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

[WildCatholic]

First of all, don’t hammer me for this. I’m a Conservative Catholic in a very conservative Diocese I love, and I don’t like to see liturgical abuses. I also do not intend to offend any traditional or traditionalist Catholics who may read this. That being said, anymore it feels like a lot of Catholics, particularly on the traditional/ traditionalist end of the spectrum are so wrapped up in these “small t” traditions.

For example, people are making such a big deal about Pope Francis not wearing all of the traditional vestments. Some extremists even see this as a sign against traditional church practices. Why the big fuss? To be honest, I only care about the “Big T” traditions, such as the fact that we have a papacy and that we hold to the beliefs that Christ and the Apostles handed down to us. While I like a lot of the small T traditions, to me they aren’t as big of a deal because if the Apostles didn’t need them. why is it such a big deal that we have them? I know we are supposed to be distinctive and different from the culture, but people act like if the Pope doesn’t wear certain clothes or that he hasn’t been as strong in promoting the EF that the church is going to change its doctrine or something crazy will happen. I believe that even if we lost all these things, we’d still have the Church and the Mass that Christ gave us. All the other fancy things are nice and make it a grand sight, but if they were gone I feel we’d still have a church as long as we hold to our “Big T Traditions”.

 

[fix]

First of all, don’t hammer me for this. I’m a Conservative Catholic in a very conservative Diocese I love, and I don’t like to see liturgical abuses. I also do not intend to offend any traditional or traditionalist Catholics who may read this. That being said, anymore it feels like a lot of Catholics, particularly on the traditional/ traditionalist end of the spectrum are so wrapped up in these “small t” traditions.

For example, people are making such a big deal about Pope Francis not wearing all of the traditional vestments. Some extremists even see this as a sign against traditional church practices. Why the big fuss? To be honest, I only care about the “Big T” traditions, such as the fact that we have a papacy and that we hold to the beliefs that Christ and the Apostles handed down to us. While I like a lot of the small T traditions, to me they aren’t as big of a deal because if the Apostles didn’t need them. why is it such a big deal that we have them? I know we are supposed to be distinctive and different from the culture, but people act like if the Pope doesn’t wear certain clothes or that he hasn’t been as strong in promoting the EF that the church is going to change its doctrine or something crazy will happen. I believe that even if we lost all these things, we’d still have the Church and the Mass that Christ gave us. All the other fancy things are nice and make it a grand sight, but if they were gone I feel we’d still have a church as long as we hold to our “Big T Traditions”.

I am sure there are many ways to answer your question. One thing I have noticed is that many are trying to impute to this new Pope their own agenda. Just as on many of the threads here you will see veiled insults to the last two popes and implying that the new Pope will finally correct things. Those with such a mind-set, left and right, will use propaganda tools to further their agenda.

 

[Genesis315]

Traditions often have long history and deep meaning. Little “t” traditions are one of the many ways Tradition itself is handed on in the living Church. Changing them, casting them aside, or imposing new ones without the utmost care and gravest reasons can be damaging to faith and piety, especially when done without any explanation–I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the reckless experimentation and dumping of traditions and symbols in so many parishes in the Western Church in the '60s and '70s–which were usually done with little or no explanation–coincided with massive losses of faith. Since traditions and symbols have meaning and convey an unwritten message, casting them aside will also convey a message–often one not even considered by the one deciding not to follow the tradition. IMO, casting aside long-standing traditions related to the faith should only be done when there is a very good reason to do so, and that reason should be communicated clearly so as not to send the wrong message in this information age.

 

[Filioque]

We are creatures of habit. When changes occur, even non-essential changes that do not effect the core of the Faith, it is uncomfortable for some. We see changes in our daily lives and forget that humanity has always faced upset and turmoil. In the Church we have seen over the centuries great lows in belief, during times like these God has given us great Saints who point us back to the central points of our mission on earth, (to get to heaven) and it unsettles us.

I hope and pray that Pope Francis will refocus us all on our mission, and while I do hope he continues Pope Benedict’s task of authentic reform of the Liturgy and restoring much of the little t’s that were lost in the “spirit of Vatican II” he refocuses us on the Big T’s and Gospel of Christ,

The good that Pope Francis has brought to the Church so far, does not negate any of the Great things Pope Benedict, or Pope John Paul, or even Popes Pius XII, or St. Pius X gave the Church. They will hopefully complement them.

 

[OraLabora]

First of all, don’t hammer me for this. I’m a Conservative Catholic in a very conservative Diocese I love, and I don’t like to see liturgical abuses. I also do not intend to offend any traditional or traditionalist Catholics who may read this. That being said, anymore it feels like a lot of Catholics, particularly on the traditional/ traditionalist end of the spectrum are so wrapped up in these “small t” traditions.

For example, people are making such a big deal about Pope Francis not wearing all of the traditional vestments. Some extremists even see this as a sign against traditional church practices. Why the big fuss? To be honest, I only care about the “Big T” traditions, such as the fact that we have a papacy and that we hold to the beliefs that Christ and the Apostles handed down to us. While I like a lot of the small T traditions, to me they aren’t as big of a deal because if the Apostles didn’t need them. why is it such a big deal that we have them? I know we are supposed to be distinctive and different from the culture, but people act like if the Pope doesn’t wear certain clothes or that he hasn’t been as strong in promoting the EF that the church is going to change its doctrine or something crazy will happen. I believe that even if we lost all these things, we’d still have the Church and the Mass that Christ gave us. All the other fancy things are nice and make it a grand sight, but if they were gone I feel we’d still have a church as long as we hold to our “Big T Traditions”.

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.

 

[WildCatholic]

Traditions often have long history and deep meaning. Little “t” traditions are one of the many ways Tradition itself is handed on in the living Church. Changing them, casting them aside, or imposing new ones without the utmost care and gravest reasons can be damaging to faith and piety, especially when done without any explanation–I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the reckless experimentation and dumping of traditions and symbols in so many parishes in the Western Church in the '60s and '70s–which were usually done with little or no explanation–coincided with massive losses of faith. Since traditions and symbols have meaning and convey an unwritten message, casting them aside will also convey a message–often one not even considered by the one deciding not to follow the tradition. IMO, casting aside long-standing traditions related to the faith should only be done when there is a very good reason to do so, and that reason should be communicated clearly so as not to send the wrong message in this information age.

I love your explanation. I think too often people on the left end of the spectrum are too happy and enthusiastic to throw tradition away. I do think their need to be reasons to do so. Once again, I think how Pope Francis has done it is great. He isn’t doing it out of a desire to modernize or throw away tradition (that we know of, maybe the conspiracies are true ) He has done it simply as a gesture of simplicity and humility.

I guess thats where I find clinging to some traditions a little straining though. I mean, why does it matter that Francis wears some red cape, or things of that nature. I will say though that there are some things I am conservative on. I only receive on the tongue (part of it with me is that I feel it is wrong to handle Jesus in that way) I also like more traditional music (i dislike drums at mass, and besides being somewhat lyrically ambiguous and sappy, I think CCM music at mass isn’t good). That being said, I feel Mass in English is all right. I like being able to understand it. I would find it hard to go to a Latin Mass every week because I couldn’t understand it. It would be even harder if I grew up with it. Also, were people really holier in the pre vatican II era? I mean sure it was better, but the Sexual revolution would have happened even if there had been no council or change. People are people unfortunately and they sin. Even in medieval times we had a LOT of problems

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I’m not a traditionalist (or any other adjective of Catholic, beyond “convinced”).

I don’t care if the Holy Father elects not to wear the mozzetta. I DO care (if he did do so, as reported by secular and Catholic media) that he told the faithful Msgr. Marini, papal Master of Ceremonies, whose job can’t be easy, “You put it on, Monsignor. Carnival is over.” If he said it, well, even Saint Jerome was famously cranky, but there have been many, many, MANY good and holy men who put on that mozzetta without demur, like his immediate predeceasors, some of whom are saints and beatii.

I don’t care that the Holy Father wears black shoes. I do care that the secular media has been ratting on for years about Pope Benedict’s “red Prada shoes” (they aren’t Prada, as the same secular media recently admitted). I certainly hope that Pope Francis’ choice of shoes is not seen by the world as a back-handed criticism of the old Holy Father, as the secular media keeps portraying it.

Likewise, I don’t care (much) if we have a simplified liturgy, a “poor church for the poor.” I prefer the relative austerity of the OF to the EF and certainly the OF to the other Rites (the Byzantine Rites, Maronite, etc.). I do hope, however, that we will not see thereby a return to the casual. “Simple” doesn’t mean “casual.” Again, I hope this is not a back-handed slap at Pope Benedict and his “reform of the reform.” I hope it doesn’t mean a return to polyester chasubles and ugly felt banners and the like.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

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.

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!

 

[WildCatholic]

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.

Wow, this is enlightening. I think this makes sense. I myself do know a lot about orders,and I think it is kind of nifty. Thanks for the explenation

 

[baptismal]

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.

This explains it all very well. God Bless Pope Francis.

 

[7armyrugrats]

The only explanation I have ever been able to come up with is that so many people are determined to create division where there us none, and keep division where it already exists. happens all the time in life in so many different circumstances.

 

[ProVobis]

The only explanation I have ever been able to come up with is that so many people are determined to create division where there us none, and keep division where it already exists. happens all the time in life in so many different circumstances.

It’s not really determination; it’s called entropy. The principles of thermodynamics extend to the real world.

 

[WildCatholic]

The only explanation I have ever been able to come up with is that so many people are determined to create division where there us none, and keep division where it already exists. happens all the time in life in so many different circumstances.

Thank you. Too often I feel like a bit of an outcast of some of these forums because while far from being a liberal Catholic, i’m not a traditionalist in that I don’t attend the EF and to be honest, think it isn’t for me. Granted I think it is wonderful that it is available (as it should be) and if people want to be a part of it, they can.But it seems as if you are in the middle people from one extreme try to make you feel like you are part of the other side. I don’t like that. Just because i don’t attend an EF doesn’t mean i enjoy masses like this edited by moderator
and just because i’m not more liberal, it doesn’t mean I like the SSPX. I’m Catholic, no objectives

 

[Marie5890]

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.

I agree with this.
I think it’s a lack of education for Catholics on what it means to be a religious.
Now, when I hear the disappointment, the first question I ask the person expressing it is something along the lines of “Do you understand that he is a Jesuit and as such as made vows that would explain what you are observing? That he is actually being very faithful to tradition, just not the kind that you are used to seeing?”

When they realize (as I did) that it’s really more of a lack of understand, of education, they get curious. Hopefully that will lead to researching and looking deeper.

 

[7armyrugrats]

Thank you. Too often I feel like a bit of an outcast of some of these forums because while far from being a liberal Catholic, i’m not a traditionalist in that I don’t attend the EF and to be honest, think it isn’t for me. Granted I think it is wonderful that it is available (as it should be) and if people want to be a part of it, they can.But it seems as if you are in the middle people from one extreme try to make you feel like you are part of the other side. I don’t like that. Just because i don’t attend an EF doesn’t mean i enjoy masses like thishttp://www.novusordowatch.org/clown_mass_large.jpg

and just because i’m not more liberal, it doesn’t mean I like the SSPX. I’m Catholic, no objectives

Yep. Right there with you.

 

[Eufrosnia]

First of all, don’t hammer me for this. I’m a Conservative Catholic in a very conservative Diocese I love, and I don’t like to see liturgical abuses. I also do not intend to offend any traditional or traditionalist Catholics who may read this. That being said, anymore it feels like a lot of Catholics, particularly on the traditional/ traditionalist end of the spectrum are so wrapped up in these “small t” traditions.

For example, people are making such a big deal about Pope Francis not wearing all of the traditional vestments. Some extremists even see this as a sign against traditional church practices. Why the big fuss? To be honest, I only care about the “Big T” traditions, such as the fact that we have a papacy and that we hold to the beliefs that Christ and the Apostles handed down to us. While I like a lot of the small T traditions, to me they aren’t as big of a deal because if the Apostles didn’t need them. why is it such a big deal that we have them? I know we are supposed to be distinctive and different from the culture, but people act like if the Pope doesn’t wear certain clothes or that he hasn’t been as strong in promoting the EF that the church is going to change its doctrine or something crazy will happen. I believe that even if we lost all these things, we’d still have the Church and the Mass that Christ gave us. All the other fancy things are nice and make it a grand sight, but if they were gone I feel we’d still have a church as long as we hold to our “Big T Traditions”.

traditions is the main way we associate forms of expressions with truth. So we might have different expressions such as art, speech, music, clothing etc. We understand the expressions present in these works through tradition.

So if we consider the attire or words normally used in taking an office lets say (not just the Papacy), the following of these traditions communicate to the faithful which office one is taking and also that nothing about the office has changed. When one does not follow the traditions, it can lead people to believe that there is a change.

In short, when we discard traditions, we lose how we can express ourselves. A word or a piece of art by itself loses meaning unless we have a traditionally associated meaning with the word or the artistic technique. Being in touch with the tradition allows you to both read and understand the expressions of those who went before as well as help you yourself to express the truths you want to express in a way that others can understand.

 

[Eufrosnia]

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.

But there are no “Jesuit Pope” traditions. There is only a tradition of how the Pope takes his office, carries out his office, leaves his office etc.

Now Pope Francis can certainly establish a NEW tradition of what it means to be a Jesuit Pope. But like all new traditions, by definition, they will confuse anyone who pays careful attention to the expressions. This is why it is risky.

It is like saying “waeafdjalsfjairueouteta” is an important word I use to describe the Papacy. To the reader, it is confusing as to what it might mean. They will try to interpret what I might be trying to say in using that word. But if it had been a word like “Infallibility”, people will immediately know what I speak of due to the traditional usage of the word. Now it may well be that my new word will shape in to a new traditional word with time. But till then, it rightly confuses anyone who hears it.

EDIT: I only spoke of one aspect of traditions. It must be noted that there is another aspect of tradition which helps you keep the moral law, through the shaping your sense of prudence and culture around it. But that didn’t seem to be the aspect of tradition you referred. I am sure you can see how that aspect is very important by itself anyway.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

I’m not a traditionalist (or any other adjective of Catholic, beyond “convinced”).

I don’t care if the Holy Father elects not to wear the mozzetta. I DO care (if he did do so, as reported by secular and Catholic media) that he told the faithful Msgr. Marini, papal Master of Ceremonies, whose job can’t be easy, “You put it on, Monsignor. Carnival is over.” If he said it, well, even Saint Jerome was famously cranky, but there have been many, many, MANY good and holy men who put on that mozzetta without demur, like his immediate predeceasors, some of whom are saints and beatii.

I don’t care that the Holy Father wears black shoes. I do care that the secular media has been ratting on for years about Pope Benedict’s “red Prada shoes” (they aren’t Prada, as the same secular media recently admitted). I certainly hope that Pope Francis’ choice of shoes is not seen by the world as a back-handed criticism of the old Holy Father, as the secular media keeps portraying it.

Likewise, I don’t care (much) if we have a simplified liturgy, a “poor church for the poor.” I prefer the relative austerity of the OF to the EF and certainly the OF to the other Rites (the Byzantine Rites, Maronite, etc.). I do hope, however, that we will not see thereby a return to the casual. “Simple” doesn’t mean “casual.” Again, I hope this is not a back-handed slap at Pope Benedict and his “reform of the reform.” I hope it doesn’t mean a return to polyester chasubles and ugly felt banners and the like.

This is the same thing I see a lot of. What Pope Francis chooses should not reflect on Pope Benedict. Just as the EF does not reflect/should not reflect on the OF.

But saddly a lot of times comparisons are made.

I don’t think Pope Francis will undo Pope Benedict’s statement of the EF being equal…at least I hope not. Not for my sake as I don’t attend the EF but for my fellow brothers and sisters.

 

[thewanderer]

But there are no “Jesuit Pope” traditions. There is only a tradition of how the Pope takes his office, carries out his office, leaves his office etc.

Now Pope Francis can certainly establish a NEW tradition of what it means to be a Jesuit Pope. But like all new traditions, by definition, they will confuse anyone who pays careful attention to the expressions. This is why it is risky.

It is like saying “waeafdjalsfjairueouteta” is an important word I use to describe the Papacy. To the reader, it is confusing as to what it might mean. They will try to interpret what I might be trying to say in using that word. But if it had been a word like “Infallibility”, people will immediately know what I speak of due to the traditional usage of the word. Now it may well be that my new word will shape in to a new traditional word with time. But till then, it rightly confuses anyone who hears it.

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.

 

[OraLabora]

But there are no “Jesuit Pope” traditions. There is only a tradition of how the Pope takes his office, carries out his office, leaves his office etc.

Now Pope Francis can certainly establish a NEW tradition of what it means to be a Jesuit Pope. But like all new traditions, by definition, they will confuse anyone who pays careful attention to the expressions. This is why it is risky.

It is like saying “waeafdjalsfjairueouteta” is an important word I use to describe the Papacy. To the reader, it is confusing as to what it might mean. They will try to interpret what I might be trying to say in using that word. But if it had been a word like “Infallibility”, people will immediately know what I speak of due to the traditional usage of the word. Now it may well be that my new word will shape in to a new traditional word with time. But till then, it rightly confuses anyone who hears it.

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?