crisis within our Church and we see therein the passion of the Mystical Body of Christ. And in the darkness that is falling again, we plead as Mary might have: Dear Jesus, we are not strong enough to be without You; we are so afraid of the Romans. Permit us to remain here with You where it is safe.

Like Magdalene, we are sinners whose only hope for salvation lies in clinging to the wood of the Cross, the rock of the traditional Mass and the maternal voice of the old teachings of Mother Church that ushered a million saints and more souls than we can count through this vale of tears.

Thomas Aquinas may have reasoned his way to the Cross; St. Teresa prayed her way there; St. Joan of Arc obeyed even unto the Cross; the Cure of Ars and St. John of the Cross rode there on the backs of their great virtue.

But sinners like we can only hope to find our way as Mary did—through Divine mercy and forgiveness. Our prayer is that He will see our pitiful weakness, pick us up and ask His mother to take our hands and lead us to the Cross. After all, that’s exactly what He did for Mary Magdalene.

St. Luke records that Magdalene, the notorious sinner, had seven devils removed from her. And yet she was present at Our Lord’s Crucifixion, and with Joanna and Mary, the mother of James and Salome, she was first at the empty tomb of Jesus Christ.

She loved Him, and that was enough.

The Pharisees were shocked that Jesus had let such a sinner touch Him, but Our Lord said: “Her sins, many as they are, shall be forgiven her, because she has loved much. But he to whom little if forgiven, loves little.” Then to Mary He said kindly, “Thy faith has saved thee; go in peace.”

Mary, we are sinners too. Please, take us with you!

 

[McCall1981]

It seems to me that this kind of over-thinking and worrying about what “might” happen paralyzes people

This, unfortunately, is exactly what has happened to me recently

 

[Eufrosnia]

I do not agree with your statement that any “new” tradition will be inferior to tradition developed over 2000 years.

I’m not saying that all traditions (small “t”) should be trashed, but I don’t think that new traditions should be considered “poor cousins” to the old traditions.

I did not in anyway mean to say that new traditions are always inferior. But what I meant to say was that replacing old traditions with new can be inferior at first till it is allowed time to develop.

For an example, having discarded values of modesty and dress, if we were to strive from today on as a society to dress modestly, it will take us some time before we arrive back to the level at which we were.

But as I wrote in a new thread I started, perhaps that is what needs to take place. As great as traditions and values of prudence are, it is hard to enforce or keep them from top down. We see how difficult it is today as even priests have started to rebel against traditions and values. Trying to address them is like trying to tell a murderer that it is contrary to human dignity to leave a dead body without burying it.

So perhaps the bigger issue, the issue of lack of adherence to the Church and its doctrine needs to be corrected first. Then perhaps those who convert, after reading the saints and such will themselves embrace and live out the traditions and values of prudence. Or perhaps it will develop once again over time in even a better and more richer way. In any case, the fact that we need an organic evolution rather than a top down enforcement in to tradition is pretty clear to me now upon further thought.

Our primary goal today should be to evangelize.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I do not agree with your statement that any “new” tradition will be inferior to tradition developed over 2000 years.

I’m not saying that all traditions (small “t”) should be trashed, but I don’t think that new traditions should be considered “poor cousins” to the old traditions.

I am not sure that is what was meant. What was meant is that, if we totally scrap all that came before, or give the illusion that we are doing so, we cannot possibly hope to replace it with anything that is as good instantly.

I think you don’t understand what is really meant by tradition. Tradition simply doesn’t mean “old stuff.” Tradition, the unbroken passage of things through time, sanctifies and purifies things. If, for example, a new devotion were to have a smell of a heretical bent, then through time, these heretical bits would be removed and replaced.

Tradition, the passage of a thing or practice through time, is a crucible that purifies through fire, if you understand what I mean. Before you knock a fence down, ask why it was put up in the first place, even if you don’t care.

I also think that, culturally, we have lost a sense of tradition. That is unfortunate, because humans know of no other way of passing down cultural values and morals. You can’t pass down moral teaching via Youtube videos and computer applications. You do it by having a culture which sees value in passing things down to their children. I’m not sure if we have that anymore in the West.

The fact is, our culture is broken. Perhaps we should conserve what we have and reappropriate things rather than constantly junking them. Sometimes I get this feeling that people are hooked on “progress” and “new stuff” like it’s a drug. Too much of anything is bad. For example, we had real, good social progress with the Civil Rights movement. But when we get hooked on the drug of change, as I like to call it, and we feel that self-righteous pleasure, we start looking for new things to change, new “injustices” to correct. We Americans really don’t want gay marriage. We want the pleasurable feelings of knowing we “helped” some people. Yes, I am drawing a line connecting, say, feelings-oriented “worship” and support for gay marriage. Physiologically I see a connection: we feel a rush of pleasure when we do these things. We might even say the feelings people get from “supporting” gay marriage are even stronger than the latest fad at the Evangelical megachurch, since many people do honestly feel a moral righteousness from supporting “gay marriage.”

In general, I am highly suspicious of change, unless it can prove itself beforehand. There is something wrong not only with the things our society does, but the very thought processes of our society. We have a compromised ability to think rationally and be honest with ourselves.

 

[McCall1981]

The fact is, our culture is broken. Perhaps we should conserve what we have and reappropriate things rather than constantly junking them. Sometimes I get this feeling that people are hooked on “progress” and “new stuff” like it’s a drug. Too much of anything is bad. For example, we had real, good social progress with the Civil Rights movement. But when we get hooked on the drug of change, as I like to call it, and we feel that self-righteous pleasure, we start looking for new things to change, new “injustices” to correct. We Americans really don’t want gay marriage. We want the pleasurable feelings of knowing we “helped” some people. Yes, I am drawing a line connecting, say, feelings-oriented “worship” and support for gay marriage. Physiologically I see a connection: we feel a rush of pleasure when we do these things. We might even say the feelings people get from “supporting” gay marriage are even stronger than the latest fad at the Evangelical megachurch, since many people do honestly feel a moral righteousness from supporting “gay marriage.”

In general, I am highly suspicious of change, unless it can prove itself beforehand. There is something wrong not only with the things our society does, but the very thought processes of our society. We have a compromised ability to think rationally and be honest with ourselves.

Wow, this is perfect, thank you

 

[jwinch2]

How to Celebrate?/1: Signs and Symbols, Words and Actions

vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20120404_come-celebrare_en.html

The Conciliar Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium defines sacred liturgy as “the exercise of the priestly function (munus) of Jesus Christ”, in which “the sanctification of man is signified through sensible signs and realized in the manner proper to each one of them” (n. 7). In the sacramental life of the Church, the “treasure hidden in the field”, of which Jesus speaks in the Gospel parable (Matthew 13:44), is made perceptible to the faithful through sacred signs. Whereas the essential elements of the sacraments – called form and matter in the terminology of Scholastic theology – are distinguished by a stupendous humility and simplicity, the liturgy, in as much as sacred action, surrounds them with rites and ceremonies that illustrate and make one understand better the great reality of the mystery. Thus a translation takes place into sensible elements and hence more accessible to human knowledge, so that the Christian community, “sacris actionibus erudita – instructed by the sacred actions”, as an ancient prayer of the Sacramentario Gregoriano says [MG1] (cf. Missale Romanum, 1962, Collect of the Saturday after the First Sunday of the Passion), is disposed to receive divine grace.

Expressed in the fact that the sacramental celebration is “woven from signs and symbols”, is “the divine pedagogy of salvation” (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], n. 1145), already enunciated in an eloquent way by the Council of Trent. Recognizing that “human nature is such that it does not come easily to meditation of divine things without external devices”, the Church “uses lights, incense, vestments and many other elements transmitted by the Apostolic teaching and tradition, which put[MG2] in evidence the majesty of such a great Sacrifice [the Holy Mass], and the minds of the faithful are attracted by these visible signs of religion and piety, to the contemplation of lofty things, which are hidden in this Sacrifice” (Council of Trent, Session XXII, 1562, Doctrina de ss. Missae Sacrificio, c. 5, DS 1746).

Expressed in this reality is an anthropological need: “As a social being, man needs signs and symbols to communicate with others, through language, gestures, and actions. The same holds true for his relationship with God” (CCC, n. 1146). The symbols and signs in the liturgical celebration belong to those material aspects that cannot be neglected. Man, a creature composed of soul and body, needs to use material things also in divine worship, because he is obliged to reach the spiritual realities through sensible signs. The internal expression of the soul, if it is genuine, seeks at the same time an external physical manifestation and, vice versa, the inner life is sustained by external acts, liturgical acts.

Many of the signs, as the gestures of prayer (open arms, joined hands, kneeling, going in procession, etc.), belong to the common heritage of humanity, as the different religious traditions attest. “The liturgy of the Church presupposes, integrates and sanctifies elements from creation and human culture, conferring on them the dignity of the signs of grace, of the new creation in Jesus Christ” (CCC, n. 1149).

Of key importance are the signs of the Covenant, “symbols of the great works done by God for his people”, among which are numbered “the imposition of hand, the sacrifices , and above all the Passover. The Church sees in these signs a prefiguring of the sacraments of the New Covenant” (CCC, n. 1150). Jesus himself makes use of these signs in his earthly ministry and gives them a new meaning, above all in the institution of the Eucharist. The Lord Jesus took the bread, broke it and gave it to his Apostles, thus carrying out a gesture that corresponds to a profound truth and expresses it in a sentient way. The sacramental signs, which were developed in the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, continue this work of sanctification and, at the same time, “prefigure and anticipate the glory of heaven” (CCC, n. 1152).

In so far as the liturgy has its own language, which is expressed also in the signs and symbols, the understanding is no longer just intellectual but involves man totally, including his imagination, memory and, in a certain way, all five senses. Hence, the importance of the word must not be neglected: Word of God proclaimed in the sacramental celebration and word of faith that responds to it. Already Saint Augustine of Hippo highlighted that the “efficient cause” of the sacrament, namely that which makes of a material element the sign of a spiritual reality and adds to such an element the gift of divine grace, is the word of blessing made in the name of Christ by the minister of the Church. As the great Doctor of the Church writes in regard to Baptism: “Take away the word, and the water is neither more nor less than water. The word is added to the element, and there results the Sacrament (Accedit verbum ad elementum et fit Sacramentum)” (In Iohannis Evangelium tractatus, 80, 3).

In sum, the liturgical words and actions are inseparable and constitute the sacraments, through which the Holy Spirit carries out “the wonders’ of God proclaimed by the Word; makes present and communicates the Father’s work, fulfilled by the beloved Son” (CCC, n. 1155).

 

[jwinch2]

Some of these signs and symbols, both through liturgical action as well as vestment, go back to the third century. There has been much discussion already of the Fisherman’s Shoes (red shoes), but others such as the Dalmatic or the Pallium are great examples also.

If the Church has maintained a tradition of certain vestments and actions for over 1700 years, since early Patristic times, since the time of the First Council of Nicea; doesn’t it make some sense to take some time to understand why she has done so, before just stripping them away as supposedly extraneous or unnecessary?

 

[Rich_C]

One of my sisters in Christ posted the following paragraphs… “So I am not sure you appreciate the magnitude of the problem here for a lay person who sees these breaks from traditions. You always make it sound like we are fussing over things when tradition for us lay people is like your spirituality as a Franciscan. Just as you would be upset if a Franciscan superior decided to enforce Dominican spirituality on you (why? Because it is not traditional)” …Back to my question–I don’t understand the sentence that I have boldfaced highlighted above.

How is “tradition for us lay people like spirituality as a Franciscan”?

Orthopraxy and spirituality created and sustain each other.

As a cradle Catholic in my mid-twenties, I discovered the Latin Mass two years ago, and I can say, it has a different spirituality than the Ordinary Form. So much so that at times it actually *feels *like a different religion, IMO.

The way we worship really influence how we think about the truth of the faith. I came to the Latin Mass very well catechized by today’s standards, but I gradually found that because the Latin Mass expressed the same Truths differently, I understood them differently and lived them differently. My faith is now very different just from going to the TLM full-time for two years, after 25 years of going to the OF every Sunday.

I don’t prefer the TLM for being more beautiful. I’m not sure its more beautiful than a really ornate OF Mass at a major basilica when I once assisted. But it changed my worldview.

The two forms of the Roman rite offer a different worldview/spirituality to the worshipper that I am just not well-spoken, educated enough to explain, but I know it when I’m there.

If I lost access to the TLM, I would have to worship in an alien spirituality, probably like an Eastern Catholic would feel if he moved somewhere where only the Roman rite was found.

And it just permeates everything. The way my wife and I talk about the faith changed after a couple of years going to the Latin Mass. The way we practice charity changed. Everything feel into place in a new schema and it’s such a blessing.

We are plugging in to a continuously handed-down *way of living the Catholic Faith *that is like a fortress that nurtures our belief and understanding of the Church’s doctrinal and social teachings.

Many Catholics today seem to think that keeping the black and white of the catechism’s text the same is all that is necessary to preserve the Catholic Faith, but I think (and I got this opinion from the Church Fathers who clearly share it) that now only the teachings must be faithfully handed down intact, but just as importantly, the way of worshipping. Without the latter, the former falters and the Faith becomes off-base, losing touch with its roots.

I am just a layman, but that’s how I earnestly feel.