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

  • Thread starter Thread starter WildCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OraLabora said:
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.
Click to expand...
The issue here is that the only reason he is free from obeying the superior is because of the nature of his office. In other words, he is a new person in a new state of life as Pope. So my point is that to say the Pope cannot do x because of his earlier vows is at best a very weak argument. The Pope could choose to do anything. But as you said, he chose to break some of the traditions and just uphold the vows or perhaps even his internal convictions.

I am also not speaking here of whether we accept him or not. Since he is the Pope, neither of us really have the luxury of rejecting him. So what I am pointing out here is that regardless of our acceptance of him, his actions would indeed be confusing to majority of the faithful.

In my personal case, I am not a big fan of anyone who doesn’t balance out the need for physical charity with that of spiritual charity. In fact, I believe, as Pope Benedict XVI (and even many other saints before him) said that sharing and professing Christ to others is the most highest form of charity. Just physical charity is what NGO’s do. Now in that sense I do like the fact that Pope Francis said the same thing in his first homily as Pope. So its certainly not that I reject Pope Francis.

But, as much as I like him, I have to say that his actions so far are confusing. If you read the news, people have even thought it to mean that he is about to change the actual nature of the office of the Papacy. Some have decided that the Church is actually against traditional expressions that might involve luxury or beauty. All of this is because of confusion. Now you are certainly right that with time, his writings might lead people to realize that it is not what he is trying to do. BUT, at the moment, its not so great as it could be. It can give groups within the church who want to promote their erroneous views a chance to do so in a seemingly authoritative way (Pope wants to do x). So there is a price to be paid for taking that risk. It is also worth noting that there was a somewhat similar scenario with Bl. John Paul II. The John Paul II many people know and like is the Koran kissing all inclusive looking Pope who would never speak of any bad in a society. But if one were to read the writings and documents published by the magesterium on his approval, one would know that the person is someone far from that view.

So there is a risk that Pope Francis too will be remembered more by what he did than what he will teach. At that event, Pope Francis risks sending the very message he didn’t want to give i.e. That Catholicism is primarily about physical charity and the spiritual charity is of secondary importance OR that the Church is of lesser importance and one only needs charity for salvation. We all know how people today have come to interpret Mother Theresa in the same way.
 
Eufrosnia said:
The issue here is that the only reason he is free from obeying the superior is because of the nature of his office. In other words, he is a new person in a new state of life as Pope. So my point is that to say the Pope cannot do x because of his earlier vows is at best a very weak argument. The Pope could choose to do anything. But as you said, he chose to break some of the traditions and just uphold the vows or perhaps even his internal convictions.

I am also not speaking here of whether we accept him or not. Since he is the Pope, neither of us really have the luxury of rejecting him. So what I am pointing out here is that regardless of our acceptance of him, his actions would indeed be confusing to majority of the faithful.

In my personal case, I am not a big fan of anyone who doesn’t balance out the need for physical charity with that of spiritual charity. In fact, I believe, as Pope Benedict XVI (and even many other saints before him) said that sharing and professing Christ to others is the most highest form of charity. Just physical charity is what NGO’s do. Now in that sense I do like the fact that Pope Francis said the same thing in his first homily as Pope. So its certainly not that I reject Pope Francis.

But, as much as I like him, I have to say that his actions so far are confusing. If you read the news, people have even thought it to mean that he is about to change the actual nature of the office of the Papacy. Some have decided that the Church is actually against traditional expressions that might involve luxury or beauty. All of this is because of confusion. Now you are certainly right that with time, his writings might lead people to realize that it is not what he is trying to do. BUT, at the moment, its not so great as it could be. It can give groups within the church who want to promote their erroneous views a chance to do so in a seemingly authoritative way (Pope wants to do x). So there is a price to be paid for taking that risk. It is also worth noting that there was a somewhat similar scenario with Bl. John Paul II. The John Paul II many people know and like is the Koran kissing all inclusive looking Pope who would never speak of any bad in a society. But if one were to read the writings and documents published by the magesterium on his approval, one would know that the person is someone far from that view.

So there is a risk that Pope Francis too will be remembered more by what he did than what he will teach. At that event, Pope Francis risks sending the very message he didn’t want to give i.e. That Catholicism is primarily about physical charity and the spiritual charity is of secondary importance OR that the Church is of lesser importance and one only needs charity for salvation. We all know how people today have come to interpret Mother Theresa in the same way.
Click to expand...
That will only happen if they ignore his own words, if people misunderstand him it is not his fault as he has made it abundantly clear that there is so much more to it than just physical charity. I’m sorry, but you can’t hold people accountable for people misinterpreting their actions when they have made it explicitly clear publicly that that is not what they think. Yeah, people are always gonna twist the popes actions to try and promote their own agenda, that doesn’t mean the Pope should change what he is doing. He is being more than clear about the importance of teaching the faith, so much so that his very first homily as Pope emphasized that point. And seeing as people all look to the Pope’s first homily to get a better idea of what he thinks/where his pontificate is going I can’t think of a better place for a pope to make a public statement to clarify something about his actions that might be misunderstood.
 
thewanderer said:
That will only happen if they ignore his own words, if people misunderstand him it is not his fault as he has made it abundantly clear that there is so much more to it than just physical charity. I’m sorry, but you can’t hold people accountable for people misinterpreting their actions when they have made it explicitly clear publicly that that is not what they think. Yeah, people are always gonna twist the popes actions to try and promote their own agenda, that doesn’t mean the Pope should change what he is doing. He is being more than clear about the importance of teaching the faith, so much so that his very first homily as Pope emphasized that point. And seeing as people all look to the Pope’s first homily to get a better idea of what he thinks/where his pontificate is going I can’t think of a better place for a pope to make a public statement to clarify something about his actions that might be misunderstood.
Click to expand...
I am not saying Pope Francis is accountable for his mistakes. That is not for me to decide honestly. What I can say is that action X of person Y is a reason that lead people think of him as being pro-Z.

So what I am saying though is that his actions can make a person think that he is not a person that would have said such things to begin with. That is perhaps why spiritual charity should always come first. That way people know the message before they get the food. Christ followed the same procedure.
 
Eufrosnia said:
I am not saying Pope Francis is accountable for his mistakes. That is not for me to decide honestly. What I can say is that action X of person Y is a reason that lead people think of him as being pro-Z.

So what I am saying though is that his actions can make a person think that he is not a person that would have said such things to begin with. That is perhaps why spiritual charity should always come first. That way people know the message before they get the food. Christ followed the same procedure.
Click to expand...
I have to admit that I really don’t understand your point here. Both are important. Pope Francis is doing both.
 
TimothyH said:
If we stopped obsessing about traditions and obsessed instead about how pleasing our souls are to God, then Catholicism would be unstoppable.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
Obession with traditions has caused the decline in Catholicism in the West?

Where is the LOL icon?
 
OraLabora said:
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? 🤷
Click to expand...
I would say that if there is such a gulf between living his vows and the living within the traditions and reality of the Office of the Pope, perhaps he should have refused the Office.

It may be one thing to live a humble life in Buenos Aires. It may be something entirely different trying to do that as the Pope. that is the reality of the situation. As Archbishop of Buenos Aires, an area of about 100 square miles with a Catholic population of around two million or so, his actions affected a relatively small number of people, as Mass attendance in that country is said to be fairly low. As Pope they affect the entire worldwide Church directly.

Only time will truly tell if he can reconcile the two.

.
 
JustaServant said:
Well why don’t you share with all of us as to the “varied” reasons why?
Click to expand...
Do you not know any catholic who, if not ‘starving’, is hungry for something deeper?
You must care deeply about some 't’radition…
 
I would quibble a bit (or perhaps a lot) with the implication that the sacred liturgy is just one small-t tradition among others. Maybe that was not intentional but that’s how I read the OP.

It seems to me that Pope Benedict has devoted a great deal of his attention over the years to questioning that idea – references to it can be found throughout his writings and then of course he wrote an entire book about it.

Here is the Catechism on the topic:
1124 The Church’s faith precedes the faith of the believer who is invited to adhere to it. When the Church celebrates the sacraments, she confesses the faith received from the apostles - whence the ancient saying: *lex orandi, lex credendi * … The law of prayer is the law of faith: the Church believes as she prays. Liturgy is a constitutive element of the holy and living Tradition.
Click to expand...
1125 For this reason no sacramental rite may be modified or manipulated at the will of the minister or the community. Even the supreme authority in the Church may not change the liturgy arbitrarily, but only in the obedience of faith and with religious respect for the mystery of the liturgy.
Click to expand...
I think it’s possible to be entirely faithful to the Church, and to respect the OF as a valid, legitimate, and even excellent way to pray, and still think that the EF is more true to the vision of the Catechism given above.

And if that’s right – which is a whole discussion of its own, and probably one that has been exhaustively covered here already – then the EF is very important to the life of the Church and it’s good and reasonable to hope that it will thrive under our new Pope.
 
JustaServant said:
You’re a great dancer, but I’m not Fred Astaire.
You chose the word. So I ask again.
Specifically what consistutes “deeper”?
Click to expand...
For me, at one point ‘deeper’ was just making it to mass! Now…‘deeper’ means more adoration time and frequent confession. 5 years from now…who knows? Maybe I’ll have read all the documents that people post!

Oh…look at my avatar photo…I’m no dancer.
 
bslorence said:
I would quibble a bit (or perhaps a lot) with the implication that the sacred liturgy is just one small-t tradition among others. Maybe that was not intentional but that’s how I read the OP.

It seems to me that Pope Benedict has devoted a great deal of his attention over the years to questioning that idea – references to it can be found throughout his writings and then of course he wrote an entire book about it.

Here is the Catechism on the topic:

I think it’s possible to be entirely faithful to the Church, and to respect the OF as a valid, legitimate, and even excellent way to pray, and still think that the EF is more true to the vision of the Catechism given above.

And if that’s right – which is a whole discussion of its own, and probably one that has been exhaustively covered here already – then the EF is very important to the life of the Church and it’s good and reasonable to hope that it will thrive under our new Pope.
Click to expand...
I agree. But I also think that what needed to be done to open up the EF to the general Catholic population has been done. I’m not sure that even if Pope Emeritus Benedict had stayed in office if he would have done anything else about that. (The SPPX cmoning into full communion being a separate topic.)

Yes there are still people who would prefer to attend the EF each week (or each day!) and cannot because of distance and availability. However, that is really beyond the Pope’s control. He did not require the EF to be said, and so if there is no priest to say it, that is the end of the story.

For example, in my own diocese where the EF is widely offered, it isn’t in every parish. We had two priests who said it regularly at nearby parishes, but in the course of regular transfers, they are now at other parishes. There are still 12 or more parishes where it is said, just no longer convenient to me. That is not my bishop’s fault (even though he transferred the priests) or the Pope’s fault.

I pray that as we all travel on our journey to heaven, we will have the means to feed our souls and and deepen our faith. Perhaps that will be through the EF and practice of traditional devotions and piety; perhaps through the lightening of our physical self as we practice asceticism.
 
clem456 said:
And how do you know they are starving?
Click to expand...
I’ve shown a 1962 missal to about a dozen different people who told me that they had missed it all these years and didn’t know the old Mass was still around, some cried a little.

Others, I given them my Baltimore Catechism to flipped through and they kept saying, “I was never taught this,” or even “I nevered learned this in my [CCC]!”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top