Is it against tradition for a pope to be a religious?

[JReducation]

He certainly can dispense with the entire body of tradition and canon laws if he so chooses to, yes. But my point is that if he were to do so, it does not change the fact that the faithful will be very confused and offended.

I certainly don’t mean to say that any pope will dispense with everything. I hardly think that any pope will do such a thing. I simply mean to say that he can dispense himself for any rule that he so chooses to dispense with. We have to be cognizant of that fact and accept it when he does so.

If Pope Francis is true to the charism of the Society of Jesus, then he can. It’s in the First Principle and Foundation of the Spiritual Exercises:

If for him wearing the red shoes, the mozetta, the very intricate miter, or any "t"radition would hamper his praise, reverence, and service to God, then he can detach or be “indifferent” from them. This is part of the Jesuit tradition since St. Ignatius of Loyola, was the one who established this. Whether we like it or not, Pope Francis will live out his consecrated life while holding the keys.

IOW, the Pope is not destroying traditions, he’s living out the Jesuit (and Franciscan) one.

This is actually true for anyone, not just a Jesuit. But Ignatius certainly made it his first Mitzvah. The Jesuit must first of all save his own soul by distancing himself from everything that he feels is in conflict with his spiritual journey.

It’s important to remember that that which is in conflict for the spiritual journey of a Jesuit may not be in conflict for the spiritual journey of the non-Jesuit. It’s a matter of us challenging why is wearing red shoes or living in the papal palace a conflict for the Jesuit. It should be enough for us to accept that a Jesuit has a mandate from his spiritual father to avoid whatever he finds to be a conflict. If it’s not a problem for anyone else is irrelevant to Ignatius. If it’s a problem for the individual, he must avoid it. Ignatius takes it one step further. The Jesuit is not bound to share with anyone why he avoids it. In the Jesuit school, people simply accept the given. In other words, if a Jesuit says, “I rather not do that,” then no one questions why not. That’s between the individual, Ignatius and God.

Going back to the idea of a religious rule, this is not a statute for a Jesuit religious. It’s a way of thinking. It would not occur to a Jesuit religious that anyone else would even want to know why he does not want to live in the papal household or wear a mozetta. Think of it as a program, the kind that you would put into a computer. A religious is programmed.

Here may be part of the problem in today’s world. Unfortunately, many religious have thought that adulthood means living and thinking outside of the program. They create their own rules as they go along. The average layman may not be exposed to the orthodox religious who goes by the program of the founder.

The good news is that with the renewal of religious life, we’re starting to see more and more religious voluntarily return to the program of the founder. They’re making it their own. They’re not parroting the founder. When they speak the words, these are really the way they think and the way the view the world. The founder’s worldview has become their own. The language in which they express it is very unique to the person. Even the gestures may be very unique to the person, because every religious has a personality of his own. But the content is the same as that of the founder.

If it means anything, Bro. JR is also a Jewish convert.

Yes, I’m a Hebrew Catholic.

 

[McCall1981]

The good news is that with the renewal of religious life, we’re starting to see more and more religious voluntarily return to the program of the founder. They’re making it their own. They’re not parroting the founder. When they speak the words, these are really the way they think and the way the view the world. The founder’s worldview has become their own. The language in which they express it is very unique to the person.

Why is this “renewal of religious life” occuring?

 

[JReducation]

Why is this “renewal of religious life” occuring?

That’s a PhD course by itself. LOL One that I’m probably not qualified to teach, since I’m not an expert in the social sciences. But I’ll take a crack at this question. Be patient with me here. No throwing tomatoes if I make a mistake.

I believe there are a number of reasons. I’ll just mention some that come to mind.

There is definitely an awareness that that the religious life as it was lived prior to Vatican II was not consistent with the mind of the founders. The Church saw this and commanded religious to get back to the founders.

Many religious communities, especially female communities, did just the opposite. They tried to go forward without going back. They ended up in some strange place that was really worse than what they had in the 1950s. If they are to survive, they have go back to the founders. For some, it may be too late.

The John Paul II generation has a strong historical consciousness. It’s looking for a form of religious life that has roots, not one that is too fluid. If it’s too fluid, it may not survive. I should clarify here that most renewal communities are very new. Newness and fluid are not the same. A community can be very new and be very grounded. I offer as an example my own little community. We’re young and we’re small, but we’re very traditional. We follow the Rule of Penance of 1221. Our constitutions are modeled on the Capuchin constitutions of 1525, when the Capuchin reform was born. We maintain most of the customs of the 13th century. At least those that are possible in the 21st century.

I think another reason for the reform or renewal of religious life is that pendulums naturally swing back to the middle after swinging to one extreme or another.

Pope John Paul’s Vita Consecrata gave the renewal of religious life a big push. One of the most beautiful parts of this document is his emphasis on the dignity of the religious. He recovers what Trent had said about religious life. He states, unequivocally that religious life is essential to the life of the Church. Without religious life, the Church will collapse. He’s very good in explaining what had not been explained.

The Council of Trent certainly valued religious life. In fact, it was the Council of Trent that said that anyone who said that marriage was superior to celibate chastity was to be anathema. This was not a dogma. It was a law. Let’s make this clear. It was also the Council of Trent that said that all male religious and some women religious are exempt from all law and authority that comes from the laity and the bishops. What Trent did not do was explain why this was now the law.

In Vita Consecrata, Bl. John Paul fleshes it out. He explains how religious life is not part of the hierarchy of the Church and it’s not part of the laity, even though there are lay religious. Religious life is not given to the Church to govern the Church. It is given to the Church to be spiritual backbone of the Church. The religious is a prophetic figure among the faithful. He or she is a sign of life in the Kingdom of God.

In fleshing out why the religious has a special place in the Church and why no vocation compares to it and why laity and bishops keep their hands off religious life, I believe that Bl. John Paul gave religious a shot in the arm. Many religious who felt that we were either subservient to priests or on the other extreme just glorified laymen, now found that we have a place of our own and a mission that no one else can fulfill. In order to fulfill this mission, we must understand what it was that our founders and first generation religious for each community understood as their mission and place in the Kingdom of God. There is an excitement starting to bubble up. It’s almost like saying, “I count after all. God didn’t simply call me out of the world, but God called me for the sake of the world.”

 

[McCall1981]

That’s a PhD course by itself. LOL One that I’m probably not qualified to teach, since I’m not an expert in the social sciences. But I’ll take a crack at this question. Be patient with me here. No throwing tomatoes if I make a mistake.

I believe there are a number of reasons. I’ll just mention some that come to mind.

There is definitely an awareness that that the religious life as it was lived prior to Vatican II was not consistent with the mind of the founders. The Church saw this and commanded religious to get back to the founders.

Many religious communities, especially female communities, did just the opposite. They tried to go forward without going back. They ended up in some strange place that was really worse than what they had in the 1950s. If they are to survive, they have go back to the founders. For some, it may be too late.

The John Paul II generation has a strong historical consciousness. It’s looking for a form of religious life that has roots, not one that is too fluid. If it’s too fluid, it may not survive. I should clarify here that most renewal communities are very new. Newness and fluid are not the same. A community can be very new and be very grounded. I offer as an example my own little community. We’re young and we’re small, but we’re very traditional. We follow the Rule of Penance of 1221. Our constitutions are modeled on the Capuchin constitutions of 1525, when the Capuchin reform was born. We maintain most of the customs of the 13th century. At least those that are possible in the 21st century.

I think another reason for the reform or renewal of religious life is that pendulums naturally swing back to the middle after swinging to one extreme or another.

Pope John Paul’s Vita Consecrata gave the renewal of religious life a big push. One of the most beautiful parts of this document is his emphasis on the dignity of the religious. He recovers what Trent had said about religious life. He states, unequivocally that religious life is essential to the life of the Church. Without religious life, the Church will collapse. He’s very good in explaining what had not been explained.

The Council of Trent certainly valued religious life. In fact, it was the Council of Trent that said that anyone who said that marriage was superior to celibate chastity was to be anathema. This was not a dogma. It was a law. Let’s make this clear. It was also the Council of Trent that said that all male religious and some women religious are exempt from all law and authority that comes from the laity and the bishops. What Trent did not do was explain why this was now the law.

In Vita Consecrata, Bl. John Paul fleshes it out. He explains how religious life is not part of the hierarchy of the Church and it’s not part of the laity, even though there are lay religious. Religious life is not given to the Church to govern the Church. It is given to the Church to be spiritual backbone of the Church. The religious is a prophetic figure among the faithful. He or she is a sign of life in the Kingdom of God.

In fleshing out why the religious has a special place in the Church and why no vocation compares to it and why laity and bishops keep their hands off religious life, I believe that Bl. John Paul gave religious a shot in the arm. Many religious who felt that we were either subservient to priests or on the other extreme just glorified laymen, now found that we have a place of our own and a mission that no one else can fulfill. In order to fulfill this mission, we must understand what it was that our founders and first generation religious for each community understood as their mission and place in the Kingdom of God. There is an excitement starting to bubble up. It’s almost like saying, “I count after all. God didn’t simply call me out of the world, but God called me for the sake of the world.”

Thanks for this explanation, its encouraging to know that things are moving in a good direction

 

[Lucky7]

I don’t have the time right now to read through all of the posts since I posted last night, but I just wanted to add that, knowing Lormar’s posting history, I knew his post was not an insult to Protestants. I totally took it as a sincere question. Even though I questioned why he thought that way about what I wrote, I can see now what he was thinking. It makes sense, but yes, I am basically saying that the only thing we can trust fully is Church teaching/when the Church speaks regarding faith and morals. When I first converted I trusted everything about the Church. I realize that that was an idealistic view of our leaders. Now I am cautious. I try not to jump to conclusions, but I’m also not quick to agree with everything done/said.

 

[Cat]

That sounds almost protestant thinking to me.

??? What? I don’t get this. Please clarify.

Evangelical/Pentecostal Protestants, along with the Fundamentalist Protestants, trust the Holy Spirit to give them the correct interpretation of the Bible. You see, it’s not really their own individual interpretation because they believe that the Holy Spirit leads them into all truth. Because they trust the Holy Spirit, they trust that He will not allow them to misinterpret the Bible, but will reveal the truth to them.

Some Protestant denominations, mainly the older “mainline” denominations; e.g., Lutheran, Reformed, Episcopalian (Anglican), Presbyterian, Methodist, Congregational, United Church of Christ, etc. tend to put more “trust” in their church creeds and confessions than in the Bible.

But as they become more and more liberal theologically and politically/socially, these denominations continue to dwindle drastically in numbers and many of their churches are either merging or closing. (Many of the converts in our Catholic parish come from these churches, and most share the same sad story–their denomination became so liberal that it didn’t seem consistent with basic Christian teachings anymore.)

It is the Evangelicals/Pentecostals whose churches are growing exponentially, and IMO, these are the Protestants that Catholics need to concern themselves with in this day and age. And these Protestants trust the Holy Spirit to reveal the correct interpretation of the Bible to them.

Just a side note–be careful when you debate Protestants about sola Scriptura. Many would agree with you that individual interpretations of the Bible are often incorrect and should be avoided. BUT…the Holy Spirit cannot lead someone into error! So when you criticize these Protestants and their trust in the Holy Spirit to lead them in correctly assessing the Bible, what they hear you saying is that "the Holy Spirit is not trustworthy and doesn’t have power to “lead Christians into all truth.” Be careful!

One more side note–many Evangelicals/Pentecostals, and also Fundamentalist Christians do tend to get involved with churches/fellowships because of the pastor, so it would appear that they “trust men”. This has caused so many problems in the Protestant churches, and many Protestants, including our family, have ended up leaving their churches over men and women who turned out not to be trustworthy. So there is a lot of effort in Evangelical churches (not so much in the Pentecostal and Fundamentalist churches) to teach people NOT to trust in their pastors, but to rely on the Holy Spirit. It’s really hard to explain this to Catholics. Sorry if I’m unclear.

 

[Rich_C]

It was an insult. An ad hominem. Here at CAF, “protestant” is used as an insult, like “liberal”, or “nazi.”

I think he meant it literally, not as an insult.

Catholics shouldn’t think like Protestants. That’s just how it is.

That said, I think he misunderstood Lucky7’s meaning, too.

I think Lucky7 meant we trust the Holy Ghost to guide the Church so we can look past untrustworthy churchmen.

 

[TimothyH]

Well, if I had put my trust in the Cardinal that missed the conclave becasue of his homosexual misconduct scandal, or the Cardinal that recently approved civil unions, I would lose a lot. What if one of these men had been Pope? They were one step away.

Personally, I’ve been in a very strong tension lately because, while I love the Church deeply and want to dedicate my life to serving it, I can’t honestly say I trust it. It’s a very painful situation

Questions like this speak to the virtue of humility. Humility is knowing your proper place in the order of creation, in the Church, at work, in the family, etc.

In my job, it is the CEO’s place to worry about strategic business goals, the regional VP’s job to worry about regional sales goals, and my job to build email systems and monitor storage arrays. For me to worry about regional sales goals is not my job and would be presumption and arrogance.

The virtue of humility calls each of us to worry about that which God has placed before us here, now, today, in this place at this time. I have a doctor’s appointment this morning and then will meet my girlfriend for lunch, and then have a conference call at 3:00 PM, and then I have to feed my daughters, one of whom challenged me to a chess match tonight. This is what God has placed in front of me today.

There is a wonderful book by Jeran-Pierre de Caussade titled “Abandonment to Divine Providence” or sometimes called “The Sacrament of the Present Moment.” It is about this very subject - dealing with what God has placed before us and leaving the rest up to God.

It is very difficult to do, but very liberating if one can do it.

-Tim-

 

[Mike30]

This is very true. This was one of the sad parts of the deviations of religious life during the last 200 years or so.

I can certainly appreciate this and I encourage every layman to ask as much as he can. We can’t always explain everything, because there is not enough time or because some things are simply for internal forum only. Be I don’t think that any religious will refuse to try.

I understand being blindsided. I don’t think that it’s a matter of fairness as much as it is a matter of explaining. I have to admit that during the first two weeks there was a lot being said on TV and other means of communication about Pope Francis’ Jesuit roots and his Franciscan spirituality. It was probably helpful to those who heard these things. Unfortunately, the feed suddenly died. I’m not sure why it did. People still need to hear it. Not everyone had the chance to hear those few interviews or read those few articles or even understand them.

Religious life had deviated from its roots. I did not intend to hide that at all. Any religious who lived back then will tell you so. There was a form of religious life, but not what the founders had in mind. While I would not call it a cancer and neither did the Church, the Church did say that it needed to be reformed. Religious life needed and still needs to go back to the roots.

There were many saints. They were not saints because their religious communities had deviated from their original charisms, way of life, structure, governance, ministry, etc. These men and women became great saints because of a life of heroic virtue. Part of that virtue was their fidelity to the original vision, despite the twists and turns that their communities took over the centuries. A wonderful example of this is, though not a 20th century person, Teresa of Avila. What she experienced in the 16th century is very much what we have experienced in the 20th century. I think that every few centuries religious life is derailed and needs to be reformed. We have a long list of reformers who became great saints precisely because of their fidelity to the original charism despite the distortions: St. Bernard, St. Robert, St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Dominic, St. Clare, St. Collette, et al.

I can appreciate that it will take time. In a previous post, not on this thread, I told people that in a year or two all of this would seem quite natural, if only people are patient rather than pushing the panic button.

Thank you for you kind words and your thoughtful post.

Thank you as well Brother. I think that while learning curve in this instance is a bit steeper than most, we will come out of everything fine. I did have some apprehensions after reading some South American articles that were highly critical of the Holy Fathers performance as Archbishop but after seeing his performance thusfar as the Pope, I am confident that whatever direction he takes the Church will be in the direction he truly feels is best for the Church.

I truly hope that you are feeling better these days and that all is well with you.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Questions like this speak to the virtue of humility. Humility is knowing your proper place in the order of creation, in the Church, at work, in the family, etc.

In my job, it is the CEO’s place to worry about strategic business goals, the regional VP’s job to worry about regional sales goals, and my job to build email systems and monitor storage arrays. For me to worry about regional sales goals is not my job and would be presumption and arrogance.

The virtue of humility calls each of us to worry about that which God has placed before us here, now, today, in this place at this time. I have a doctor’s appointment this morning and then will meet my girlfriend for lunch, and then have a conference call at 3:00 PM, and then I have to feed my daughters, one of whom challenged me to a chess match tonight. This is what God has placed in front of me today.

**There is a wonderful book by Jeran-Pierre de Caussade titled “Abandonment to Divine Providence” **or sometimes called “The Sacrament of the Present Moment.” It is about this very subject - dealing with what God has placed before us and leaving the rest up to God.

It is very difficult to do, but very liberating if one can do it.

-Tim-

Indeed a wonderful book. And a very difficult read and very, very difficult to put into practice.

Pride is a very deadly sin. And related to things like “sticking your nose in where it doesn’t belong” and other grevious faults.

 

[Cat]

I’m sorry, but this post and some others in here are starting to get a little offensive.

I am one of “those” Catholics who voiced concerns over the foot washing and some other things too. I don’t believe any of what’s bolded above. I am not ignorant of Church history or teaching. I don’t have problem understanding the nature of the Church.

You’re setting up a straw man argument here, to make the thoughts of those you disagree with look ridiculous.

Given the liturgical abuse that has gone on the past several decades I believe it is perfectly reasonable to have concerns like these. If you disagree with me, fine, but I don’t appreciate being characterized in this way, its not charitable.

McCall1981, I don’t want to be mean-spirited, but I just ran across this thread, and I’m posting the link to it to demonstrate that I was most certainly not “setting up a straw man.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=777860

Threads like this, asking why the Latin Mass isn’t “universal”, have been posted frequently (I would be willing to say weekly or bi-weekly) since I joined this board years ago, and before that when I wasn’t a member. I don’t think that this poster is made of straw, and I most certainly didn’t imagine the poster.

THAT’S what I was talking about in my thread. I’m not trying to make this poster look “ridiculous,” but I can’t help but wonder why this poster has such a difficult time understanding and accepting what Holy Mother Church has declared “good,” namely, the OF Mass, for more than 40 years. You say that ignorance of Church history and theology is not the problem. Well, what IS the problem, then? Why would someone ask such a question?

I personally think that my theory about “ignorance of Church teaching” is a much more charitable assessment of these people than some of the other explanations that come to mind.

 

[Rich_C]

THAT’S what I was talking about in my thread. I’m not trying to make this poster look “ridiculous,” but I can’t help but wonder why this poster has such a difficult time understanding and accepting what Holy Mother Church has declared “good,” namely, the OF Mass, for more than 40 years. You say that ignorance of Church history and theology is not the problem. Well, what IS the problem, then? Why would someone ask such a question?

When I replied to that thread, I strongly suspected that the OP means she want to go to a Latin-language OF. She how she wrote “Mass in Latin,” not “the Latin Mass?” Makes a big difference. And she was awfully nice about it.

When innocent posts start to make me feel steamed, I realize I should take a break from CAF…just sayin’.

 

[McCall1981]

I don’t think that people are specifically “against” Pope Francis because he is a religious.

I think that there is a group of Catholics who are convinced that every Catholic should be doing things exactly the same way, especially in the Mass, but also outside the Mass.

For them, there is no room for any variation in the liturgy, and they have a very difficult time with the EF and OF co-existing. **They don’t understand **that Holy Mother Church is a large “umbrella” with room for many different types of Catholics and many different liturgies.

There is something about their personality that has a difficult time accepting diversity, and so they long for everything to be exactly the same everywhere.

I’ve read posts over and over again on this forum about how Catholicism needs to be “unified”: ALL Masses all over the world should be done in Latin, with Gregorian chant, and NO variation at all. Any error in the liturgy, no matter how small, is considered the beginning of the end–it is a major disaster, an act of utter irreverence toward Jesus, and the harbinger of the end of the Church. The priest who allows the error is considered a “liberal” or worse.

And any variation in the liturgy, even if it is allowed by the rubrics, is highly suspect. Huge debates have occurred on CAF over variations in the liturgy that are clearly allowed in the rubrics; .e.g., musical instruments other than the pipe organ. Many of the people with the “All Masses Should Be The Same” mindset seem to believe that all the variations that have developed over time were once “aberrations” that the Church reluctantly was forced into allowing, and therefore, we should all resist these variations because they were once errors. Yes, I’ve seen this argument over and over on CAF. It’s amazing.

So of course, Catholics with this mindset would see Pope Francis’ act of washing women’s feet as absolutely unacceptable and heretical.

**It’s my personal opinion that a lot of these Catholics have very little knowledge of Church history and theology, which of course means they don’t know about or understand the differences between religious and secular priests. I think a lot of these Catholics learned one way of doing Mass and daily life, and to them, THAT way is THE way, and there is no other way./**QUOTE]

@ Cat

The bolded is creating a straw man argument. You’re lumping people, like me and whoever created that other thread, into a group. You then defined what that group believes, and defined it in a way that intentially makes it looks ridiculous.

 

[Cat]

Cat;10637234:

I don’t think that people are specifically “against” Pope Francis because he is a religious.

I think that there is a group of Catholics who are convinced that every Catholic should be doing things exactly the same way

, especially in the Mass, but also outside the Mass.

For them, there is no room for any variation in the liturgy, and they have a very difficult time with the EF and OF co-existing. **They don’t understand **that Holy Mother Church is a large “umbrella” with room for many different types of Catholics and many different liturgies.

There is something about their personality that has a difficult time accepting diversity, and so they long for everything to be exactly the same everywhere.

I’ve read posts over and over again on this forum about how Catholicism needs to be “unified”: ALL Masses all over the world should be done in Latin, with Gregorian chant, and NO variation at all. Any error in the liturgy, no matter how small, is considered the beginning of the end–it is a major disaster, an act of utter irreverence toward Jesus, and the harbinger of the end of the Church. The priest who allows the error is considered a “liberal” or worse.

And any variation in the liturgy, even if it is allowed by the rubrics, is highly suspect. Huge debates have occurred on CAF over variations in the liturgy that are clearly allowed in the rubrics; .e.g., musical instruments other than the pipe organ. Many of the people with the “All Masses Should Be The Same” mindset seem to believe that all the variations that have developed over time were once “aberrations” that the Church reluctantly was forced into allowing, and therefore, we should all resist these variations because they were once errors. Yes, I’ve seen this argument over and over on CAF. It’s amazing.

So of course, Catholics with this mindset would see Pope Francis’ act of washing women’s feet as absolutely unacceptable and heretical.

**It’s my personal opinion that a lot of these Catholics have very little knowledge of Church history and theology, which of course means they don’t know about or understand the differences between religious and secular priests. I think a lot of these Catholics learned one way of doing Mass and daily life, and to them, THAT way is THE way, and there is no other way./**QUOTE]

@ Cat

The bolded is creating a straw man argument. You’re lumping people, like me and whoever created that other thread, into a group. You then defined what that group believes, and defined it in a way that intentially makes it looks ridiculous.

Maybe it’s because I’ve been around this forum much longer than you, and I’ve seen plenty of threads that make it clear that the “straw man” is made of flesh.

 

[McCall1981]

McCall1981;10642506:

Maybe it’s because I’ve been around this forum much longer than you, and I’ve seen plenty of threads that make it clear that the “straw man” is made of flesh.

Well, I guess we just disagree. But we can at least be nice about it, right?

 

[Cat]

Cat;10642601:

Well, I guess we just disagree. But we can at least be nice about it, right?

Of course. Always.

 

[curlycool89]

But we don’t grow in our love in Christ by changing traditions. The traditions developed as we grew in love of Christ. You cannot then say that these traditions detract from your love of Christ. That does not make sense.

With small-t traditions, there is a chance, though, that they can become a stumbling block. We can become so enamoured with our traditions that we forget what they are suppose to point us towards. Any tradition is not an end in itself, but only something that points us to a higher end. If the link has become lost, then it has become nothing more than idolatry, and worship of the tradition itself.

I’m not saying it has happened, but it certainly can.

The issue is not that people don’t like change. The issue is with losing a rich form of expression that we had. That is a legitimate concern.

Legitimate concern? Or person preference?

Also, something worth saying, if you were to read the “Auctorem Fidei”, a papal bull by Pius VI condemning the propositions of the Synod of Pistoia, you will notice how many of the practices that are not intrinsically wrong are condemned as “giving credence to the position of heretics” or “offensive to the faithful” etc. So the idea that something can offend the minds of the faithful and that it needs to be taken in to account is not a foreign concept. It has been around for sometime and at least one Papal bull had been pronounced that uses it as a basis to condemn many propositions.

And Papal bulls are not generally doctrinal in nature, but generally deal with discipline and prudential matters. So far as they do not touch on doctrinal matters, any future Pope is free to change or contradict a past Papal bull without consequence. It’s part of the Legislative Supremacy of the Pope, in that no pope can bind a future pope regarding things that are not part of Revelation.

Bishop appointments are made with Papal bulls for example. Nobody is going to get upset when a current or future Pope appoints a new Archbishop of New York even though Pope Benedict XVI did once.

He certainly can dispense with the entire body of tradition and canon laws if he so chooses to, yes. But my point is that if he were to do so, it does not change the fact that the faithful will be very confused and offended.

The Papacy is not a popularity contest. Sometimes people need to hear hard truths.

If people are offended, then it means that they have become too invested in something that is not that important. By analogy, they’ve missed the forest for the trees.

Maybe it’s because I’ve been around this forum much longer than you, and I’ve seen plenty of threads that make it clear that the “straw man” is made of flesh.

I can vouch for that. Many of the bolded in that post are issues that come up time and again (between this forum and the Liturgy one mostly).

 

[Eufrosnia]

With small-t traditions, there is a chance, though, that they can become a stumbling block. We can become so enamoured with our traditions that we forget what they are suppose to point us towards. Any tradition is not an end in itself, but only something that points us to a higher end. If the link has become lost, then it has become nothing more than idolatry, and worship of the tradition itself.

I’m not saying it has happened, but it certainly can.

Agreed. But in the same way, you must admit that simply getting rid of the tradition is problematic because it did point to something greater. What we must do is remind ourselves of what it stood for and come to a greater appreciation of it.

Legitimate concern? Or person preference?

Well losing something that is rich in expression is usually something anyone would dislike, no? Who wants to reinvent the wheel after all?

And Papal bulls are not generally doctrinal in nature, but generally deal with discipline and prudential matters. So far as they do not touch on doctrinal matters, any future Pope is free to change or contradict a past Papal bull without consequence. It’s part of the Legislative Supremacy of the Pope, in that no pope can bind a future pope regarding things that are not part of Revelation.

But the issue is not that the Pope has broken the law here. I can assure you that I think as much as you probably do that such reasoning is the most bizarre and usually heard from the sedevecantist folks.

What I am saying however is that the fact that arbitrarily changing traditions can be offensive or confusing is acknowledged by even past Popes and the Church. So a new Pope could act without much care and he will be legally in the right. But it does not change the fact that he can be confusing to many and offending others.

The Papacy is not a popularity contest. Sometimes people need to hear hard truths.

Sure, but that is done in the teaching office. Actions of Popes are not infallible anyway. The goal of the traditions around the office are also to communicate the nature of office rather than to convey new teaching.

If people are offended, then it means that they have become too invested in something that is not that important. By analogy, they’ve missed the forest for the trees.

But that is not what Pope Pius VI thought, yes? Now you may say that was a different time. But my point is not with respect to the specific matter but rather the universal idea that there exists somethings in a given time, which if violated, do offend the faithful. So we shouldn’t be surprised when the faithful are offended and sound as if its unreasonable that they are in such a state.

Also, when you say they have missed the Forrest for the trees, there is some confusion again on how you interpret tradition. The traditions are a form of expression and at the same time a set of developed values to safeguard certain truths. When we become out of touch and miss the forest, the right thing to do is get in touch again. Not cut the trees, yes?

 

[YoungTradCath]

With small-t traditions, there is a chance, though, that they can become a stumbling block. We can become so enamoured with our traditions that we forget what they are suppose to point us towards. Any tradition is not an end in itself, but only something that points us to a higher end. If the link has become lost, then it has become nothing more than idolatry, and worship of the tradition itself.

I’m not saying it has happened, but it certainly can.

I’d also like to point out that we can become so enamored with “refoming” everything that it can turn into nothing but destruction of our traditions in which we forget that a modest, general reform is/was for in the first place. The reforming of customs and traditions can itself become idolatry and worshipful.

In practice, most of the problems with liturgy and stuff have been extremely local. It can seem like we run around like chickens with our heads cut off screaming to each other, “Yeehaw, what are we going to REFORM next?!?!?!” It’s almost comical to think of it that way, making “reform” into a God itself. I think that has been done.

 

[McCall1981]

I’d also like to point out that we can become so enamored with “refoming” everything that it can turn into nothing but destruction of our traditions in which we forget that a modest, general reform is/was for in the first place. The reforming of customs and traditions can itself become idolatry and worshipful.

In practice, most of the problems with liturgy and stuff have been extremely local. It can seem like we run around like chickens with our heads cut off screaming to each other, “Yeehaw, what are we going to REFORM next?!?!?!” It’s almost comical to think of it that way, making “reform” into a God itself. I think that has been done.

Very true.

I think the “god” in this case is that people get a thrill of power when they change things to how they want, then they get sort of addicted to it, to feeling powerful, like its all about them