Issues of tradition beyond use of the Extraordinary Form?

[godisgood77]

I am relatively new revert and am interested in learning more about the traditionalist movement. I have read a fair amount on the issues concerning the OF and EF, but haven’t really developed an understanding of other topics that are important to traditionalists.

Hoping to have a conversation about it…

 

[TimothyH]

Any discussion has to be predicated on the understanding of the terms tradtion and Sacred Tradtion.

Capital “T” Tradtion is part of the deposit of faith, truth revealed to us by God. This cannot change. This is what we call Sacred Tradtion. It is sacred because it comes to us from God through the Church.

Lower case “t” tradtion are the things that we have done for a long time. These can change.

Many Sacred Tradtion can be found in the tradtions of the Church, but they are not the same thing.

-Tim-

 

[godisgood77]

Any discussion has to be predicated on the understanding of the terms tradtion and Sacred Tradtion.

Capital “T” Tradtion is part of the deposit of faith, truth revealed to us by God. This cannot change. This is what we call Sacred Tradtion. It is sacred because it comes to us from God through the Church.

Lower case “t” tradtion are the things that we have done for a long time. These can change.

Many Sacred Tradtion can be found in the tradtions of the Church, but they are not the same thing.

-Tim-

Thanks Timothy! I do understand that distinction… looking for some examples of somethings that traditionally minded Catholics a focused on.

 

[floresco]

I have read a fair amount on the issues concerning the OF and EF, but haven’t really developed an understanding of other topics that are important to traditionalists.

Hoping to have a conversation about it…

I self-identify as a traditionalist and something that is important to me is traditional devotions and writings. For example, I like praying the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, traditionally a common devotion among lay people and active or third orders. I like reading spiritual classics like Introduction to the Devout Life by St. Francis de Sales and Spiritual Combat by Dom Lorenzo Scupoli.

I realize that there are people who do not think of themselves as traditionalists who do these things, but part of my attraction to these practices is the sense of connection to the Catholics of the past. This sense of connection is a major component of my experience of being a traditionalist.

 

[Elizium23]

Capital “T” Tradtion is part of the deposit of faith, truth revealed to us by God. This cannot change. This is what we call Sacred Tradtion. It is sacred because it comes to us from God through the Church.

Sacred Tradition can develop and grow, but it cannot be mutated or repudiated.

Take for example the Marian Dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. These were dogmatically declared in the last century, but in the beginning did not enjoy the fullness of definition as they do today. The East has different ideas about them so you can see that Tradition is subject to some kinds of change over the years. But nothing is erased or repudiated once it is infallibly defined.

 

[TimothyH]

Thanks Timothy! I do understand that distinction… looking for some examples of somethings that traditionally minded Catholics a focused on.

It is my experience that many who identify as tradtionalist believe that many practices and devotions are absent outside of the tradtionalist movement. Floresco’s post above hits the nail on the head where he says that many people who don’t identify as traditionalists do these things. I pray the Little Office and Introduction to the Devout Life is one of my top five favorite spiritual writings.

I think architecture, the latin language, chant and the Tridentine Mass are the four big things. Traditionalists seem to be most defensive of these. Other than that, I think traditionalists are more defined by what they don’t or won’t do rather than what they do.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

Sacred Tradition can develop and grow, but it cannot be mutated or repudiated.

Take for example the Marian Dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. These were dogmatically declared in the last century, but in the beginning did not enjoy the fullness of definition as they do today. The East has different ideas about them so you can see that Tradition is subject to some kinds of change over the years. But nothing is erased or repudiated once it is infallibly defined.

Thank you for the clarification. You statement is much clearer than mine.

-Tim-

 

[Rich_C]

I think architecture, the latin language, chant and the Tridentine Mass are the four big things. -Tim-

I think the Tridentine Mass, and changes (perceived or real) in the understanding of “No Salvation Outside the Church” are the big two.

Really it comes down to a general suspicion of any novelties being introduced to the Faith. Wanting to believe it and live it in connection with our predecessors instead of in a manner adapted to our particular age.

Those are the basics, I’d say.

 

[ProVobis]

Capital “T” Tradtion is part of the deposit of faith, truth revealed to us by God. This cannot change. This is what we call Sacred Tradtion. It is sacred because it comes to us from God through the Church.

So would you say St. Paul (and his epistles about women being quiet in churches, etc.) is part of Tradition which all Catholics must believe?

 

[TimothyH]

So would you say St. Paul (and his epistles about women being quiet in churches, etc.) is part of Tradition which all Catholics must believe?

Based on observation of current Church practices, no, I would not say that.

That passage is from 1 Corinthians. The Church at Corinth had many problems, disorder being one of them. I would say that it is one of many exhortation to orderly conduct in Church based on the custom’s and practices of the time and place.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

I think the Tridentine Mass, and changes (perceived or real) in the understanding of “No Salvation Outside the Church” are the big two.

Really it comes down to a general suspicion of any novelties being introduced to the Faith. Wanting to believe it and live it in connection with our predecessors instead of in a manner adapted to our particular age.

Those are the basics, I’d say.

I dislike the word novelties. There were many novel things introduced into the faith throughout the history of the Church.

A prime example is the introduction of aristotlean philosophy in the tenth and eleventh century. Theology was monastic prior to its introduction, based on the prayerful reading of and meditation upon scripture. The use of reason and philosophy was extremely novel and held in great suspicion. It’s introduction was so divisive that it caused fist fights in seminaries and exommunications. The Summa Theological is now held up as one of the crowning achievements of the Church and I believe that many traditionalists tend to have have a great devotion to St. Thomas and a great interest in moral theology. There is nothing wrong with that. I think many don’t realize how novel it was at one time, or realize how many other things held in high regard by tradtionalists were once novelties themselves.

My point is that today’s novelties might well be tomorrows tradtion. This presupposes the underlying truths of our faith which never change.

-Tim-

 

[JReducation]

I am relatively new revert and am interested in learning more about the traditionalist movement. I have read a fair amount on the issues concerning the OF and EF, but haven’t really developed an understanding of other topics that are important to traditionalists.

Hoping to have a conversation about it…

If you give me a year or two I’m about to publish an anthology using the posts on this forum.

Just kidding. In all honesty, your best bet is to go through the forum index and start picking up threads that interest you and read what people have said in the past. Many of those folks are now dearly departed, but their contributions are still posted here. :yup:

 

[Rich_C]

I dislike the word novelties. There were many novel things introduced into the faith throughout the history of the Church.

A prime example is the introduction of aristotlean philosophy in the tenth and eleventh century…
My point is that today’s novelties might well be tomorrows tradtion. This presupposes the underlying truths of our faith which never change.
-Tim-

Well, I think the word is apt–something not done before.

Catholics have traditionally held new things at arm’s length. Eventually some were accepted, many not so much. News things are not always bad–but they are often bad. St. Paul warned that everything be tested.

A newfound acceptance of new things has became pretty common in post-modern western Catholicism. The tradtionalist hasn’t adopted this attitude and is still pretty suspicious of new things. In that, he stands in good company with millenia of his forebearers.

I think it’s one of the best ways to sum up traditionalists, though its certainly simplistic.

 

[POJIUJH]

One other thing you can note is that many people referred to as “traditionalists” strongly dislike being labeled like that and mainly prefer to be called simply “Catholic”.

A rhetorical trick to make a group seem more orthodox than they are, (whereas otherwise they would be too easily recognised as being unorthodox) is to claim that the Church is made up of factions. It is a very slight of hand way of saying that the Church Herself has no authority. This is why you hear of the likes of “liberal catholics” - despite the things that they stand for are totally against the Catholic faith and/or her identity.

 

[POJIUJH]

Since other people mentioned it too, an easy way of understanding small t tradition is to understand it as Catholic identity. The point isn’t that it is infalible or falible, that would be looking at it the wrong way. Instead, it’s a reflection of the Church herself. Like a mirror, it can reflect clearly or poorly.

Eg: If Catholic identity reflected pentacostalism, it would reflect pentacostalism and not Catholicism. The Church would never stop being what it was, only the mirror would be opaque.

Small t tradition is extremely important too, only for different reasons!

 

[felsguy]

I recognize that there are several albeit similar descriptions of a traditionalist but none would apply to me. Therefore it’s not for me to offer topics that are"important to traditionalists". However as an almost daily reader of most every post in four different forums here over the past few years (yes, I am a CAF junkie :yup I can offer what I have observed, namely those topics which seem to be the most discomforting to many of the self-identifying “traditionalists” who post here.

the Ordinary Form of the Mass
receiving Communion in the hand
Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion
female altar servers
RCIA
reserving the Blessed Sacrament in a tabernacle not on the main altar
use of guitars at Mass
offering the sign of peace
laity using orans position
holding hands during the Our Father
Second Vatican Council
modern church music
modern church architecture

Also, I have observed that many (most?) who are uncomfortable with items on this list are usualy uncomfortable with most if not all of them.

I don’t mean to be judgmental or disparaging to anyone here and again the list is just this one individual’s perception.

 

[ProVobis]

Based on observation of current Church practices, no, I would not say that.

That passage is from 1 Corinthians. The Church at Corinth had many problems, disorder being one of them. I would say that it is one of many exhortation to orderly conduct in Church based on the custom’s and practices of the time and place.

Is any practice described by Paul Traditionally binding?

Personally I don’t see why we even try to distinguish Tradition and tradition if we’re talking about practices that anyone can change. Or maybe I’m missing something here.

 

[Brandall]

I recognize that there are several albeit similar descriptions of a traditionalist but none would apply to me. Therefore it’s not for me to offer topics that are"important to traditionalists". However as an almost daily reader of most every post in four different forums here over the past few years (yes, I am a CAF junkie :yup I can offer what I have observed, namely those topics which seem to be the most discomforting to many of the self-identifying “traditionalists” who post here.

the Ordinary Form of the Mass
receiving Communion in the hand
Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion
female altar servers
RCIA
reserving the Blessed Sacrament in a tabernacle not on the main altar
use of guitars at Mass
offering the sign of peace
laity using orans position
holding hands during the Our Father
Second Vatican Council
modern church music
modern church architecture

Also, I have observed that many (most?) who are uncomfortable with items on this list are usualy uncomfortable with most if not all of them.

I don’t mean to be judgmental or disparaging to anyone here and again the list is just this one individual’s perception.

Which four forums?

 

[felsguy]

Which four forums?

Not sure why you ask but Traditional Catholicism, Liturgy and Sacraments, Moral Theology, Vocations, and Back Fence on a regular basis and others if time allows.

.

 

[Brandall]

Not sure why you ask but Traditional Catholicism, Liturgy and Sacraments, Moral Theology, Vocations, and Back Fence on a regular basis and others if time allows.

.

I’m not asking for a point of argument. I read two of those regularly and there are days that my hunger exceeds what I’m finding. More than anything else, recommendations for other categories. Hunting around for interesting topics has not been fruitful