I Don't Want To Fight About Tradition

[superblue]

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.

I can understand that, but when no one can find the documents in question and just resort back to a version of oral history , that was probably written down one time then lost in some vault or museum then it just goes to show that those in charge do not really care. If these issues were so so so important and vital to the Church, someone in the Vatican would get a researcher or a group of researchers, to go and dig up as much physically written down evidence as possibly, and I imagine this has already been done at some point in history so the leg work has been done all someone has to do is find the already complied document to point to the actual laws in question. But there is the thing, no one is doing it, popes are too busy doing other things, and everyone in the Vatican is stretched thin, no one has the time or energy to give two beans to the issue because it just is not that important, if it again were so critical someone would find the time to officially bring the issue to a head and then to a close.

[Perigrina]

I can understand that, but when no one can find the documents in question and just resort back to a version of oral history , that was probably written down one time then lost in some vault or museum then it just goes to show that those in charge do not really care. If these issues were so so so important and vital to the Church, someone in the Vatican would get a researcher or a group of researchers, to go and dig up as much physically written down evidence as possibly, and I imagine this has already been done at some point in history so the leg work has been done all someone has to do is find the already complied document to point to the actual laws in question. But there is the thing, no one is doing it, popes are too busy doing other things, and everyone in the Vatican is stretched thin, no one has the time or energy to give two beans to the issue because it just is not that important, if it again were so critical someone would find the time to officially bring the issue to a head and then to a close.

 

Determining liturgy by looking at the most ancient practices is a condemned error called "archeologism".  Liturgy has both changeable and unchangeable elements, so it can adjust to the needs of the times.  The pope is the person in charge of decisions about liturgy.  Different popes have had different areas of emphasis in their papacies.  Some of them have given a lot of attention to liturgical questions.  The most recent of these is Pope Benedict.

[Nihil Obstat]

I can understand that, but when no one can find the documents in question and just resort back to a version of oral history , that was probably written down one time then lost in some vault or museum then it just goes to show that those in charge do not really care. If these issues were so so so important and vital to the Church, someone in the Vatican would get a researcher or a group of researchers, to go and dig up as much physically written down evidence as possibly, and I imagine this has already been done at some point in history so the leg work has been done all someone has to do is find the already complied document to point to the actual laws in question. But there is the thing, no one is doing it, popes are too busy doing other things, and everyone in the Vatican is stretched thin, no one has the time or energy to give two beans to the issue because it just is not that important, if it again were so critical someone would find the time to officially bring the issue to a head and then to a close.

Well a large part of this depends on what we are looking for, and how far back it goes. Obviously in this day and age, when it is easy and cheap to write things down, everything worth knowing is written somewhere. When we go back 2000 years, that is sometimes not the case. Eventually we see these important things being written down, but not always right away. Then we have to look back and see where it came from. Who said it before it was written? Who said it first? If we look at something like St. Irenaeus' works, you can see him referring to St. Polycarp, his teacher, who in turn was a disciple of St. John. Irenaeus learned from Polycarp, but we do not necessarily have written down precisely what Polycarp said. We have Irenaeus' account of it. And in those cases where what John said to Polycarp who said to Irenaeus, and which was passed down and accepted by the Patristic writers and all the orthodox episcopate, then what we have does constitute sacred Tradition, and strictly speaking whether or not it was written down is sort of irrelevant. It would still be Tradition even if Irenaeus had not written it down, or if his writings were lost, and instead we only had an oral record which had been passed down through the episcopate.

 

Edit: Not trying to argue with you. Just making sure that perspective is understood.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Nihil Obstat

[Dr_Asik]

I love Liturgy and I do the best I can to honor it. That said, I'm not sold about using Latin at all. I have difficulty seeing how using a language nobody understands could improve any particular aspect of the celebration. There's nothing divine about Latin as far as I'm aware; it certainly wasn't spoken by Jesus or his Apostles in Galilee. Latin has also lost its status as an international language or as the language of science. It's not a language used by the Biblical texts either. I get that for a long time it was the language of the Liturgy - and still is, officially - but the Tradition argument goes both ways. If Tradition never changes, then how come Mass changed over the course of centuries? And if Tradition does change, then how is the new form of the Mass not Tradition? There's something wrong about calling the Latin Mass "Traditional". It's certainly traditional, but is it the only "Traditional" Mass? I don't think so.

 

Anyway, that's my not-so-well-thought-out opinion.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Dr_Asik

[Credo in Deum]

I love Liturgy and I do the best I can to honor it. That said, I'm not sold about using Latin at all. I have difficulty seeing how using a language nobody understands could improve any particular aspect of the celebration. There's nothing divine about Latin as far as I'm aware; it certainly wasn't spoken by Jesus or his Apostles in Galilee. Latin has also lost its status as an international language or as the language of science. It's not a language used by the Biblical texts either. I get that for a long time it was the language of the Liturgy - and still is, officially - but the Tradition argument goes both ways. If Tradition never changes, then how come Mass changed over the course of centuries? And if Tradition does change, then how is the new form of the Mass not Tradition? There's something wrong about calling the Latin Mass "Traditional". It's certainly traditional, but is it the only "Traditional" Mass? I don't think so.

 

Anyway, that's my not-so-well-thought-out opinion.

 

Well some of the confusion is because many people call it the traditional Latin Mass, when it is really the Tridentine Mass.  The liturgy actually incorporates three languages, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew.   The Mass is the representing of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, and it is because of this those three languages are of special significance in the liturgy.  They point to Calvary: "And there was also a superscription written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS."--Luke 23:38

 

There are other good reasons for why Latin is important especially in the liturgy; however, I personally feel the major reason is because they were on our Lord's Cross, and have become sacred for being there.  On Calvary Christ was celebrating the Mass, it is only fitting we use the languages He willed to be on His Holy Cross.  Even the Holy See has found it fitting to use Latin as it's official language.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Credo in Deum

[Perigrina]

I love Liturgy and I do the best I can to honor it. That said, I'm not sold about using Latin at all. I have difficulty seeing how using a language nobody understands could improve any particular aspect of the celebration. There's nothing divine about Latin as far as I'm aware; it certainly wasn't spoken by Jesus or his Apostles in Galilee. Latin has also lost its status as an international language or as the language of science. It's not a language used by the Biblical texts either. I get that for a long time it was the language of the Liturgy - and still is, officially - but the Tradition argument goes both ways. If Tradition never changes, then how come Mass changed over the course of centuries? And if Tradition does change, then how is the new form of the Mass not Tradition? There's something wrong about calling the Latin Mass "Traditional". It's certainly traditional, but is it the only "Traditional" Mass? I don't think so.

 

Anyway, that's my not-so-well-thought-out opinion.

 

I've seen the question asked on trad forums asking which they would choose given the option of the Tridentine Mass translated into vernacular or the Ordinary Form translated into Latin.  The great majority choose the vernacular Tridentine, which is my choice as well.  There is a shift in the theological emphasis in the newer form that is apparently a factor in many people's preference for the older one.

 

I do like having at least some Latin in the Mass because I think it is a good symbol of the universal nature of the Church.  However, I personally would be satisfied with following the guideline set out by Vatican II:

 

54. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and "the common prayer," but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to the norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution. [This exception allowing for more vernacular seems directed primarily at mission situations.]

Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

 

[mortify ii]

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.

Pope Pius XII was the first to usher changes by altering the Good Friday prayer and thus why many trads prefer the 1945 missal.

I suggest reading quo primum, and keep in mind the Pope is speaking of the most important sacrament in our religion and not merely discipline.

[Perigrina]

Pope Pius XII was the first to usher changes by altering the Good Friday prayer and thus why many trads prefer the 1945 missal.

I suggest reading quo primum, and keep in mind the Pope is speaking of the most important sacrament in our religion and not merely discipline.

 

Pope Pius XII was the successor of Peter and his encyclicals carry just as much authority as any other popes'.  He explicitly taught that liturgy contains both changeable and unchangeable elements and that popes (but nobody else) have the authority to change liturgy.

 

Quo Primum was written at a time when virtually anyone who read encyclicals had studied theology and understood its assumptions.  It was not necessary to explicitly state that it was not binding on future popes's decisions concerning liturgy because its intended audience knew this.  Even among trads, many people recognize that it is not possible to base an argument against the Ordinary Form on Quo Primum .
 

I am decidedly miffed that you are using a thread that I started in order to promote healing and understanding among Catholics to insinuate that the Ordinary Form is not licit.  This is a false and divisive position that has no place in this thread or, as far as I can tell, anywhere on this phorum.

[KnightofChrist]

I don't know what can be done about the infighting in the Latin Rite today. I have long held the belief that PM is like a microcosm of the Church. The infighting we sometimes see here is happening elsewhere in the Church as a whole. I believe the creation of the New Mass unintentionally created, for the lack of a better word, two waring camps within the Church. Two camps that are the same and not the same, and the OF camp has continued to splitter into various different camps since its creation.

One of the reasons my grandfather became Catholic in the Latin Rite was because he was impressed with the fact that no matter where in the world he would go he would be able to attend the same version of the Mass any where in the world. If he were alive today he would not find this to be true, or not as true as it once was. Today there are numerous different versions of the OF, and many times it's hard to attend the same version of the Mass for parishes in the same county.

The Latin Rite appears to be splintering into various 'camps', and those camps don't get along well at times, because in practice they pray somewhat differently and many times have conflicting and different beliefs.

On paper the OF and it's many verisons and the EF are suppose to be the same Rite, but in practice sometimes it just doesn't look that way. On paper there should be no conflict between the 'camps' but in practice there is no doubt conflict between those camps exist. I don't know if the 'fighting' between the OF and the EF camps will ever end, and with the ever continuing splintering of the OF into different camps I doubt things will get better any time soon.

Edited June 5, 2014 by KnightofChrist

[Perigrina]

I don't know what can be done about the infighting in the Latin Rite today. I have long held the belief that PM is like a microcosm of the Church. The infighting we sometimes see here is happening elsewhere in the Church as a whole. I believe the creation of the New Mass unintentionally created, for the lack of a better word, two waring camps within the Church. Two camps that are the same and not the same, and the OF camp has continued to splitter into various different camps since its creation.

 

About the only thing I can do about infighting in the Church as a whole is to pray.  But I can also resolve to reject a partisan spirit in my personal interactions.  I can make a conscious effort to overcome my gut reaction to criticisms of trads or disagreement with trad positions.  I can try to control my tendency to be angry or bitter or defensive.  I can try to understand the perspective of the other.  I can resolve that I personally will not participate in any warring and that I will accept all Catholics as my brothers and sisters.

 

And enough people making resolutions like this will affect the Church as a whole.

[fides' Jack]

I don't know what can be done about the infighting in the Latin Rite today. I have long held the belief that PM is like a microcosm of the Church. The infighting we sometimes see here is happening elsewhere in the Church as a whole. I believe the creation of the New Mass unintentionally created, for the lack of a better word, two waring camps within the Church. Two camps that are the same and not the same, and the OF camp has continued to splitter into various different camps since its creation.

One of the reasons my grandfather became Catholic in the Latin Rite was because he was impressed with the fact that no matter where in the world he would go he would be able to attend the same version of the Mass any where in the world. If he were alive today he would not find this to be true, or not as true as it once was. Today there are numerous different versions of the OF, and many times it's hard to attend the same version of the Mass for parishes in the same county.

The Latin Rite appears to be splintering into various 'camps', and those camps don't get along well at times, because in practice they pray somewhat differently and many times have conflicting and different beliefs.

On paper the OF and it's many verisons and the EF are suppose to be the same Rite, but in practice sometimes it just doesn't look that way. On paper there should be no conflict between the 'camps' but in practice there is no doubt conflict between those camps exist. I don't know if the 'fighting' between the OF and the EF camps will ever end, and with the ever continuing splintering of the OF into different camps I doubt things will get better any time soon.

 

These are good observations.  I think it's worth noting that this happens in every case when one leaves the rules/teachings set down by the Church.  The example relevant to this conversation being the groups like SSPX, and then SSPV, and others like them.  And of course those that you're referring to on the other side of this "conflict".  

 

I also owe my being Catholic to those before me who had been impressed with the idea of a universal Church - one where you can go anywhere and it would be externally the same.  It's sad to me that we've lost that, even if only in the externals... 

 

Perigrina, thanks for starting this thread.  While reading your first post, I was under the impression you were a man, until I read about your husband.  This was probably because it's been my observation for a long time that in a way, the Extraordinary Form is much more masculine, while the Ordinary Form is more feminine.  Maybe those aren't precisely the right terms - but I think it goes a long way to explaining why so many men now don't like to go to Mass each week - even with their families.  I've also noticed that men seem to be the driving force behind regularly attending EF parishes, while their wives seem to prefer the OF.  This is all generally speaking of course - it seems you've had the opposite experience.  However, I'd be interested in your thoughts on that idea.

 

My wife and I still get into fights about this.  Her Catholic background is very charismatic, while mine is very traditional - to the point of being schismatic.  We sort of met in the middle, which has been very hard for both of us.  But she's helped me overcome some of that negativity and judgmental attitude which rad trads are often known for.  

 

As I've seen personally, resolving this sort of conflict takes a lot of patience and an open mind from both sides.  If both sides aren't completely open to seeing the truth, then the conflict will continue - and it will.

[CatherineM]

I have no problem with the Latin Mass, or those who prefer it. My problem comes from those who deem me to be a bad Catholic or a lessor one because I don't personally prefer the Latin.

[Perigrina]

I have no problem with the Latin Mass, or those who prefer it. My problem comes from those who deem me to be a bad Catholic or a lessor one because I don't personally prefer the Latin.

 

This is a problem that I have encountered many times myself. I think it is quite common for people to have this sort of experience with trads.  I love the traditional Latin Mass, but I am ashamed that it has become associated with people who behave this way.
 

[Credo in Deum]

For both sides it could boil down to "a few rotten apples have spoiled the whole punch".  

 

Or, we could do the truly smart thing and just look at each other as being Catholic and then just view each others actions on an individual level?

[Perigrina]

These are good observations.  I think it's worth noting that this happens in every case when one leaves the rules/teachings set down by the Church.  The example relevant to this conversation being the groups like SSPX, and then SSPV, and others like them.  And of course those that you're referring to on the other side of this "conflict". 

 

This is an important point.  Once people start setting up their own opinions over the teaching of the Church, that's when attachment to tradition really starts causing problems and divisions.  Attachment to tradition is not a problem in itself. 

 

Perigrina, thanks for starting this thread.  While reading your first post, I was under the impression you were a man, until I read about your husband.  This was probably because it's been my observation for a long time that in a way, the Extraordinary Form is much more masculine, while the Ordinary Form is more feminine.  Maybe those aren't precisely the right terms - but I think it goes a long way to explaining why so many men now don't like to go to Mass each week - even with their families.  I've also noticed that men seem to be the driving force behind regularly attending EF parishes, while their wives seem to prefer the OF.  This is all generally speaking of course - it seems you've had the opposite experience.  However, I'd be interested in your thoughts on that idea.

 

I think that preferring the EF tends to be associated with placing principles over feelings and that tends to be a characteristic of men more often.  The trad forums that I am familiar with have significantly more men than women, but that might also be an internet thing.

 

My wife and I still get into fights about this.  Her Catholic background is very charismatic, while mine is very traditional - to the point of being schismatic.  We sort of met in the middle, which has been very hard for both of us.  But she's helped me overcome some of that negativity and judgmental attitude which rad trads are often known for.  

 

As I've seen personally, resolving this sort of conflict takes a lot of patience and an open mind from both sides.  If both sides aren't completely open to seeing the truth, then the conflict will continue - and it will.

 

It is really rough to deal with this in a marriage, but it sounds like you are on the right track.  I agree that a negative and judgmental attitude is often a problem.

 

My husband has a Catholic charismatic background too.  We actually met at a charismatic prayer group where my future husband was a regular attendee.  I was not Catholic at the time and a friend invited me because she thought I would find it an interesting religious experience.