Tradition or tradition

[HelenRose]

When someone thinks of themselves as a traditionlists are they thinking in terms of the Holy Tradition that lead to the Holy Bible or are they thinking in terms of traditions developed over the period of 2000 years?

 

[PatrickJT914]

I think “Othrodox” or “Traditional” Catholics are those who only go as far to 1570 after the Council of Trent. This council was in response to the Protestant Reformation. So, any modern attempt to reform our church is seen by those as Protestant influences into our church. Some of them unfortunately fail to look past 1570 If they did they will find out that many, if not all current changes have actually had biblical and traditional precedent. Here’s a list of some: Communion in the hand, Charismatic gifts, Deaconesses, vernacular, different musical instruments in liturgy, liturgical dance, lay ministers of the Eucharist, sign of peace, more lay participation in the Mass, these are just a few.

What are my personal beliefs? First, I embrace ALL of Catholicism from Jesus ministry to Pope Benedict XVI. Secondly, I believe in what the Nicene says. Thirdly, I believe Jesus. Fourthly, the bible is the Word of God and needs to be read. Fifth, I believe there is room for both the TLM and the New Mass. There is reverence in both. If they are done properly.

I have more but I won’t try and fit it into one long post. When the situation arises and time allows me, I’ll come back to answer some more.

 

[EasterJoy]

In the strict meaning by which we say “tradition” or “Tradition”, every Catholic had better be a Traditionalist!!

Having said that, I don’t think it matters that some Traditionalists like to capitalize. That doesn’t mean they think everyone else is apostate. They might, but the name doesn’t carry that implication with me. If that is the way you mean it, be warned that some of us won’t take that as your meaning.

 

[HelenRose]

Since I started the thread, I suppose I ought let people where I am at in this ongoing debate. It is a debate that interests me.

IF:
1 = Rock Band Music for the Liturgy

 10 =  SSPX

  I think that I would probably be a 6.

I prefer the N.O. Mass but I understand the love for the T.L.M. Mass

I prefer Latin for the service music but don’t mind well done vernacular service music.

I prefer classical music to more modern music.

I object to people on both sides of the issue pushing the envelope or using the Mass as a means of furthering their various agendas.

I worship and sing in a small mission Church. The basic culture in this community is far from the culture where there are lofty cathedrals. Our talents are limited at best. But, we do try to do our best.

 

[chrisb]

Since I started the thread, I suppose I ought let people where I am at in this ongoing debate. It is a debate that interests me.

IF:
1 = Rock Band Music for the Liturgy

 10 =  SSPX

  I think that I would probably be a 6.

I prefer the N.O. Mass but I understand the love for the T.L.M. Mass

I prefer Latin for the service music but don’t mind well done vernacular service music.

I prefer classical music to more modern music.

I object to people on both sides of the issue pushing the envelope or using the Mass as a means of furthering their various agendas.

ditto

You are ‘not’ alone.

 

[HelenRose]

In the strict meaning by which we say “tradition” or “Tradition”, every Catholic had better be a Traditionalist!!

Having said that, I don’t think it matters that some Traditionalists like to capitalize. That doesn’t mean they think everyone else is apostate. They might, but the name doesn’t carry that implication with me. If that is the way you mean it, be warned that some of us won’t take that as your meaning.

What I am trying to understand is how the two meanings of Tradition relate to each one of us. Tradition (with a capital T)which refers the the oral and written Traditions that where handed down by the apostles that gave the authority to the Church, with the Holy Spirit, to define what the Bible would be. And traditions which are the wonderful variety of beliefs and actions such as the Rosary, etc.

 

[chrisb]

What I am trying to understand is how the two meanings of Tradition relate to each one of us. Tradition (with a capital T)which refers the the oral and written Traditions that where handed down by the apostles that gave the authority to the Church, with the Holy Spirit, to define what the Bible would be. And traditions which are the wonderful variety of beliefs and actions such as the Rosary, etc.

Perhaps what you mean is ‘Holy’ Tradition which is the deposit of faith handed down to the disciples of Our Lord Jesus Christ? Ultimately I see this as an organic body of beliefs not completely articulated by the Schoolmen in objective rigid ritualism but has historically been assumed to be before Vatican II. Perhaps it is the retreat from such rigorism that your typical arch-conservatives/Traditionalists object… any takers?

 

[HelenRose]

Perhaps what you mean is ‘Holy’ Tradition which is the deposit of faith handed down to the disciples of Our Lord Jesus Christ? Ultimately I see this as an organic body of beliefs not completely articulated by the Schoolmen in objective rigid ritualism but has historically been assumed to be before Vatican II. Perhaps it is the retreat from such rigorism that your typical arch-conservatives/Traditionalists object… any takers?

Yes, Holy Tradition. That is what I meant with Tradition with a Capital T. Thank you.

Does the dogmas such as the “Assumption of Mary” also come under that concept of Holy Tradition. These are matters that must be believed in order to be a devout Catholic.

It is my understanding the tradition are beliefs that the Church teaches that are true but are not required. Such as the Rosary. The power of the Rosary is great and I personally love it with all my heart but if a person does not attach the same importance to the Rosary as I do, we are still in agreement about the dogma that must be believed.

I realize that I am rambling but I trying to figure this out.

 

[Spiller]

Since I started the thread, I suppose I ought let people where I am at in this ongoing debate. It is a debate that interests me.

IF:
1 = Rock Band Music for the Liturgy

 10 =  SSPX

  I think that I would probably be a 6.

I prefer the N.O. Mass but I understand the love for the T.L.M. Mass

I prefer Latin for the service music but don’t mind well done vernacular service music.

I prefer classical music to more modern music.

I object to people on both sides of the issue pushing the envelope or using the Mass as a means of furthering their various agendas.

I worship and sing in a small mission Church. The basic culture in this community is far from the culture where there are lofty cathedrals. Our talents are limited at best. But, we do try to do our best.

0 = schismatics = well, you know.

 

[Spiller]

Yes, Holy Tradition. That is what I meant with Tradition with a Capital T. Thank you.

Does the dogmas such as the “Assumption of Mary” also come under that concept of Holy Tradition. These are matters that must be believed in order to be a devout Catholic.

It is my understanding the tradition are beliefs that the Church teaches that are true but are not required. Such as the Rosary. The power of the Rosary is great and I personally love it with all my heart but if a person does not attach the same importance to the Rosary as I do, we are still in agreement about the dogma that must be believed.

I realize that I am rambling but I trying to figure this out.

Yikes. Hold on one moment. Belief in SACRED TRADITION (of which Sacred Scripture is a subset) is required of ALL Catholic Christians.

When people around here talk about Traditionalists they are talking about those that adhere to certain things (customs and disciplines) which are entirely different – but hopefully in addition to SACRED TRADITION.

 

[Spiller]

Perhaps what you mean is ‘Holy’ Tradition which is the deposit of faith handed down to the disciples of Our Lord Jesus Christ? Ultimately I see this as an organic body of beliefs not completely articulated by the Schoolmen in objective rigid ritualism but has historically been assumed to be before Vatican II. Perhaps it is the retreat from such rigorism that your typical arch-conservatives/Traditionalists object… any takers?

I think Traditionalists around here are more focused not on Sacred Tradition, but on certain customs, disciplines and traditions of man. As Catholics we must accept Sacred Tradition. We must not however accept or practice a great many certain customs, disciplines and traditions of man.

 

[Seminarian_Matt]

What is a Traditionalist Catholic?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Catholic

 

[EasterJoy]

0 = schismatics = well, you know.

Hmmm. I think we should be running two dimensions here, which would kind of give a square with four quandrants.

Let one line run left to right, based on preference based on whether something is more or less like it was 50 years ago…good, bad, or indifferent, as long as it does not strictly have to do with validity…that which is perceived to be most like the old days being on the right (as opposed to the old days, as they actually were).

Let one run bottom to top, with the top being spirit-and-letter-by-the-book-unassailably-according-to-rubrics and the bottom being I-can-be-the-judge-of-what-liturgy-is.

IMHO, you’d get (and this is up for debate) an *unequally populated *square something like this:

Bottom left quandrant, bottom left corner: The more novel the Mass, the better, particularly if elements are pulled from a non-Christian religion; durable sacred vessels lined with gold instead of thrown in the 8th grade pottery class are offensive, because more expensive and less personal; expecting song lyrics to have a connection to the Faith is arrogant; music that doesn’t make you tap your foot or clap your hands is stodgy; and let’s invite everyone who sees Jesus as a great Teacher to communion…Oh, and our presider, Mary Sue, will be receiving our rice-cake communion last, because that is more servant-like.

Bottom right quadrant, bottom right corner: We’re going to do an old Latin Mass, we can get the books on e-Bay, and we DON’T CARE what the Pope thinks! If he’s not with us, it is HE who is in schism!!! Or maybe a heretic! Or both!! And by the way, we’re going to give 50 lashes to any woman we think has a desire to set foot in the sanctuary, unless she’s vacuuming the carpet or changing out the flowers on Saturday morning. There will be a collection starting next Sunday. We are going to erect a grille to partition off the women’s section, so we can all pay attention properly, because without Eve, let’s face it, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

Middle of the bottom: A Mass is a Mass is a Mass! They are all beautiful and it’s no business of the Pope to get into it! Liturgy is the work of the people!! Don’t they have real work to do at the Vatican?

Top left quandrant, top left corner: "There is nothing that inspires me like a reverent NO, reverent priest, reverent laity, totally in keeping with the GIRM, Sacramentum Caritatis and all references therein, no cheating. I’m sorry, but Latin puts me to sleep. As for music, I’d much rather have a gifted guitarist than a poor organist! I find much of the newer music more inspiring and easier to sing."

Top right quadrant, top right corner: "There is no Mass that can approach the TLM, as long as it is in obedience to legitimate authority. I’ll go to the NO if that’s all that’s offered, I know it is valid, but it hardly feels like worship, compared to the prayers of the ages. And please!! If you don’t have an organ and a good organist, either sing a capella or else be silent."

Middle of the top: If it is reverent, if it is approved by Rome, if the music is written and performed with skill and fidelity to the teachings of the Church, if it is fully obedient to legitimate authority, then to me, that is a good Mass.

**I think that anything along the top of the square is legitimate.
I think that anything along the bottom of the square is illegitimate.

Comments?**

 

[cam100]

Hmmm. I think we should be running two dimensions here, which would kind of give a square with four quandrants.

Let one line run left to right, based on preference based on whether something is more or less like it was 50 years ago…good, bad, or indifferent, as long as it does not strictly have to do with validity…that which is perceived to be most like the old days being on the right (as opposed to the old days, as they actually were).

Let one run bottom to top, with the top being spirit-and-letter-by-the-book-unassailably-according-to-rubrics and the bottom being I-can-be-the-judge-of-what-liturgy-is.

…

As one with background in statistics and analysis, I love your representation! To me, it captures the situation perfectly!

 

[Spiller]

What is a Traditionalist Catholic?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Catholic

If you actually believe that Wikipedia definition then “Traditional Catholics” sound like just another form of dissidents.

 

[HelenRose]

I think Traditionalists around here are more focused not on Sacred Tradition, but on certain customs, disciplines and traditions of man. As Catholics we must accept Sacred Tradition. We must not however accept or practice a great many certain customs, disciplines and traditions of man.

I am starting to a least get a handle on definitions. Holy Tradition and Sacred Tradition are the same thing. Probably for this discussion “Sacred Tradition” is the best expression. From now on I will not use the expression “Holy Tradition” even though it is the same thing.

Now for the word “tradition” we need to come to an understanding about the different uses of that word.

I think that what you said “we must not however accept or practice a great many certain customs, disciplines and traditions of man.” This statement needs to be clarified. “traditions of man” versus “traditions of the Church”

There are many “traditions of man” that must not be accepted.

There are many “traditions of the Church” that the Church recognizes as valid and “may” be accepted but are not necessary for salvation - the Rosary is a good example of that.

So for this discussion so far we have three important terms to deal with.

Sacred Tradition - Tradition on which our Church was built and must be believed in order to be a Catholic. This would include, not only that which the Fathers of Church taught, but revealed teachings through the centuries - the teaching of the Assumption of Mary for instance.

traditions of the Church - traditions that the Church has determed are valid and can be believed with confidence but are not necessary for salvation.

traditions of man - traditions that the Church teaches are erroneous and can not be believed or practiced.

Let me add one more term in regard to the word tradition.
local traditions or customs - these would be beliefs and practices that are not contrary to Church teaching but reflect practices that are held and loved by various cultures but are traditions or practices you would not find through out the entire world.

There may other terms in regard to the word tradition but so far we have four.

So here is where the debate can be focused.

We look at a specific belief or practice we try to come to an understanding as to which definition of the word “tradition” this belief or practice belongs.

(My purpose for this discussion is not to convince anyone to approach the Church in the same way I do. It is my hope to clarify what is being said. So often in a heated debate people will actually be in accord with one another but since they have different concepts of words they will arguing over the meaning of those words.)

 

[EasterJoy]

If you actually believe that Wikipedia definition then “Traditional Catholics” sound like just another form of dissidents.

Actually, I thought the article made it fairly clear that those who call themselves Traditional (“traditional” being reserved by that author for those who merely hold to the teachings of the Church) include both those who are in obedience to Rome and those who are not in obedience to Rome, as well as a third group that bluntly believes Rome is herself heretical or schismatic:

“Traditionalist Catholics are Roman Catholics, or members of groups outside of official Roman Catholicism, who believe there should be a restoration of many or all of the liturgical forms, public and private devotions and presentation of Catholic teachings which prevailed in the Roman Catholic Church before the Second Vatican Council” (underline mine: EasterJoy)

 

[ethelzguy]

I think “Othrodox” or “Traditional” Catholics are those who only go as far to 1570 after the Council of Trent. This council was in response to the Protestant Reformation. So, any modern attempt to reform our church is seen by those as Protestant influences into our church. Some of them unfortunately fail to look past 1570 If they did they will find out that many, if not all current changes have actually had biblical and traditional precedent. Here’s a list of some: Communion in the hand, Charismatic gifts, Deaconesses, vernacular, different musical instruments in liturgy, liturgical dance, lay ministers of the Eucharist, sign of peace, more lay participation in the Mass, these are just a few.

What are my personal beliefs? First, I embrace ALL of Catholicism from Jesus ministry to Pope Benedict XVI. Secondly, I believe in what the Nicene says. Thirdly, I believe Jesus. Fourthly, the bible is the Word of God and needs to be read. Fifth, I believe there is room for both the TLM and the New Mass. There is reverence in both. If they are done properly.

I have more but I won’t try and fit it into one long post. When the situation arises and time allows me, I’ll come back to answer some more.

What a wonderful post. I will be 71 this summer, and have lived through Vatican II, 1969, etc, etc…I’m totally content with most all of it.

I read some of the “traditionalist” positions on this forum, and I am astounded! I think myself to be very traditional, religiously, socially, and politically. But, by some of the standards put forth here, I am some sort of lost soul

 

[Spiller]

I think that what you said “we must not however accept or practice a great many certain customs, disciplines and traditions of man.” This statement needs to be clarified. “traditions of man” versus “traditions of the Church”

Not really. But some traditions are disciplines or customs of the Church that while they are traditions of man, the could also be called “Church traditions.”

There are many “traditions of the Church” that the Church recognizes as valid and “may” be accepted but are not necessary for salvation - the Rosary is a good example of that.

Lot more obvious ones like priestly celibacy.

Sacred Tradition - Tradition on which our Church was built and must be believed in order to be a Catholic. This would include, not only that which the Fathers of Church taught, but revealed teachings through the centuries - the teaching of the Assumption of Mary for instance.

The CCC gives a pretty good idea of what constitutes Sacred Tradition.

traditions of man - traditions that the Church teaches are erroneous and can not be believed or practiced.

Wrong. I can practice MANY traditions – such a family traditions that are just fine so long as they do not contravene what the Church directs. The wearing of hats in church by women is now nothing more than a man-made, or rather man-perpetuated tradition – it ceased being a Church discipline.

Further the example you gave of a Rosary would in no way to limited to “traditional Catholics” – not that you insinuated such.

 

[sphilomena]

This whole thing just shows again the confusion over terminology. We need to distinguish between those who are in communion with the Church and those who are not!

Maybe we can’t really put labels on people unless their stance is obvious.