Why do people care so much about "Small t" traditions in the RCC?

[thewanderer]

To the answer the OP

A lot of it has to do with the fact that people are not isolated, either in time or from one another. It seems that most people today think of themselves as an individual as if that meant that they were cut off from all other individuals, as if who they are is in no way dependant on where they came from or those around them. That just simply isn’t true. Who we are is shaped so much by not only our past but by others around us. Our relationships to other people are not somthing external to us, they are a part of who we are. I am a daughter, a sister, a fiance, and a friend. Similarly, our ancestry and the culture we come from, along with the traditions associated with that culture is also a part of who we are. So a complete and sudden break from traditions is, in essence, a complete and sudden break from who we actually are. Now, that doesn’t mean that traditions can never change, or evolve, or be left behind, that of course happens naturally over time. Just as when two people marry they often bring familial traditions from their family of origin with them, while also modifiying them, leaving some behind and beginning new traditions that fit well with them. But even in a case like this the traditions had a reason for such a change, there was need for the blending of two different lines of traditions. If withing one family, they developed all sorts of familial traditions, got icecream on sunday aftermass as a family, spent friday evenings playing charades, opening Christmas presents after the vigil mass etc etc and then all of a sudden, the parents decided that they were going to suppress every one of these traditions and instead try and impose all sorts of other ones in its place. It would be very disorienting and upsetting for the children. The traditions which were and are a part of who they are as a part of family have all just been removed and destroyed and now they are left trying to pick up the pieces. Thats kind of what happened after Vatican II. And because of that, because many people suffered the ill effects of having their traditions completely turned around they become very suspicious of having any traditions change or develop or be replaced. They are afraid that it will lead to a simlarly disorienting experience. So they have created a culture where people cling even more tightly to their traditions. They do not want either themselves or others to go through such an experience again. It is a very understandable reaction. At least, thats my take on it. I hope this helps.

 

[YoungTradCath]

The nature of being human requires that we have a corporate system of outwardly recognizable characteristics that remain relatively constant. This system demarcates, identifies, and reassures. This is necessary for a few reasons:

1. It gives outward identity to people and their “stuff.” In this case, “stuff” is churches, liturgy, clothes, and so on.
2. It reassures other people.
3. It reassures ourselves when we reflect upon ourselves and introspect. This seems very important, psychologically-speaking.

If you notice, throughout human history, successful human organizations have usually had strong outward identities. As I’ve already said, this isn’t only for other people, it’s also for ourselves. It’s very important for self-identity.

Now, even within an organization there can be differences. An Air Force TACP dresses differently than a Paralegal. But there always have to be things that unify.

 

[QuestingKnight]

Traditions got to be traditions because they were always done. They were always done because they had meaning and they served a purpose.

For a religion to change traditions implies they have lost their meaning or changed it or people no longer like or want what they imply.

Personally, I’m very tired of the auto-destruct course we’ve been on. The only good thing is that when you’ve stripped a rite right down to its bare essentials and stripped out churches of their symbolism, there’s not much father to go.

Except to strip out the people!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You should look up JREducations recent posts. He explains this in a much clearer way as well as in more detail, but, essentially, the point is that because of the solemn vows taken by Pope Francis he has to live every role he takes up in the spirit of the Jesuits. To do otherwise would be to fail to live out the Solemn Vows he took in the past. So, when he takes on the role and office of Pope he is under the obligation to live out this office through the Jesuit spirit, to do otherwise, to live it out in the spirit of the secular popes would be to ignore the Solemn Vows he has made. Thats a big deal. Yes, what he is doing ought to be explained so that people can come to understand it, otherwise, as you say, it could cause confusion. However, the Pope is not doing this for some insignificant reason, he is doing it because to do otherwise would be a betrayel of his Solemn Vows. That is more than enough reason to do what he is doing. So, the solution is not to betray his Solemn Vows (which would in turn cause confusion among religious about what he is doing, as keeping their solemn vows and living in the spirit of their solemn vows is an extremely important part of religious life) but instead to explain to people what is happening, to clarify and teach.

Are you talking about the Ignatian/Jesuit spirituality that has formed Pope Francis or are you talking about a positive juridicial requirement? If you mean the latter, well,
I have nothing, but respect for Br. Jr., but even if he said it, I do not believe that canon lawyers or theologians would agree. The Holy Father is the visible head of the Church. He’s the Supreme Legislator (one of his actual juridicial titles) and the final judge beyond whom there is no appeal (except to Almighty God, obviously). He is the Jesuit Father General’s superior and I doubt he’s still subject to those vows, except the vow to chastity observed by all priests of the Latin Rite not exempted by the Pope (the Anglican Use/Ordinariate). He isn’t required to obey anyone else, he isn’t obligated to observe poverty.

 

[OraLabora]

Are you talking about the Ignatian/Jesuit spirituality that has formed Pope Francis or are you talking about a positive juridicial requirement? If you mean the latter, well,
I have nothing, but respect for Br. Jr., but even if he said it, I do not believe that canon lawyers or theologians would agree. The Holy Father is the visible head of the Church. He’s the Supreme Legislator (one of his actual juridicial titles) and the final judge beyond whom there is no appeal (except to Almighty God, obviously). He is the Jesuit Father General’s superior and I doubt he’s still subject to those vows, except the vow to chastity observed by all priests of the Latin Rite not exempted by the Pope (the Anglican Use/Ordinariate). He isn’t required to obey anyone else, he isn’t obligated to observe poverty.

Diocesan priests do not make a vow of chastity. They make a promise of celibacy. Regular priests do include chastity as part of their vows, either explicitly or implicitly (for the Benedictines, they vow obedience and stability; obedience implies chastity as chastity is part of the rule they follow).

A solemn vow cannot be broken without dispensation from the pope. Which makes this situation unique, in that technically, I suppose he can dispense himself. However he is not required to. He has given every indication in fact, that he does not wish to.

He did meet with his superior general today, and explicitly ask him to treat him as any other Jesuit.

Again, why on earth would we want to question and criticize the express wishes of the Holy Father in this matter?

We have a Jesuit pope who makes it clear he will not exempt himself from his vows. This deserves our respect, not our scorn. I’m sure this will present some unique circumstances from time to time. The Holy Spirit guided the cardinals towards this man. I’m sure the Holy Spirit will guide the Holy Father through his papacy, and I fully trust that the Holy Spirit will help Francis shepherd us through any difficulties this situation may present along the way. One thing we can trust is the promise of the Keys. Either that promise is right, or if it’s wrong, our whole faith is built on a foundation of sand instead of rock.

His spirituality might not be for everyone, but we can be sure that the deposit of faith is safe in his hands and that is what truly matters.

 

[thewanderer]

Are you talking about the Ignatian/Jesuit spirituality that has formed Pope Francis or are you talking about a positive juridicial requirement? If you mean the latter, well,
I have nothing, but respect for Br. Jr., but even if he said it, I do not believe that canon lawyers or theologians would agree. The Holy Father is the visible head of the Church. He’s the Supreme Legislator (one of his actual juridicial titles) and the final judge beyond whom there is no appeal (except to Almighty God, obviously). He is the Jesuit Father General’s superior and I doubt he’s still subject to those vows, except the vow to chastity observed by all priests of the Latin Rite not exempted by the Pope (the Anglican Use/Ordinariate). He isn’t required to obey anyone else, he isn’t obligated to observe poverty.

This isn’t really the topic of this thread, so I’m not going to try and get into it any more here. But please do go search JReducation’s posts. They explain it much better than I can, perhaps you should even post your questions/objections in one of the threads he is currently talking about all this in. I know that I am not doing a sufficient job of explaining it, but it would certainly be premature for you to judge against this without first listening to what JReducation is actually saying and making an effort to fully understand the point he is trying to get across.

 

[Eufrosnia]

You should look up JREducations recent posts. He explains this in a much clearer way as well as in more detail, but, essentially, the point is that because of the solemn vows taken by Pope Francis he has to live every role he takes up in the spirit of the Jesuits. To do otherwise would be to fail to live out the Solemn Vows he took in the past. So, when he takes on the role and office of Pope he is under the obligation to live out this office through the Jesuit spirit, to do otherwise, to live it out in the spirit of the secular popes would be to ignore the Solemn Vows he has made. Thats a big deal. Yes, what he is doing ought to be explained so that people can come to understand it, otherwise, as you say, it could cause confusion. However, the Pope is not doing this for some insignificant reason, he is doing it because to do otherwise would be a betrayel of his Solemn Vows. That is more than enough reason to do what he is doing. So, the solution is not to betray his Solemn Vows (which would in turn cause confusion among religious about what he is doing, as keeping their solemn vows and living in the spirit of their solemn vows is an extremely important part of religious life) but instead to explain to people what is happening, to clarify and teach.

He has also taken a vow to obey his superior in all things I presume. But after becoming the Pope he does not. Why? Because he now holds that office and he follows the rules and traditions of the office.

This whole idea of “Oh he took those vows, and that is why he can’t” is not really that great of an excuse in that sense, no?

 

[Eufrosnia]

How then, do you propose that Pope Francis reconciles aspects of his papacy that run contrary to his vows? Solemn vows are solemn vows. The “traditions” of the papacy cannot supersede a solemn vow to live in the spirit of poverty.

Particularly since the papal traditions that many seem to be taking him to task for are more of a matter of decorum than conferring any kind of actual authority. They give the appearance of authority only.

I think his acts, in trying to remain close to his vows, will in fact confer truer authority. Fidelity to his vows is probably so important to him, that he’s willing to risk “confusion” by turning down some of the trappings of the papacy. It has deeper meaning, and conveys a true sense of authority, that is he is acting as a servant to the one in true authority over His Church, Jesus Christ.

In any case, people can opine on this as much as they want. He will do it his way, and we have no choice or say in the matter. Why does this upset folks so much?

But that is clearly not happening. Everyone who has been interpreting the actions have decided that this means a change in the power of the Papacy, that he is about to implement a weird notion of collegiality, just be a Bishop of ROME or something along those lines.

So it clearly does not convey the truth very clearly.

As for vows, I am not even sure what the problem here is. Doesn’t he revoke the vow he made to follow his superiors?

 

[OraLabora]

But that is clearly not happening. Everyone who has been interpreting the actions have decided that this means a change in the power of the Papacy, that he is about to implement a weird notion of collegiality, just be a Bishop of ROME or something along those lines.

So it clearly does not convey the truth very clearly.

He’s been pope for how long now? Barely a week? And we’ve not had a regular pope in how long? Give it time. Clearly however, his words on helping the poor, etc. are authoritative because he doesn’t just talk about it, he lives by his words.

As for vows, I am not even sure what the problem here is. Doesn’t he revoke the vow he made to follow his superiors?

That’s a good question, Brother JR would have to chime in here. The vow he makes is to God, and is one of obedience to God as well, but in community life, the representative of God to the community is the superior. So at the very least he is still commanded to obey God.

I’m guessing this statute of Canon Law already applied when he became bishop:

RELIGIOUS RAISED TO THE EPISCOPATE

Can. 705 A religious raised to the episcopate remains a member of his institute but is subject only to the Roman Pontiff by virtue of the vow of obedience and is not bound by obligations which he himself prudently judges cannot be reconciled with his condition.

So indeed he would be freed from the obligation to obey his superior, but I don’t know if it frees him from the obligation to live out the spirituality of the order. At the very least though, it gives him the freedom to chose to continue living by that spirituality and to make it better known. Clearly he is showing us that that is indeed his choice.

And we have no other option than to accept it. In my case I not only accept it, I celebrate it. I think it’s what the Church needs at this point in its history. After all the scandals, the Church and more importantly the Curia, needs to have an encounter with genuine but simple holiness, and I think Pope Francis is a very holy man.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

He’s been pope for how long now? Barely a week? And we’ve not had a regular pope in how long? Give it time. Clearly however, his words on helping the poor, etc. are authoritative because he doesn’t just talk about it, he lives by his words.

That’s a good question, Brother JR would have to chime in here. The vow he makes is to God, and is one of obedience to God as well, but in community life, the representative of God to the community is the superior. So at the very least he is still commanded to obey God.

I’m guessing this statute of Canon Law already applied when he became bishop:

So indeed he would be freed from the obligation to obey his superior, but I don’t know if it frees him from the obligation to live out the spirituality of the order. At the very least though, it gives him the freedom to chose to continue living by that spirituality and to make it better known. Clearly he is showing us that that is indeed his choice.

And we have no other option than to accept it. In my case I not only accept it, I celebrate it. I think it’s what the Church needs at this point in its history. After all the scandals, the Church and more importantly the Curia, needs to have an encounter with genuine but simple holiness, and I think Pope Francis is a very holy man.

The above is what I was trying to articulate as regards the pontiff and his relationship with the Jesuits, as least as far as canon law goes.

 

[Margy1948]

First of all, I don’t care what the Pope wears, ESPECIALLY THIS POPE!! For me, he’s just fine and if he decides that he wants to wear a suit and tie or jeans and sandals, well, there’s something about him that I value so much that his clothing is irrelevant, whatever makes him happy.

That’s not how I interpreted ‘small’ traditions. My Godmother is a very devout Catholic, like most Catholics she has her opinions about the Church but she is a happy Catholic and she likes to pay quick visits to church on weekdays, not essential or required but, if she’s in the area, she likes the little visit. It’s her tradition.

She also loves the Little Flower and St Anthony and prays to them all the time and they respond, not graphically, but answering her prayers, the rain stops for the baby shower, and starts right afterwards, the missing eyeglasses are found. Another not required but comforting tradition. When she made a novena to St Teresa she received Right to Life roses in the mail from one of her nieces.

She did the First Fridays, she makes novenas, she keeps home made chocolate chip cookies in her freezer for the after Mass coffees. That’s what I thought the small T traditions were.

 

[thewanderer]

The above is what I was trying to articulate as regards the pontiff and his relationship with the Jesuits, as least as far as canon law goes.

I guess I don’t entirely understand, he doesn’t have to obey any other human, but hasn’t he still taken a solemn vow of poverty? Or am I completely mistaken here.

 

[ProVobis]

Thank God we had the 8th century Irish monks, without which we wouldn’t have any small t’s or any other lower case letters. Or this conversation, either.

 

[TimothyH]

And with that, I salute you…

I have learned a lot about the Jesuits in the last week. Now if only he could clean up the universities!

To the OP, I say 't’raditions for so many of us who lean to the traditionalist side help nurture our spiritual lives, and we wish the benefits of them on all our brothers and sisters who are starving for it. I magine how much more real the communion of saints must feel when we share the same 't’raditions that a lot of them shared!

Traditionalists seem to think that everyone else is starving, and that everyone else doesn’t share the same "t"traditions as the communion of saints.

Many of the saints never chanted gregorian chant and couldn’t speak a word of Latin. St. Francis sold he missal so that he could feed people who were starving and his friars had to walk 3 miles to go to Mass becuse they had no missal. All the saints, whether they faced toward the priest or away from the priest, all of them are in Heaven. One of the things I learned in my spiritual journey is that I should never assume that I know how pleasing someone elses soul is to God.

Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him. (John 14:23)

Conforming our life to the life of Christ is what gets us to heaven. That’s what the saints did, and thats what got them through life and thats what got them into heaven - living the life of Jesus. One of the things I learned on my spiritual journey is to never assume tthat I know how well someone obeys the commandments and how close therefor, God holds any one of us.

Our spiritual lives are just fine, and if not then God is just being patient. And the Eucharist we feed on is the same Eucharist you feed on and so please don’t worry about us being fed. If we stopped obsessing about traditions and obsessed instead about how pleasing our souls are to God, then Catholicism would be unstoppable.

-Tim-

 

[JustaServant]

And with that, I salute you…

I have learned a lot about the Jesuits in the last week. Now if only he could clean up the universities!

To the OP, I say 't’raditions for so many of us who lean to the traditionalist side help nurture our spiritual lives, and we wish the benefits of them on all our brothers and sisters who are starving for it. I magine how much more real the communion of saints must feel when we share the same 't’raditions that a lot of them shared!

The Traditionalist “side”. Gee I always thought we were all Catholics.
And uh…what makes you think those of us who are not on that “side” are “starving” in their spiritual lives?

 

[WildCatholic]

The Traditionalist “side”. Gee I always thought we were all Catholics.

Thank you, we are all Catholics. I’m not trying to be relatavist, but in the sense of the church, its not right to say that traditionalists are better or worse.That would be like saying that the Roman rite is better than the Eastern rite. I think as long as one is in communion and attends a legitimate mass, and wants it without abuses, that they are Catholic.

 

[QuestingKnight]

…

Many of the saints never chanted gregorian chant and couldn’t speak a word of Latin. St. Francis sold he missal so that he could feed people who were starving and his friars had to walk 3 miles to go to Mass becuse they had no missal. All the saints, whether they faced toward the priest or away from the priest, all of them are in Heaven. One of the things I learned in my spiritual journey is that I should never assume that I know how pleasing someone elses soul is to God.

…

-Tim-

It doesn’t follow from this that the iconoclasm that has occurred in the past 60 years is necessary or good. It’s one thing for ascetics to build a bare church. It’s quite another for a diocesan bishop to strip out an existing one or for a college of bishops to drastically re-write a ‘Holy’ Mass. If you want to honour God, offering ‘less’ is a strange way for a moneyed parish to do it.

Also, since St. Francis is so much in the news now, traditionalists have been looking at what he said and did in the historical records, rather than what late 20th century piety attributes to him.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if an image comes out of a tough man who gave everything for the glory of God and the salvation of souls and who would have been horrified at the iconoclasm done in the 20th century name of “austerity” and “noble simplicity”.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

The Traditionalist “side”. Gee I always thought we were all Catholics.
And uh…what makes you think those of us who are not on that “side” are “starving” in their spiritual lives?

Many are starving, I should have qualified my statement. I implied ALL when I did not mean to. My apologies. I know many catholics are spiritually fit. And, while we are all catholic…there are different paths, charisms, and rites within…traditionalist being one of them.

 

[clem456]

St John of the Cross’ “Ascent of Mt Carmel” is good reading in the area of simplicity, austerity, and humility.
ewtn.com/library/SOURCES/ASCENT-J.TXT
Catholic tradition has a strong element of healthy detachment from both physical and spiritual adornments.

12.1.(3). Creatures, earthly or heavenly, and all distinct ideas and
images, natural and supernatural, that can be the objects of a person’s
faculties, are incomparable and unproportioned to God’s being. God does not
fall under the classifications of genus and species, whereas, according to
theologians, creatures do.1 And the soul is not capable of receiving
clearly and distinctly in this life what does not fall under the
classifications of genus and species. Thus St. John affirms that no one has
ever seen God [Jn. 1:18]. Isaiah declares that it has not entered the human
heart what God is like [Is. 64:4]. And God told Moses: You cannot see me in
this life [Ex. 33:20]. Therefore anyone encumbering the memory and the
other faculties of the soul with what is comprehensible cannot have a
proper esteem or opinion of God.

So, it may be reasonable to think that someone who appears to be starving may in fact have riches we cannot comprehend.

 

[HoosMommie]

Actually the Pope Francis has been faithful to tradition. To Jesuit tradition, which is every bit as much a valid tradition in the Church as the EF Mass.

If he went for the full pomp and circumstance, that would worry me because it would mean that in fact he was not being faithful to his vows and the traditions of his charism. By having a regular Pope, we’re going to have to get used to get used to him behaving according to the traditions of his order, the Jesuits. IMHO that is a very good thing but it may surprise many people not familiar with the charisms of the different religious orders. Many “traditionalists” in fact know little about the religious orders; this will indeed be a teaching opportunity, especially since we haven’t had a regular pope in living memory (“regular” means living under the Rule, or in this case constitutions, of his religious order).

Pope Francis is under solemn vows to his order. Becoming pope does not somehow cancel those vows. He will not cancel out traditions of the Papacy, instead he will bring his own traditions to the office. If we were to return to a pope drawn from the secular clergy, then we would rightly expect many of the customs and attire of the previous popes to return.

Thank you for this thoughtful explanation. As a newbie to the Catholic Church I have much to learn.