Protestant and Catholic Reformation

[aemes1]

In light of the Protestant and Catholic (Counter) Reformation, I'd be interested to hear people's responses to this statement:

"Tradition is the living faith of the dead: traditionalism is the dead faith of the living."

[technomage]

*"Tradition is the living faith of the dead: traditionalism is the dead faith of the living."

Rhetoric.

Is loyalty to tradition a virtue?

Is the tradition serving a living purpose?

*Is it possible to have reform without schism?

Possible? Yes. Likely? Because of the necessarily subjective nature of the issues, no.

*What is the difference between reform and renewal?

Whether or not the person who wrote the history agreed with the "reformer."

Those sound like sarcastic answers, and yes there is an element of sarcasm--but it's very small. The Reformation and Counter-Reformation may have started out with good intentions, but whatever good intentions may have started it, both movements were rapidly overtaken by secular political considerations.

[aemes1]

That's okay - I'm from New Zealand and we live and breath sarcasm. :wink:

[technomage]

Cool--I've got several Kiwi friends, and sarcasm does seem to be pretty prevalent there. :smile:

But that second response--"Is the tradition serving a living purpose?"--no sarcasm there. If a tradition is not serving a living purpose, then loyalty to that tradition is not a virtue.

[aemes1]

Yes, it (sarcasm) is. It's not necessarily a good thing, but it can be lots of fun. Unfortunately it's only enjoyable if both parties are sarcastic-partakers...otherwise someone gets offended for sure. :teeth:

I agree that tradition needs to be serving a living purpose in order for it to be worth adhering to. Do you think a tradition can have a living purpose to one person, but none to another, depending on the individual's reasons for keeping it?

Does one practice a tradition as a result of being virtuous, or is the act of keeping the tradition (assuming it has a living purpose :wink:) virtuous in and of itself?

Don't feel you have to answer unless you wish too...I'm just thinking aloud and confusing myself.

[technomage]

Yes, it (sarcasm) is. It's not necessarily a good thing, but it can be lots of fun. Unfortunately it's only enjoyable if both parties are sarcastic-partakers...otherwise someone gets offended for sure. :teeth:

Which can occasionally be fun in its own right ... :hehe:

I agree that tradition needs to be serving a living purpose in order for it to be worth adhering to. Do you think a tradition can have a living purpose to one person, but none to another, depending on the individual's reasons for keeping it?

I think it's (philosophically speaking) necessary that tradition be accepted subjectively for the tradition to be meaningful at all ... which means that yeah, it's going to be meaningful to some but not to others. I don't think any tradition will ever see universal acceptance (though it is possible that a given tradition could be universally rejected).

But there are some definite problems in some traditions. If the tradition remains the same, but the culture around it changes, then the tradition can become irrelevant to the culture as a whole. Case in point--animal sacrifice for religious purposes. My ancestors practiced it, and I'm willing to bet yours did to. Hey, it's traditional! :smile: But the culture has changed to the point that the people who practice animal sacrifice are a very tiny minority.

Traditions, by their very nature, don't change (much). That can stabilize the community that holds the tradition, but taken too far it can also stagnate that culture. And frankly, no generalizations can be made--each tradition must be evaluated to see its effect on the culture.

Does one practice a tradition as a result of being virtuous, or is the act of keeping the tradition (assuming it has a living purpose :wink:) virtuous in and of itself?

Hmmm ... again, it depends on the tradition. No tradition is virtuous in and of itself--it must be considered in light of its effect on the culture.

[shunyadragon]

In light of the Protestant and Catholic (Counter) Reformation, I'd be interested to hear people's responses to this statement:

"Tradition is the living faith of the dead: traditionalism is the dead faith of the living."

Interesting quote, to me the meaning is important. Traditions are very much apart of our identity, but traditionalism is living and clinging to the past, as do most believers in the ancient traditionalism of their ancient texts. It is definitely time to give up the ghosts of the past and rememeber them as our rich heritage. the spiritual heritage of all the religions, cultures and peoples of the world including our Neolithic heratage.

[Solly]

In light of the Protestant and Catholic (Counter) Reformation, I'd be interested to hear people's responses to this statement:

"Tradition is the living faith of the dead: traditionalism is the dead faith of the living."


With appropriate commentary and caveats, it's a good phrase, reflecting the continuity of the faith over the generations, back to a significant past, as opposed to those who crystalise that past, and their adherence to it, and have faith in that. Tradition should always be living, becoming the tradition of those who come after. Religion is after all fundamentally conservative, passing on the faith, etc. But we must be alive to our own times, not living in the past, else we become anachronistic.

Those who criticise the RCC as being popery bent on world domination usually have no understanding of the Counter Reformation, and what changed in the RCC then, and since. Interesting that the next big thing to come out of Geneva after Calvin, was Francis de Sales.

[shunyadragon]

With appropriate commentary and caveats, it's a good phrase, reflecting the continuity of the faith over the generations, back to a significant past, as opposed to those who crystalise that past, and their adherence to it, and have faith in that. Tradition should always be living, becoming the tradition of those who come after. Religion is after all fundamentally conservative, passing on the faith, etc. But we must be alive to our own times, not living in the past, else we become anachronistic.

Those who criticise the RCC as being popery bent on world domination usually have no understanding of the Counter Reformation, and what changed in the RCC then, and since. Interesting that the next big thing to come out of Geneva after Calvin, was Francis de Sales.

It is apparent that our knowledge of the world increases and religion evolves and changes as the horizon of our potential view expands to the point we can know the whole history of the world through in a vaste panarama of time. Catholics and Protestants, as well as all ancient religions face the challenge of the problem of traditionalism. Ancient religions like Christianity, Islam and Hinduism divide and divide again based on what they believe is true in their texts and history. Traditionalism emplies doctrine and set theology that determine what is absolute truth. Here lies a universal problem of ALL ancient religions, because they fail to realize the limits of human faliable comprehension of truth and the fact that through out history human knowledge and belief evolves and changes. For example, Protestants may claim that they have evolved past the Roman Church, and the Orthodox Church, but in reality they are anchored in the same basic traditionalism as the Roman and Orthodox churches.

[aemes1]

Those who criticise the RCC as being popery bent on world domination usually have no understanding of the Counter Reformation, and what changed in the RCC then, and since. Interesting that the next big thing to come out of Geneva after Calvin, was Francis de Sales.

I've only recently started reading about the Counter Reformation but from what I understand so far, it seems they didn't budge on anything core to them being RCC, doctrinally speaking. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. As I said, it's a new topic for me so I'm pretty uninformed. :ahem:

[aemes1]

Sorry about the formatting, I'm having problems tonight! Sorry to break the HTML tradition. :wink: here we go manual...

Justin Eiler said:


<Which can occasionally be fun in its own right ... :hehe:>


True, true...:smile:


<But there are some definite problems in some traditions. If the tradition remains the same, but the culture around it changes, then the tradition can become irrelevant to the culture as a whole.>

I suppose this is the test of whether a tradition is living and of real value, or not.

<Case in point--animal sacrifice for religious purposes. My ancestors practiced it, and I'm willing to bet yours did to. Hey, it's traditional! :smile: But the culture has changed to the point that the people who practice animal sacrifice are a very tiny minority.>

Good point. I'm not sure if my ancestors practiced it or not (from Ireland and Scotland, maybe you can enlighten me?!).

<Traditions, by their very nature, don't change (much). That can stabilize the community that holds the tradition, but taken too far it can also stagnate that culture. And frankly, no generalizations can be made--each tradition must be evaluated to see its effect on the culture.>

There seems to be a strong tendency (in most of us, I daresay...) to be defined by our traditons...when a sense of identity is stronly reliant on practices, I suppose it's natural to grit one's teeth and hold on to them for dear life.

[aemes1]

Interesting quote, to me the meaning is important. Traditions are very much apart of our identity, but traditionalism is living and clinging to the past, as do most believers in the ancient traditionalism of their ancient texts. It is definitely time to give up the ghosts of the past and rememeber them as our rich heritage. the spiritual heritage of all the religions, cultures and peoples of the world including our Neolithic heratage.

I suppose it depends how one views their ancient texts. For instance, I believe that the Bible is divinely inspired, "God-breathed", and as such is living, trancending time and cultures. Time and and culture will change the way aspects of it are interpreted and applied, but the God whose story it tells remains the same.

I like how you said "traditionalism is living and clinging to the past"...thanks for your thoughts. :smile:

[Solly]

I've only recently started reading about the Counter Reformation but from what I understand so far, it seems they didn't budge on anything core to them being RCC, doctrinally speaking. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. As I said, it's a new topic for me so I'm pretty uninformed. :ahem:
Well, for a start, the Pope could no lnger claim temporal authority over vast swathes of european land as a matter of course. This took time to work itself out, but today we have a kind of Pope who is a lot different from those of the pre-reformation era.

No, they didn't budge on anything core, and in fact in some areas re-afformed it much more fiercely than they had before the reformaiton, when there had been a plurality of views. But theCounter Rformation produced the english Douay-Rheim Bible translation for a start, unthinkable before then. The Jesuits where started, and whatever your thoughts on their poltical activities, they brought a focus to personal piety generally missing in the educated laity. Ditto Francis de Sales. Jansen was another result. It took time, it took the 30 years war, it took the French and Italian Revolutions, but the RCC is different in Europe to what it was. Not saying it isn't the RCC or that there are things I don't agree with, and that it is reactionary at times, but as one who was force fed the Popery line for a good time, it was refreshing to go and read some RCC material, and find out what they really believe, and practice.

[technomage]

<But there are some definite problems in some traditions. If the tradition remains the same, but the culture around it changes, then the tradition can become irrelevant to the culture as a whole.>

I suppose this is the test of whether a tradition is living and of real value, or not.

It's one test, certainly. Is the tradition too stagnant to be relevant to the culture? Is the tradition "holding back" the culture from understanding? That was one of the things I liked about the Second Vatican Council's decision to drop the use of Latin--the "tradition" of using Latin only resulted in a lack of understanding: deciding to use the language of the congregation increased understanding.

<Case in point--animal sacrifice for religious purposes. My ancestors practiced it, and I'm willing to bet yours did to. Hey, it's traditional! :smile: But the culture has changed to the point that the people who practice animal sacrifice are a very tiny minority.>

Good point. I'm not sure if my ancestors practiced it or not (from Ireland and Scotland, maybe you can enlighten me?!).

They sure did, as did the Germanics and most tribes who lived in the Balkans (I have Irish, Scots, Germanic, and Romanian ancestry).

There seems to be a strong tendency (in most of us, I daresay...) to be defined by our traditons...when a sense of identity is stronly reliant on practices, I suppose it's natural to grit one's teeth and hold on to them for dear life.

:hehe: Ain't that the truth! Which is probably why reformation only rarely happens without schism.

[Anoetos]

In light of the Protestant and Catholic (Counter) Reformation, I'd be interested to hear people's responses to this statement:

"Tradition is the living faith of the dead: traditionalism is the dead faith of the living."

Pithy, not entirely nonsense but certainly a radical oversimplification.

[shunyadragon]

I suppose it depends how one views their ancient texts. For instance, I believe that the Bible is divinely inspired, "God-breathed", and as such is living, trancending time and cultures. Time and and culture will change the way aspects of it are interpreted and applied, but the God whose story it tells remains the same.

I like how you said "traditionalism is living and clinging to the past"...thanks for your thoughts. :smile:

The problem with this is that ALL religions, especially the Abrahamic religions, and ALL the churches including the Roman Church considers their own scripture to be divinely inspired, or "God breathed", and as such transends time and cultures. Nontheless the concept of traditionalism is usually interpreted from the perspective of what one believes, and there is obviously a strong cultural orientation of ALL religions, especially Christian Churches.

[potato sundae]

That's because Churches of all sorts and shades a made up of human beings.

[shunyadragon]

That's because Churches of all sorts and shades a made up of human beings.

Taking that one step further all the religions, as well as the multitude of divisions, of the world make up the 'sorts and shades' of the diverse nature of th human falliable view of the nature of revelation or their personal relationship with the 'Source' some call God.

[Swardus]

I would say that living faith for the living is non-traditional. Tradition indicates is, essentially ritual.