Noel's angel Posted March 18, 2013 Author Share Posted March 18, 2013 I think perhaps it would be a good idea to look at what we view as being traditions we don't need to put much weight on, and others that we should consider as being very important. For me, it seems like Pope Francis is in some way attempting to elevate himself 'above' tradition, thus implying that Pope benedict was somehow held in a stranglehold by tradition. Perhaps I am wrong. As Apotheoun has said before, where does it end? If he decides to make wholesale changes to the liturgy, how would you feel then? (I'm not saying he will do this, but it is interesting to think of where our 'breaking point' lies with regards to tradition). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 (edited) It used to be tradition for Catholics to not eat anything at all on days of fasting. It was also tradition for Catholics to make public confessions rather than private ones. After we upgraded to private, you could only confess your sins to the bishops, not a regular priest. Should we go back to those as well, simply in the name of tradition? Yes, fasting of that kind is still a part of Eastern Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) praxis, but like many things the Roman Church has weakened its discipline of fasting. After all, tradition is there to be changed, that is its real purpose, not the passing on of immemorial practices, but the creation of newer and easier practices. :smile3: Postscript: The Orthodox - in monastic settings - continue the practice of public penance, i.e., publicly declaring your sins and seeking absolution from the Father Abbot and the community at large. Edited March 18, 2013 by Apotheoun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franciscanheart Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 My apologies I did not know that you were distressed by the fact that the pope has chosen not to have a unique ring created as a sign of his pontificate. Again my apologies if I misunderstood your viewpoint, and thank you for the correction.I've seen nothing indicating he will not have a unique ring which will be destroyed at the end of his papacy. What I have seen is that he'll have a simple ring which is gold-plated silver and not solid gold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 I've seen nothing indicating he will not have a unique ring which will be destroyed at the end of his papacy. What I have seen is that he'll have a simple ring which is gold-plated silver and not solid gold. I thought I read that the ring was used by an archbishop secretary of Pope Paul VI. That would mean it is not unique to his own office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noel's angel Posted March 18, 2013 Author Share Posted March 18, 2013 I've seen nothing indicating he will not have a unique ring which will be destroyed at the end of his papacy. What I have seen is that he'll have a simple ring which is gold-plated silver and not solid gold. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2013/03/pope-francis-will-wear-a-used-ring/ The ring is not one made specially for this occasion. It belonged to Archbishop Macchi, secretary to Paul VI, and it is made of gold-plated silver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franciscanheart Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 I think perhaps it would be a good idea to look at what we view as being traditions we don't need to put much weight on, and others that we should consider as being very important. For me, it seems like Pope Francis is in some way attempting to elevate himself 'above' tradition, thus implying that Pope benedict was somehow held in a stranglehold by tradition. Perhaps I am wrong.Looking at it in this way, you would then probably believe he has elevated himself "above" tradition (lowercase t) since being elevated to archbishop, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Yes, fasting of that kind is still a part of Eastern Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) praxis, but like many things the Roman Church has weakened its discipline of fasting. After all, tradition is there to be changed, that is its real purpose, not the passing on of immemorial practices, but the creation of newer and easier practices. :smile3: Postscript: The Orthodox - in monastic settings - continue the practice of public penance, i.e., publicly declaring your sins and seeking absolution from the Father Abbot and the community at large. So, in essence, you're saying the Roman Church is wimpy and is throwing away traditions or lessening them in the name of making them easier? That's offensive and really, really wrong. Not eating all day is extremely unhealthy. Some people passed out or died from it sometimes. Public confession stopped people from going to confession, because, I'm sorry to say, people are judgmental, and would judge the penitent or they would spread the word around about what you did. Having public confessions in a Monastic community is way different than having a public confession in a parish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 (edited) As Apotheoun has said before, where does it end? If he decides to make wholesale changes to the liturgy, how would you feel then? (I'm not saying he will do this, but it is interesting to think of where our 'breaking point' lies with regards to tradition). I do not think that he will make changes to the liturgy (although Pope Paul VI issued an entirely new liturgy at the end of the 1960s, no pope has done anything like that since that time), but he clearly is going to dispense with a lot of papal traditions. That said, as an Eastern Catholic I am personally neutral on the matter of papal customs, but I do sympathize with those Roman Catholics who are attached to the particular traditions of the Roman Church. Edited March 18, 2013 by Apotheoun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 The purpose of a sign is to direct. It's okay if signs change to suit the directed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franciscanheart Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2013/03/pope-francis-will-wear-a-used-ring/ The ring is not one made specially for this occasion. It belonged to Archbishop Macchi, secretary to Paul VI, and it is made of gold-plated silver. https://twitter.com/CatholicNewsSvc/status/313644882893869056"OK. Lombardi clarifies. Ab Macchi's ring was model for Pope Francis' fisherman's ring." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noel's angel Posted March 18, 2013 Author Share Posted March 18, 2013 I didn't know much of him as archbishop, so it's difficult to say. I just think that there is too much of a contrast, too much of an emphasis on shunning certain things. I appreciate that he is not a clone of Benedict but so far what I've seen could be described as a 'papacy of personality'. Maybe he world needs him to be this way. I for one, am impressed by his style of speech and his ability to speak 'off-the-cuff'. I think it will endear people to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 The purpose of a sign is to direct. It's okay if signs change to suit the directed. That would be true if signs were held to be empty tokens, but that idea is Protestant and not Catholic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 (edited) https://twitter.com/CatholicNewsSvc/status/313644882893869056 "OK. Lombardi clarifies. Ab Macchi's ring was model for Pope Francis' fisherman's ring." That is good to hear. The original article I read, which LilRed kindly posted in another thread, indicated that he was "recycling" the archbishop's ring. I guess the environmentalist lobby will be disappointed. :bounce: Edited March 18, 2013 by Apotheoun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franciscanheart Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 I didn't know much of him as archbishop, so it's difficult to say. I just think that there is too much of a contrast, too much of an emphasis on shunning certain things. I appreciate that he is not a clone of Benedict but so far what I've seen could be described as a 'papacy of personality'. Maybe he world needs him to be this way. I for one, am impressed by his style of speech and his ability to speak 'off-the-cuff'. I think it will endear people to him.Listening to what the Cardinals agreed needed to be possessed by the man elevated to Bishop of Rome, he is the perfect fit. Only God could have seen that coming...I do think the world needs this. I think the CHURCH needs this. And I do believe his personality -- granted him by God and elected into this office -- will endear people to him and soften their hearts to hear the message of Christ.That's a gross oversimplification, but it gets my point across, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 The purpose of a sign is to direct. It's okay if signs change to suit the directed. Depends on the sign. Catholic/Papal Tradition and tradition should be honored per the Fourth Commandment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts