What is the point of tradition (little t)?

[YoungTradCath]

Reading the first page of this thread the only thought I had was so many posters creating false dichotomies… In so many Latins’ language it’s implicitly assumed that you either love liturgical tradition or you love God. Perhaps those are the kinds of ideas that have to be propagated to dispose of ancient liturgical tradition and form entirely new constructs.

I abhor the false dichotomy of, “You love fancy-schmancy ceremonies and you hate God and poor people, or you love God and poor people and you hate liturgy!” Usually it isn’t explicit, but implicit.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Do not criticize. Criticising is not part of Catholic tradition, even though it may be a custom that some people may have developed on their own.

Please don’t do it here. It’s unpleasant and distracts from the flow of the thread.

 

[Rich_C]

The bold at the bottom is a summary of my argument, but I’ll go point by point first.

It is not just a few examples. Example after example has been given.

No, just several people have given the same example (rise of the friars) several times. It’s still just one example.

The destruction of the Temple in 70AD was a violent and sudden event in Judaism and Christianity but one that defined both for twenty centuries. Christians used to participate in temple worship before the temple was destroyed, offering sacrifice and participating in the liturgical prayers of the Jews while also celebrating the Eucharist in private homes. Talk about tradition! Temple worship was 1500 year tradition and it was gone in a day.

Tradition is what has been passed down from the holy Apostles. Decisions they made during their lifetimes constitute the very beginning of Tradition, not a change.

The permanent diaconate faded out of existence over a 500 year period and ceased to exist after 1000AD. It was restored in 1967 with a stroke of a pen and many reacted violently to this “new” order of clerics without realizing that it was a restoration of a tradition which is documented in the Bible.

Yes, the Church got her biggest revision yet in the 1960s, much more than the diaconate. But my argument was always about the period before the 20th century as I said several times, and how we no longer have the conservative attitude our ancestors had for 19 centuries.

Western monasticism had deteriorated over many centuries, politicized and beholding to rich benefactors. 21 Benedictine monks walked into the swamps of France in 1098 and reformed all of western monasticism in a few short years.

Fair enough, perhaps this counts as example #2. But perhaps not (like if they didn’t change the monastic tradition, just got people back into it again).

The reform of the Liturgy of the Hours in 1910 was rapid. One day everyone used one schema and the next day they threw the books in the garbage and started using another.

Some priests had to be forced to use Gregorian Chant.

20th century example, so it actually proves my point that it wasn’t until the 20th century that rapid change became normalized.

Example after example can be shown. God works through history even in the Church. Sometimes things are slow, sometimes rapid. Speed at which things change are not an indication of their merit or God’s will that any particular change happen.

Again, you’ve given a couple of pre-20th century examples. I guess we could conclude that if I made my point absolute (i.e. there was never any rapid change ever until 1900) I would be wrong but I’m arguing about norms. So let’s leave aside the strawman exteme, ok?

Finding 2-3 examples of rapid change in 1,900 years proves my case–that it was not the norm for the Church to readily discard tradition.

And–and this is a major point of my argument–all your pre-20th century examples involve the adoption of new practices. * Not the suppression of old traditions handed down.*

**The occasional adoption of new practices is super Catholic. I mean, it took 1,000 to piece together the Tridentine Mass for example. It wasn’t created in 1570 the way the Missal of St. Paul was created betwen 1966-1969. That’s why the Faith is always new, but always seemed ancient, too.

But the suppression of things handed down is common now and was almost unknown in Catholicism until 100 years ago.**

At some point our attitude toward change did a near reverse. That’s what I was telling the OP.

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t know about Dominicans or Carmelites, because they had their own rites. Franciscans used the same Roman Canon, but our friars (until the new EP came out) included Francis, Clare and Joseph among the saints. Other than that, there was no discernable difference. I don’t think most people even noticed the saints, because the Canon was said very quickly.

Br.JR, that’s interesting. I wonder when the Roman Canon was formed in the early centuries, the design was such that it would allow saints/martyrs to be added. Is that possible? John XXIII clearly saw that he could add St. Joseph without causing a major disruption in the Mass; yet he was being criticized for changing the very Canon which Trent and Quo Primum protected.

 

[TimothyH]

At some point our attitude toward change did a near reverse. That’s what I was telling the OP.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias

-Tim-

 

[JReducation]

Br.JR, that’s interesting. I wonder when the Roman Canon was formed in the early centuries, the design was such that it would allow saints/martyrs to be added. Is that possible? John XXIII clearly saw that he could add St. Joseph without causing a major disruption in the Mass; yet he was being criticized for changing the very Canon which Trent and Quo Primum protected.

The Roman Canon begins to take a familiar form around the the year 200 CE. By familiar I mean a form that we would recognize today. But it was never static. Monks kept trying to work with the wording to make it flow better.

Trent and Quo Primum have been over accentuated by a group of people who believe that the Roman Canon is an untouchable revelation, which is not the case at all. It’s one of several anaforas. We just don’t call it by that term in the Latin world. There is one anafora that doesn’t even have the words of consecration, yet it’s valid.

The Council Fathers at Trent knew these existed. It would be unreasonable to think that Trent was trying to lock in the Canon as one would lock in the Canon of Scripture. That’s why we have to look at historical context. Trent was tying to streamline the liturgy of the time. There were many rites and forms within the Latin Church. The Council kept the Roman Canon because of its antiquity and apostolic tradition. But it was never the intent of Trent or Quo Primum to bind any future pope to the Roman Canon.

I think this is what “burns” popes like Pope John XXIII, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and now Pope Francis. They politely try to ignore the rabid whining and finger pointing done by those who would try to use Trent and Quo Primum to lock them in. No one has the right to lock a pope into a box.

I’m not sure what it’s going to take from some Catholics to get this. Maybe it will take a few rolling heads. Maybe we’ll get a pope who will put his foot down and say as my grandmother use to say, “It is because I said so and that’s that. Live with it.”

This brings up a conversation that I had with one of my older confreres about a week or two ago. We were chatting about Pope Francis’ style. This is a friar who has been around for many years. He’s 89, a member of my former community. He made an observation that I thought was very insightful. I’ll try to quote as best as I can recall his wording.

“People don’t really understand Pope Francis, because people don’t understand absolute authority. But if there ever was a post Vatican II pope who will go down in history for slamming his foot down and running the Church and exercising all of his muscle and power to the chagrin and frustration of the curia, clergy and laity, it will be Pope Francis. The man does exactly what he believes is needed and sleeps quite soundly. I don’t understand why people say that we need a tougher pope.”

I thought about this for a long time that night. Now that you have brought up Trent, Quo Primum and John XXIII, I am reminded of this observation. People can jump up and down, beg, bargain and threaten, but when you have a pope who is a truly authoritarian, he will do as he wishes. So the rest of us may as well calm down and go along for the ride. I’m reminded of Clement of Rome. He was another pope who smiled, waved, and probably kissed babies too; but took no prisoners. Go back and read his bio. A very interesting man. Charming as could be and with a spine of steel.

Just a PS. I know that Augustine was not a pope, but he was another who was charming and had a wonderful sense of humor, but took no prisoners. Read the complete Confessions. He’s hilarious in certain parts and then comes in for the kill in the next paragraph. He does it deliberately. He positions you.

 

[Jon_S_1]

The Roman Canon begins to take a familiar form around the the year 200 CE. By familiar I mean a form that we would recognize today. But it was never static. Monks kept trying to work with the wording to make it flow better.

Trent and Quo Primum have been over accentuated by a group of people who believe that the Roman Canon is an untouchable revelation, which is not the case at all. It’s one of several anaforas. We just don’t call it by that term in the Latin world. There is one anafora that doesn’t even have the words of consecration, yet it’s valid.

The Council Fathers at Trent knew these existed. It would be unreasonable to think that Trent was trying to lock in the Canon as one would lock in the Canon of Scripture. That’s why we have to look at historical context. Trent was tying to streamline the liturgy of the time. There were many rites and forms within the Latin Church. The Council kept the Roman Canon because of its antiquity and apostolic tradition. But it was never the intent of Trent or Quo Primum to bind any future pope to the Roman Canon.

I think this is what “burns” popes like Pope John XXIII, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and now Pope Francis. They politely try to ignore the rabid whining and finger pointing done by those who would try to use Trent and Quo Primum to lock them in. No one has the right to lock a pope into a box.

I’m not sure what it’s going to take from some Catholics to get this. Maybe it will take a few rolling heads. Maybe we’ll get a pope who will put his foot down and say as my grandmother use to say, “It is because I said so and that’s that. Live with it.”

This brings up a conversation that I had with one of my older confreres about a week or two ago. We were chatting about Pope Francis’ style. This is a friar who has been around for many years. He’s 89, a member of my former community. He made an observation that I thought was very insightful. I’ll try to quote as best as I can recall his wording.

“People don’t really understand Pope Francis, because people don’t understand absolute authority. But if there ever was a post Vatican II pope who will go down in history for slamming his foot down and running the Church and exercising all of his muscle and power to the chagrin and frustration of the curia, clergy and laity, it will be Pope Francis. The man does exactly what he believes is needed and sleeps quite soundly. I don’t understand why people say that we need a tougher pope.”

I thought about this for a long time that night. Now that you have brought up Trent, Quo Primum and John XXIII, I am reminded of this observation. People can jump up and down, beg, bargain and threaten, but when you have a pope who is a truly authoritarian, he will do as he wishes. So the rest of us may as well calm down and go along for the ride. I’m reminded of Clement of Rome. He was another pope who smiled, waved, and probably kissed babies too; but took no prisoners. Go back and read his bio. A very interesting man. Charming as could be and with a spine of steel.

Just a PS. I know that Augustine was not a pope, but he was another who was charming and had a wonderful sense of humor, but took no prisoners. Read the complete Confessions. He’s hilarious in certain parts and then comes in for the kill in the next paragraph. He does it deliberately. He positions you.

Br JR

I have learned so much from your comments on this thread. Thanks for taking the time to articulate all of this.

Jon

 

[felsguy]

Tradition is what has been passed down from the holy Apostles. Decisions they made during their lifetimes constitute the very beginning of Tradition, not a change.

Read the title of this thread again. What has been passed down from the Apostles is Sacred or Apostolic Tradition (the big T) which is very different from traditions (the little t). The latter are theological, liturgical, disciplinary, and devotional beliefs, customs and practices which developed within the Church, often in local churches, over time. Apostolic Tradition is immutable. Traditions (little t) can come and go.

 

[felsguy]

Tradition is what has been passed down from the holy Apostles. Decisions they made during their lifetimes constitute the very beginning of Tradition, not a change.

Read the title of this thread again. What has been passed down from the Apostles is Sacred or Apostolic Tradition (the big T) which is very different from traditions (the little t). The latter are theological, liturgical, disciplinary, and devotional beliefs, customs and practices which developed within the Church, often in local churches, over time. Apostolic Tradition is immutable. Traditions (little t) can come and go.

 

[MorEphrem]

“tradition” exists simply because Tradition does not exist in the abstract. It’s, simply put, the subjective interpretation of the objective truth, hence why it is important why we retain our founded traditions that are tried and true for millennia and the Eastern Churches see the Latin Church’s abandonment of the old form a sad development. To simply decide that tradition can be changed en masse is sad; Tradition does not exist in a vacuum, and nor does tradition, but to adopt an inorganic set of “tradition” on the spot says otherwise. This has led to the mentality that just because tradition is not Tradition it has somehow become dispensable or valueless. tradition is an indicator of Tradition, so while tradition might change to do so inorganically causes issues of accuracy, sincerity, etc.

 

[ProVobis]

“tradition” exists simply because Tradition does not exist in the abstract. It’s, simply put, the subjective interpretation of the objective truth, hence why it is important why we retain our founded traditions that are tried and true for millennia and the Eastern Churches see the Latin Church’s abandonment of the old form a sad development. To simply decide that tradition can be changed en masse is sad; Tradition does not exist in a vacuum, and nor does tradition, but to adopt an inorganic set of “tradition” on the spot says otherwise. This has led to the mentality that just because tradition is not Tradition it has somehow become dispensable or valueless. tradition is an indicator of Tradition, so while tradition might change to do so inorganically causes issues of accuracy, sincerity, etc.

There appears to be a lot of truth to that, especially from a psychological and philosophical point of view. Good post.

 

[YoungTradCath]

“tradition” exists simply because Tradition does not exist in the abstract. It’s, simply put, the subjective interpretation of the objective truth, hence why it is important why we retain our founded traditions that are tried and true for millennia and the Eastern Churches see the Latin Church’s abandonment of the old form a sad development. To simply decide that tradition can be changed en masse is sad; Tradition does not exist in a vacuum, and nor does tradition, but to adopt an inorganic set of “tradition” on the spot says otherwise. This has led to the mentality that just because tradition is not Tradition it has somehow become dispensable or valueless. tradition is an indicator of Tradition, so while tradition might change to do so inorganically causes issues of accuracy, sincerity, etc.

This is one of the clearest ways I have seen it put. 1. Tradition does not exist in a vacuum, nor does tradition. And I would add: 2. Humans are not computerized robots. We need sensual/experiential/beautiful things, yes, to confirm and help our faith.

 

[malphono]

MorEphrem;11362442:

“tradition” exists simply because Tradition does not exist in the abstract. It’s, simply put, the subjective interpretation of the objective truth, hence why it is important why we retain our founded traditions that are tried and true for millennia and the Eastern Churches see the Latin Church’s abandonment of the old form a sad development. To simply decide that tradition can be changed en masse is sad; Tradition does not exist in a vacuum, and nor does tradition, but to adopt an inorganic set of “tradition” on the spot says otherwise. This has led to the mentality that just because tradition is not Tradition it has somehow become dispensable or valueless. tradition is an indicator of Tradition, so while tradition might change to do so inorganically causes issues of accuracy, sincerity, etc.

This is one of the clearest ways I have seen it put. 1. Tradition does not exist in a vacuum, nor does tradition. And I would add: 2. Humans are not computerized robots. We need sensual/experiential/beautiful things, yes, to confirm and help our faith.

Yes, and with reference to #2 I’d suggest to add that we need our connection with our history – (T)(t)radition – too. But indeed, (T)(t)radition does not exist in a vacuum. Hence why I rarely make the upper-case/lower case distinction (except in matters which are strictly of a local nature, but that’s a different matter). The two (“T” and “t”) are really inextricably linked.

I don’t know that it was ever decided to “change” tradition (upper case or lower case notwithstanding) as much as it was to simply dispense with it in favor of innovation. Yet I’m reminded here of Benedict XVI’s instruction to the bishops accompanying Summorum Pontificum.

What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.

A defense of (T)(t)radition if I’ve ever heard one.