I Don't Want To Fight About Tradition

[superblue]

I can't disagree with you more, this is not about feelings or some nostalgia about certain practices. The Roman Liturgy was set in stone forever by Quo Primum. 

pft set in stone,

 

if you really want to be critical ,lets go around to every church and see where the Tabernacle is placed and why, then I think technically either the priest or the deacon is the one to remove the host from the tabernacle and bring host to the alter, ( I can name one church in my area that doesn't do this at least not all the time because the tabernacle is so far from the alter ).  When there is not uniformity in every Catholic Church on just where the Tabernacle must be located, then one can not really expect to hold up an argument for what ever they want to argue about here.

 

You want to focus on a totally moronic argument how about we go all the way back to the The Great Schism of 1054  and try to pretend that the wording which was fought over then was really worth fighting over and in part leading to that split, or one could just surmise that probably it was nothing more than a power struggle that needed a catalyst so hmm what we can fight over to kick this off, oh ya here we go this..

 

BUT then if you want to look at examples in scripture about avoiding drama, how about Matthew chpt 17, when Christ and Peter are being hassled about paying the temple tax, so basically to avoid the drama of an argument, Christ tells peter to go to a lake, cast a line catch a fish lookn the mouth of the fish bingo a coin worth double the tax or tax for the both of em.  All just to shut someone up about their gripe.   So some where down the line one has to figure people are holding on to pride to keep a fight going for no good reason. An since no one wants to mend the fence and agree to the others terms for " the sake of unity and peace " the fight continues ( because we all know it the fight isn't about " maintaining power " ).

 

 

I think perg hit it on the head

[mortify ii]

pft set in stone,

 

I don't take such things lightly

[CatherineM]

But was it the traditional rite of exorcism? :)

Yes. Priest, roman rite, a place that was possessed. No doubt in my mind.

[mortify ii]

Yes. Priest, roman rite, a place that was possessed. No doubt in my mind.

 

Was Malachi Martin the exorcist?

[Perigrina]

I can't disagree with you more, this is not about feelings or some nostalgia about certain practices. The Roman Liturgy was set in stone forever by Quo Primum. 

 

You have misunderstood Quo Primum.  A pope (and nobody else) has the authority to change the liturgy of the Church.  Pope Pius XII spelled this out quite explicitly in Mediator Dei.

 

The implication of your claim is that Paul VI promulgated an illicit Mass.  Of course people will be upset with trads if people think that this is the traditionalist view. Your claim is insulting and hurtful as well as being wrong.
 

[Perigrina]

Perigrina ty for the detailed response, I have seen arguments on C.A.F and never asked why it was a big deal and now I know what SSPX means !  I clipped this piece you mentioned cause it is constantly bickered about on C.A.F and even on their radio station it has been brought up, the standing / and receiving of Communion in the hand , and it seems at least to me a worthless argument altogether, and I have been at mass recently where people not many but have kneeled for Communion, and it was a lil odd to see it but only because I rarely do, and I am like okay, the person went on their way everyone kept going like usual and the sky didn't fall down and God didn't send any lightening bolts to smite anyone...  It seems like people are more eager to argue over petty things just for the sake of hearing themselves rather than really taking issues with things that matter.  And I would have to say hardly anyone growing up now in the faith has any clue of these differences that you have explained.

 

And I am still seeing no real reason to get on a soap box and argue one way or the other, if what has been done in the past is not being repeated now that is.

 

It is not that I think these things are unimportant.  They actually have very serious theological implications.  However, it is counterproductive to argue about them at this time, when the most likely result is creating divisions in the Church.
 

[superblue]

well what are these serious theological implications then if you don't mind rattling them off because to me it just comes off as unimportant or rather pointless arguing all for the sake of arguing and trying to discredit either side of the equation to just be able to claim oneself as the victor in the argument.  More over, when would be a good time for this argument to take place, and for the church to I guess have some kind of council on all these matters ? As to a result in creating divisions in the church, I would argue that has already taken place, on many levels inside and outside the church. There might not be a want to add fuel to the fire, but ignoring something that needs to be addressed due to these serious theological issues is not going to go away, and to merely wait till things are calm in the world to some degree that is probably impossible to define does not promise that it still will not cause more division.

 

And also what ever these reasons are, at this point in time has the church even begun to scratch the surface of any of the issues to any degree ?

[Perigrina]

This is not the place to address those issues.  I cannot see any benefit to discussing them here, even if I thought it were permitted under the phorum rules.

 

St. Paul dealt with an issue in the early Church in which there was a disagreement over whether Christians should eat meat that had been sacrificed to idols.  Even though St. Paul has an opinion on the right answer to the question in itself, he told people to resolve it by considering how their actions affected others.

 

Building up the Church takes priority over this sort of issue.

[superblue]

This is not the place to address those issues.  I cannot see any benefit to discussing them here, even if I thought it were permitted under the phorum rules.

 

St. Paul dealt with an issue in the early Church in which there was a disagreement over whether Christians should eat meat that had been sacrificed to idols.  Even though St. Paul has an opinion on the right answer to the question in itself, he told people to resolve it by considering how their actions affected others.

 

Building up the Church takes priority over this sort of issue.

 

 

Pretty much seems to confirm what I am thinking, if the building up of the Church takes priority over what ever the issues are, then the issues really are not that important at all and do not deserve to even be argued about. It is just creating un needed drama is all the arguing is good for.

 

If there is no benefit of discussing the issues here then there is no point in discussing it else where and I can promise you they will not drop any of these issues over on C.A.F even if hell froze over. I am not saying the discussion or argument will ever stop, I am saying it is a waste of time and is more than not a giant waste of time and energy because in the end God could careless over what humanity is arguing about in this regard in the church.

[Credo in Deum]

I personally believe God cares a lot about the things which happen in His Liturgy.

[Perigrina]

I personally believe God cares a lot about the things which happen in His Liturgy.

 

I agree.  I hope these issues will be discussed by popes, bishops and theologians. Just because it is not a good idea for lay people to discuss them on the Internet, does not mean they are unimportant.

[Perigrina]

To me being a traditionalist means being pro-preservation, and not anti-change. I think if others understood this they would be less inclined to view me in a suspicious way. I'm not against changes in the Liturgy, however, I am against the false spirit of "change for the sake of change." When changes are carried out in the spirit of eradication rather than preservation, then I see cause for concern. There have been times were I have been accused of being against the Holy Spirit because I do not see any reason to part with everything pre-Vatican II. This accusation always made me sad since it was in a way implying that the development of the liturgy before V2 was either not the result of the working of the Holy Spirit or that everything pre-Vatican 2 was a mistake by the Holy Spirit. Both conclusions I felt in my heart were and are unacceptable. So, I was called a traditionalist by other Catholics and just kind of decided to embrace the label. When asked why I hate change by fellow Catholics I simply respond that I do not hate change. The type of change I believe in is a type of change that has the beautiful ability of meeting the needs of our current age while at the same time preserving our Catholic heritage. Then I throw in a little quote from Papa Benedict XVI to drive the point home. ;)

"What earlier generations held as sacred remains sacred and great for us too." -Pope Benedict XVI

 

This is an example of the sort of thing that I believe would be helpful to post. I would like to see Catholics who feel attached to tradition writing about what it means to them and those Catholics who do not have that attachment trying to understand them.  I would like to see Catholics who do not have an attachment to tradition writing about their perspective and Catholics who do feel attached trying to understand them.  I would like trads to be able to write about feeling misunderstood and under suspicion and non-trads to be able to write about feeling judged and condemned and know that people will respond with compassion rather than defensiveness.

[superblue]

I agree.  I hope these issues will be discussed by popes, bishops and theologians. Just because it is not a good idea for lay people to discuss them on the Internet, does not mean they are unimportant.

 

 

 

why in the world would it not be a good idea for lay people to discuss this, we make up the church, we are the church, to think that popes, bishops, and theologians are going to answer such things any better than we can is a farce, it would be like relying upon our government alone and entrusting our government completely to do the right things for us and not even bother questioning the things that they are doing.

 

The only thing I would agree is that it matters absolutely nothing what the lay people think because in the end we are in a monarchy that only gives direction and doesn't want to hear outside opinions on such things.   And of course the bickering over such things is unimportant, if it were important I am pretty sure Christ would have left implicit instructions to one of his disciples at the time on the matter , who then in turn would have had someone write it down. But since no one did, it is just pointless bickering as usual.

[Nihil Obstat]

 

The only thing I would agree is that it matters absolutely nothing what the lay people think because in the end we are in a monarchy that only gives direction and doesn't want to hear outside opinions on such things.   And of course the bickering over such things is unimportant, if it were important I am pretty sure Christ would have left implicit instructions to one of his disciples at the time on the matter , who then in turn would have had someone write it down. But since no one did, it is just pointless bickering as usual.

To be fair, our Catholic concept of Tradition does involve teachings which were passed on since the Apostolic age, in some cases orally. Typically when these things were eventually written down, it was with the understanding that there was already an established oral tradition of the particular doctrine.

[Perigrina]

It is pointless for laity who are not involved in leading and teaching the Church to bicker about liturgy with each other.  It is the job of the hierarchy to make decisions about liturgy, so they need to talk about it.  Any laity who are knowledgeable enough on the topic may make their opinions known to the people who make the decisions, but we are not part of the decision making process.  The Church is not a democracy and secular governments are not a good analogy for understanding the Church.

 

Liturgy is extremely important.  It is about how we worship God and nothing is more important than God.