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

[Rich_C]

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.

+1 I could never have said it so well. (bold mine, for emphasis)

 

[thewanderer]

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.

While I agree with you that the Liturgy itself is not a 't’radition, I have to quibble () with what I believe this post is implying. It sounded to me as though you were claiming that no aspect of the Liturgy is a 't’radition, which just isn’t true. Being a 't’radition doesn’t mean it isn’t important, it just means that it is still technically changeable. So any aspect of the liturgy which is changeable is a 't’radition rather than 'T’radition.

 

[TimothyH]

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”.

Less is an authentic Catholic spirituality, as are autsterity and “noble simplicity” as you put it. 1600 years of monasticism proves it. St. Francis lived it. Christ taught it in the beatitudes.

These are authentic spiritualities of poverty and self denial and they have just as much a place in the expression of our Church as does any other spirituality.

More is not a spirituality. Our Holy Father Pope Francis is teaching us that right now by his actions.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

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.

.

There is nothing to reconcile. He is a Jesuit. That is the fabric of his being, how he imitates Christ and what will get him into heaven.

He is a Jesuit Priest, a Jesuit Bishop and a Jesuit Pope. But he is a Jesuit first, and the others conform to that.

His consecrated life is how he imitates Christ. The Papacy is his ministry. The Papacy conforms to his consecrated life, not the other way around. People don’t want to hear it but that’s the way it is. He can stop being a Pope but he will always be a Jesuit.

-Tim-

 

[Rich_C]

Less is an authentic Catholic spirituality, as are autsterity and “noble simplicity” as you put it. 1600 years of monasticism proves it. St. Francis lived it. Christ taught it in the beatitudes.

These are authentic spiritualities of poverty and self denial and they have just as much a place in the expression of our Church as does any other spirituality.

More is not a spirituality. Our Holy Father Pope Francis is teaching us that right now by his actions.

-Tim-

It sounds like you a pitting worship against spirituality. “More is not a spirituality”?

Putting the best of our resources into worship, for the glory of God, is older than monasticism, and also comes from Christ: “zeal for your house consumes me.”

 

[QuestingKnight]

…

These are authentic spiritualities of poverty and self denial and they have just as much a place in the expression of our Church as does any other spirituality.

…

-Tim-

There’s nothing authentic about a spaceship diocesan church with stylised, minimalist or absent icons. It is not monastic. It is an expression of something, all right. Just not a desire to adorn a temple of the Most High in way that glorifies Him nor a desire teach and sanctify an ignorant laity.

I’ve just remembered a local Franciscan church where I come from. I saw pictures of it in the 50’s and I’ve seen how it is today. Before: stained glass windows of saints. Now some kind of flame and dove motif; I can’t really remember. It’s just vandalism, paid for with the pennies of the poor.

Unless a bomb went off and blew out the original windows, I suppose!

 

[malphono]

Unless a bomb went off and blew out the original windows, I suppose!

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Beautifully said, Tim!

I think that the biggest problem that many who describe themselves as “traditional cathoics” are having is that most of us (I mean the whole Church here), have no clue as to how a “regular” lives.

Living a consecrated life is a whole other ball game, and, based on my understanding, is something that not everyone is called to even understand, let alone live.

The “trappings” (for lack of a better word) of the Papal office that we (the general we), have come to expect, in many cases, actually come from the customs that were common to the monarchies of the middle ages. They are secular customs that seeped into the Church and were embraced by secular clergy, who never made a vow of any kind, including poverty.

We know have a man, who has dedicated his life to God in a very unique and special way, running the show. That will surely upset the apple cart. :sad_yes:

I think that the best way for people to get used to the idea of having a Pope who happens to be a Jesuit is to learn a little bit about Ignatian spirituality.

The “Principle & Foundation” of the Spiritual Exercises, IMHO, lays out exactly what Ignatian spirituality is all about.

Man is created to praise, reverence, and serve God our Lord, and by this means to save his soul.

And the other things on the face of the earth are created for man and that they may help him in prosecuting the end for which he is created.

From this it follows that man is to use them as much as they help him on to his end, and ought to rid himself of them so far as they hinder him as to it.

For this it is necessary to make ourselves indifferent to all created things in all that is allowed to the choice of our free will and is not prohibited to it; so that, on our part, we want not health rather than sickness, riches rather than poverty, honor rather than dishonor, long rather than short life, and so in all the rest; desiring and choosing only what is most conducive for us to the end for which we are created.

I have been travelling the Ignatian way for about 4 years now, and have experienced (and am still!) the metanoia (profound change of heart) that comes with it. The spirit of detachment and discernment that are cental to Ignatian thought are helping me to find that peace and grace that bring me closer to God. Because of this, I have great hope that our Holy Father Francis is exactly what we (and here I mean the whole world!) need at this time!

There is nothing to reconcile. He is a Jesuit. That is the fabric of his being, how he imitates Christ and what will get him into heaven.

He is a Jesuit Priest, a Jesuit Bishop and a Jesuit Pope. But he is a Jesuit first, and the others conform to that.

His consecrated life is how he imitates Christ. The Papacy is his ministry. The Papacy conforms to his consecrated life, not the other way around. People don’t want to hear it but that’s the way it is. He can stop being a Pope but he will always be a Jesuit.

-Tim-

 

[choliks]

It sounds like you a pitting worship against spirituality. “More is not a spirituality”?

Putting the best of our resources into worship, for the glory of God, is older than monasticism, and also comes from Christ: “zeal for your house consumes me.”

We all know that the best is not necessarily equal to more.

IMHO, “Less” and “More” are not spiritualities per se, but part of the greater Catholic Christian spirituality. One must find the proper place and proper use of “less” and “more”.

As for worship, if the 'MORE" in the traditionalist sense is required, then a lot of those who belong to poor dioceses and parishes are in trouble.

There’s nothing authentic about a spaceship diocesan church with stylised, minimalist or absent icons. It is not monastic. It is an expression of something, all right. Just not a desire to adorn a temple of the Most High in way that glorifies Him nor a desire teach and sanctify an ignorant laity.

I’ve just remembered a local Franciscan church where I come from. I saw pictures of it in the 50’s and I’ve seen how it is today. Before: stained glass windows of saints. Now some kind of flame and dove motif; I can’t really remember. It’s just vandalism, paid for with the pennies of the poor.

Unless a bomb went off and blew out the original windows, I suppose!

Whoa. Did you just equate the Monastic and Mendicant traditions with bad taste in art and design?

Your second paragraph is a bit disconcerting because what I see in your description is a return to tradition not away from it. It’s a tradition much older than the Mass promulgated at Trent.

We must also remember that before parishes were ever established, people went to monasteries for Mass, and most of the monasteries were austere and simple.

 

[Mike30]

There is nothing to reconcile. He is a Jesuit. That is the fabric of his being, how he imitates Christ and what will get him into heaven.

He is a Jesuit Priest, a Jesuit Bishop and a Jesuit Pope. But he is a Jesuit first, and the others conform to that.

His consecrated life is how he imitates Christ. The Papacy is his ministry. The Papacy conforms to his consecrated life, not the other way around. People don’t want to hear it but that’s the way it is. He can stop being a Pope but he will always be a Jesuit.

-Tim-

Then the gulf must not be as wide as some seem to think. I cannot believe that the Holy Father woulkd try to impress the Jesuit charism on the entire Church.

 

[Lucky7]

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.

Honest question: Why do his vows to his Jesuit order supercede his papacy? In other words, why don’t the traditions of the Papacy take precedence over the traditions of his priestly order? It seems backwards to me.

 

[Lucky7]

There is nothing to reconcile. He is a Jesuit. That is the fabric of his being, how he imitates Christ and what will get him into heaven.

He is a Jesuit Priest, a Jesuit Bishop and a Jesuit Pope. But he is a Jesuit first, and the others conform to that.

His consecrated life is how he imitates Christ. The Papacy is his ministry. The Papacy conforms to his consecrated life, not the other way around. People don’t want to hear it but that’s the way it is. He can stop being a Pope but he will always be a Jesuit.

-Tim-

Where is Catholic teaching on this? Because like I said above, it seems backwards to me.

 

[choliks]

There was one instance though that really scared me.

I was conversing with a priest who almost exclusively celebrates the EF of the Mass. He lamented that a number of parishes are turning ad orientam in celebrating Mass (OF included), and the bishop won’t allow him to follow suit.

I said to him that a number of parishes in my diocese are ad orientam (facing true east)and versus populum at the same time. I explained that the priest is facing both the east and the people. He couldn’t believe what he just heard. He said to me that if the people are truly worshipping ad orientam, then they should turn their backs to the altar and face east.

I was almost scandalized with what he just said. I asked if they are going to do that, then who are we really worshipping: Christ on the altar or the sun? He didn’t give me a reply.

I think it’s one of those cases where we focus so much on the tradition but forget the God at the center of it all.

 

[choliks]

Honest question: Why do his vows to his Jesuit order supercede his papacy? In other words, why don’t the traditions of the Papacy take precedence over the traditions of his priestly order? It seems backwards to me.

Because the papacy is an office and a ministry, not a sacrament.

 

[thewanderer]

Because the papacy is an office and a ministry, not a sacrament.

I would say, even more than that, because a solemn vow is an unbreakable promise to God. If you break it it is really serious stuff. Making a vow to God that you will do something isn’t something you can just take back “Yes God, I know that when I was younger I made a solemn vow to you that I would do such and such, but now circumstances have changed so I’m going to go back on my promise” It just doesn’t work like that. Same as the marriage vows are permanent the solemn vows of regulars are permanent. The traditions that often go along with the papcy are just that, traditions. They are exterior symbols which are meant to express internal or other realities, but they are not absolutely required. They are changeable, especially if one has a good reason to change them.

If I were to make a vow to God that as an act of reparation I will give up chocolate for the rest of my life, and then go to a friends house for easter who has a tradition of everyone eating chocolate eggs easter morning, would it be ok for me to follow the tradition rather than my vow? Of course not. Vows made to God come before traditions.

 

[choliks]

I would say, even more than that, because a solemn vow is an unbreakable promise to God. If you break it it is really serious stuff. Making a vow to God that you will do something isn’t something you can just take back “Yes God, I know that when I was younger I made a solemn vow to you that I would do such and such, but now circumstances have changed so I’m going to go back on my promise” It just doesn’t work like that. Same as the marriage vows are permanent the solemn vows of regulars are permanent. The traditions that often go along with the papcy are just that, traditions. They are exterior symbols which are meant to express internal or other realities, but they are not absolutely required. They are changeable, especially if one has a good reason to change them.

If I were to make a vow to God that as an act of reparation I will give up chocolate for the rest of my life, and then go to a friends house for easter who has a tradition of everyone eating chocolate eggs easter morning, would it be ok for me to follow the tradition rather than my vow? Of course not. Vows made to God come before traditions.

Well said. I’ve long conceded that there are people more articulate than me.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

Well said. I’ve long conceded that there are people more articulate than me.

Than I.

 

[Lucky7]

I would say, even more than that, because a solemn vow is an unbreakable promise to God. If you break it it is really serious stuff. Making a vow to God that you will do something isn’t something you can just take back “Yes God, I know that when I was younger I made a solemn vow to you that I would do such and such, but now circumstances have changed so I’m going to go back on my promise” It just doesn’t work like that. Same as the marriage vows are permanent the solemn vows of regulars are permanent. The traditions that often go along with the papcy are just that, traditions. They are exterior symbols which are meant to express internal or other realities, but they are not absolutely required. They are changeable, especially if one has a good reason to change them.

If I were to make a vow to God that as an act of reparation I will give up chocolate for the rest of my life, and then go to a friends house for easter who has a tradition of everyone eating chocolate eggs easter morning, would it be ok for me to follow the tradition rather than my vow? Of course not. Vows made to God come before traditions.

OK, so is there no vow when someone accepts the Papacy? I really have no idea. If so, what does it say?

 

[bslorence]

While I agree with you that the Liturgy itself is not a 't’radition, I have to quibble () with what I believe this post is implying. It sounded to me as though you were claiming that no aspect of the Liturgy is a 't’radition, which just isn’t true. Being a 't’radition doesn’t mean it isn’t important, it just means that it is still technically changeable. So any aspect of the liturgy which is changeable is a 't’radition rather than 'T’radition.

I certainly agree with you that some aspects of the Liturgy are 't’raditions. I just wanted to make the point that 'T’radition includes the liturgy in some sense. One hears sometimes that 'T’radition is nothing more than a collection of doctrines and the essentials of the sacraments.

 

[thewanderer]

OK, so is there no vow when someone accepts the Papacy? I really have no idea. If so, what does it say?

There is certainly no vow to follow all the papal traditions.