"T" vs. "t": Tradition vs tradition

[Big_Feet]

In another thread I began to address the capital “T” Tradition versus the little “t” traditions that exist within our Church. The posts were taking us off topic of that OP, so I will bring it up here.

I said in one post:

Please be careful with the capitalization of "T"radition, here.
The "T"radition of the church has not changed from pre- to post- Vatican II. Some "t"raditions have, but not "T"radition.

and in another:

Another thread may hold some answers…please see the following, as it provides some examples of both:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=411315

Simplified:
The Church believes (as do I) that "T"radition holds the truths of the faith.
and that "t"radition holds practices that are good, but may change.

My understanding:
Big “T” Tradition includes the canon of the Bible, the Trinitarian God, the belief of the Immaculate Conception and assumption of Mary, and the other such truths the Church holds and teaches.

Small “t” tradition would include such things as eating meat on Fridays during the year or just inside of Lent, private devotions (such as those to particular saints, or even approved apparitions (such as at Lourdes)), or even having the Holy Mass prayed in Latin vs. the vernacular (same words of consecration, different language).

I would like to discuss others thoughts on this. Do you believe there is a difference between Sacred Tradition, and traditions that the Church uses, or are they one in the same?

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I would say that they are different, but that the only purpose of the traditions is to demonstrate the Tradtions.

That is, tradition is subordinate to Tradition and should reflect it, but is not the same.

Take the Easter Catholic Churches vs the Western one, for example. The traditions are very noticeably different, but both sets reflect the Tradition of the true Church in different but valid and beautiful ways.

 

[Joe_5859]

I would like to discuss others thoughts on this. Do you believe there is a difference between Sacred Tradition, and traditions that the Church uses, or are they one in the same?

Of course. Sacred Tradition is part of Divine Revelation, the depoist of faith that was entrusted by Jesus to the apostles and their successors.

Things like vestments don’t really fit in that same boat.

 

[pablope]

In another thread I began to address the capital “T” Tradition versus the little “t” traditions that exist within our Church. The posts were taking us off topic of that OP, so I will bring it up here.

I said in one post:

and in another:

I would like to discuss others thoughts on this. Do you believe there is a difference between Sacred Tradition, and traditions that the Church uses, or are they one in the same?

This might help…mark-shea.com/tradition.html

 

[YoungTradCath]

Of course they are different. tradition is subordinate to Tradition; however, they are closely related. tradition(s) should exemplify, with prudence as the main qualifier, Tradition. It really isn’t enough to say, “Well, of course I’m a faithful Catholic; I’m definitely no heretic!” (respecting Tradition) while still downplaying every outward expression of our faith (disrespecting tradition) for whatever weak reason.

We are human beings, creatures of senses. We smell incense, we taste the Sacred Species, we see the (hopefully, but commonly not) beautiful art and vestments and churches, we hear the (hopefully, but commonly not) gorgeous music and bells. These traditional sensory experiences are outward expressions of Tradition; when they are ruined for the sake of being “contemporary” or whatever, two things happen: our sensory experience with Tradition is mutilated and Catholic identity is ruined.

Are we going to be a “contemporary,” fleeting Church that has no identity and is afraid to show its intrinsic components (Tradition) with the extrinsic tools (tradition)? We can say, “We believe __________________,” all day (Tradition), but if we don’t experience it externally (through traditions), well, who cares? You can take the starkest, ugliest Catholic church in the world and, yes, while it in fact does stand for the Tradition of the Church and perhaps the priest is very concerned with maintaining Tradition, if the traditions (the outward, sensory experiential stuff) isn’t there, it’s going to be much harder for people to experience the Tradition.

We Traddies aren’t so much concerned with maintaining tradition out of nostalgia. Hey, lots of us are quite young, as I am, and it is literally impossible for us to have nostalgia in that respect. We are concerned with maintaining tradition because of its sensory, experiential effects because we realize the immense value in that. We are human beings, God gave us eyes, ears, a tongue and a mind for a reason, yet we see so many sensory things that the Church has abandoned, and in most cases not due to some Papal mandate or Curial letter. This seems silly and ideological at best.

tradition brings Tradition to life. tradition is what allows us to experience Tradition. Sure, we can study Tradition is some textbook or a lame Catechism class (not putting down the value of Catechism classes, however) but if we don’t EXPERIENCE that Tradition through tradition, then, well, do you see?

One time I saw a scene on TV: there were a bunch of people at a meeting. Then, their bodies disappeared and all that was left was a bunch of brains sitting around a table. Whether or not they realize it, I think that is the statement that “progressive” Catholics make in regards to traditions. “We aren’t going to do traditional things.” What are we, a bunch of brains sitting around a table with no ears, eyes, tongue, skin, nose? I hate to put in the personal “I think” statement in this post, but I think this whole anti-tradition attitude exudes more clericalist, pompous nonsense than the opposite attitude. We can’t saw our skulls off and pour knowledge in.

Disclaimer (I hate these, but I’m sure someone will be offended or something from my post): I do not mean to say the OP is anti-tradition, I am simply explaining my side.

 

[IesumPerMariam]

from CCC 83:

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical, or devotional traditions, born in the particular churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed.

In other words, tradition is good and to be preserved so long as it is an expression of, and leads us towards Tradition. If a tradition does not accurately represent Tradition, it should be abandoned. A tradition is not an infallible part of the depositum fidei; Tradition is.

 

[YoungTradCath]

In other words, tradition is good and to be preserved so long as it is an expression of, and leads us towards Tradition.

THANK YOU for realizing.

 

[promethius]

Are we going to be a “contemporary,” fleeting Church that has no identity and is afraid to show its intrinsic components (Tradition) with the extrinsic tools (tradition)? We can say, “We believe __________________,” all day (Tradition), but if we don’t experience it externally (through traditions), well, who cares? You can take the starkest, ugliest Catholic church in the world and, yes, while it in fact does stand for the Tradition of the Church and perhaps the priest is very concerned with maintaining Tradition, if the traditions (the outward, sensory experiential stuff) isn’t there, it’s going to be much harder for people to experience the Tradition.

This, actually, is the only part of your post that I disagree with, despite the disclaimer…

Mass was celebrated versus populem until about the 7th century, when “contemporary practice” said that to reenforce the concept of unity AND illustrate the universal priesthood of the laity, the churches were reorganized with the altar in the east and EVERYONE facing that direction (known now as versus populem… for those who don’t know)… whereas before all churches had generally been built with the altar in the West, and the priest facing the East while overlooking the congregation.

The cruciform church came to replace the tetraconch and the octagonal churches as symbolism in construction became more important (and, I dare say, it even has supplanted Basilica style construction as the “favorite” of the church). This, again, is another example of traditions which we only have today because they were, at one time, “contemporary”

Even the use of Latin in worship was an innovative idea of the apostles… no Jew would have ever considered it for synagogue, nor is it likely that Jesus ever worshipped in Latin… but the church’s expansion throughout the Roman Empire mandated the use of “contemporary” vernacular for the Empire’s fledgeling Christianity…

And that’s just three examples of MANY. It is important to remember that while we have a universal and unchanging truth in Tradition, our faith itself is living… and it is important not to eschew the “contemporary”, because certain contemporary traditions introduced to our faith are what have given us our rich body of tradition that we hold today. The problem, then, is not one of introduction of new traditions, but of discernment as to which traditions are worthy and powerful reflections of Tradition.

 

[YoungTradCath]

This, actually, is the only part of your post that I disagree with, despite the disclaimer…

Mass was celebrated versus populem until about the 7th century, when “contemporary practice” said that to reenforce the concept of unity AND illustrate the universal priesthood of the laity, the churches were reorganized with the altar in the east and EVERYONE facing that direction (known now as versus populem… for those who don’t know)… whereas before all churches had generally been built with the altar in the West, and the priest facing the East while overlooking the congregation.

Yes, but it is very possible for cultural evaluations of why we do a certain thing in our worship to change while it still maintains an immense value. In other words, why we do it can change while it still has great importance, with it perhaps even being still preferable. Our cultural understanding of ad orientem liturgy has changed, but that does not decrease its value.

The problem, then, is not one of introduction of new traditions, but of discernment as to which traditions are worthy and powerful reflections of Tradition.

But we’ve been struck with a massive bout of amnesia. We don’t know how to do that anymore because we don’t know how to think anymore. We are iconoclastic and we can’t evaluate traditions and practices for their innate worth; everything has to fit this stupid “early, pure Church” model. Well, not all of us are inconoclasts, but the vocal minority is.

One of the things that is so frustrating is that many people can’t seem to wrap their heads around the concept that maybe, just MAYBE many of our nearly decimated traditions and practices were actually real developments. Ad orientem worship. Huh Jimbo, did you ever think that might have been a legitimate liturgical development? A near silent Canon. Jimbo, did you ever think THAT might have been a legitimate liturgical development? Communion on the tongue. Ever think that might have been a legitimate liturgical development, Jimbo? Now obviously I’m not referring to you, promethius, but this is my way of venting my ill feelings towards the elementary school “pure, early Christian Church” attitude. Seriously, who cares if before the 9th century or whatever we had communion in the hand as a norm? We started receiving communion exclusively on the tongue at one time or another, and there are many logical reasons why. The problem is that so many people see a false darkness with anything except what they think the early Church was like, without actually stopping to evaluate whether or not our “traditions” (traditions inasmuch as they are heavily associated with Latin Rite Catholicism) just might have developed for real reasons and not just arbitrarily.

Here’s a thought, “liturgists”: perhaps just sit down, take a breather, and realize that you probably hurt more than you help whether or not you mean to. The whole concept of liturgist is just awful. It basically demands liturgical invention and going back to some archaeological fantasyland. Wanna be a liturgical historian? Fine, but don’t “construct” me a liturgy, please. “But this is a liturgical development, I promise…” No it isn’t, we’ve done that in our distant past, realized there was probably a better way of doing it, and did it.

We’re stuck in this 1960s timewarp attitude. Well, maybe not so much anymore. We’re gaining our thinkers back, I think. I’ve maintained, and I continue to do so, that much of this is a generational attitude problem, a problem that I think is as equally constructed as it is accidental.

Meh, all we can do is fix and move forward, I guess!

 

[CB_Catholic]

Yes, but it is very possible for cultural evaluations of why we do a certain thing in our worship to change while it still maintains an immense value. In other words, why we do it can change while it still has great importance, with it perhaps even being still preferable. Our cultural understanding of ad orientem liturgy has changed, but that does not decrease its value.

But we’ve been struck with a massive bout of amnesia. We don’t know how to do that anymore because we don’t know how to think anymore. We are iconoclastic and we can’t evaluate traditions and practices for their innate worth; everything has to fit this stupid “early, pure Church” model. Well, not all of us are inconoclasts, but the vocal minority is.

One of the things that is so frustrating is that many people can’t seem to wrap their heads around the concept that maybe, just MAYBE many of our nearly decimated traditions and practices were actually real developments. Ad orientem worship. Huh Jimbo, did you ever think that might have been a legitimate liturgical development? A near silent Canon. Jimbo, did you ever think THAT might have been a legitimate liturgical development? Communion on the tongue. Ever think that might have been a legitimate liturgical development, Jimbo? Now obviously I’m not referring to you, promethius, but this is my way of venting my ill feelings towards the elementary school “pure, early Christian Church” attitude. Seriously, who cares if before the 9th century or whatever we had communion in the hand as a norm? We started receiving communion exclusively on the tongue at one time or another, and there are many logical reasons why. The problem is that so many people see a false darkness with anything except what they think the early Church was like, without actually stopping to evaluate whether or not our “traditions” (traditions inasmuch as they are heavily associated with Latin Rite Catholicism) just might have developed for real reasons and not just arbitrarily.

Here’s a thought, “liturgists”: perhaps just sit down, take a breather, and realize that you probably hurt more than you help whether or not you mean to. The whole concept of liturgist is just awful. It basically demands liturgical invention and going back to some archaeological fantasyland. Wanna be a liturgical historian? Fine, but don’t “construct” me a liturgy, please. “But this is a liturgical development, I promise…” No it isn’t, we’ve done that in our distant past, realized there was probably a better way of doing it, and did it.

We’re stuck in this 1960s timewarp attitude. Well, maybe not so much anymore. We’re gaining our thinkers back, I think. I’ve maintained, and I continue to do so, that much of this is a generational attitude problem, a problem that I think is as equally constructed as it is accidental.

Meh, all we can do is fix and move forward, I guess!

I think YOU need to take a breather. We “ordinary” Catholics are not as insensitive and unintelligent as you make us out to be. We are real people, with real feelings and emotions, and thoughts and desires, and no two of us is alike. It is just quite possible (believe it or not) that we love Jesus and our Church as much as you do. We are not nameless, faceless things out in the pews who don’t give a care about what is going on and don’t know how to think. We aren’t Jimboes. We are made in the image and likeness of God. Traditionally, in the Church, we were taught to think of others as better than ourselves. That is what a traditional Catholic does, and how a traditional Catholic thinks. And if you can’t do that, you aren’t a traditional Catholic, no matter how pretty your church is, how fancy the vestments, how much incense is used, how many statues there are, and how many Latin Masses you attend.

The little rant you posted above and your ill feelings toward your fellow Catholics does nothing to advance your position. You are not defending Christ and his Church, you are defending your own preference and doing that by cutting down your brothers and sisters.

But I will attribute much of this to a “generational” thing–you are young, think you know it all, and have a lot to learn. We all were there once.