Any here was anti-traditional who became traditional?

prodromos said:

What if those traditions are not of men, but of the Church, which is the body of Christ?

Click to expand...

"What if"
the answer varies according to what Denomination is being asked, or what non-Denomination is being asked, and so forth.

I grew up in a very traditional Anglo-Catholic church, where the Mass took place a couple of times a week, with bells, incense, and a robed choir.

Over the years, I attended a number of churches, mostly mainline protestant, with various styles of prayer and worship. I loved the hymns and songs. I loved the fellowship. But over time, I became increasingly concerned by the swing of some of these churches towards what I felt to be some of the less desirable aspects of conservative evangelicalism. The message was inclusive and well intentioned, but at times I felt that their behaviour to be particularly exclusive. I felt uncomfortable with the spiritual arrogance shown by some of the members of the church, that their views were "right" whilst everyone else was "wrong". There was also the perception that to worship God properly involved throwing away hymn books, investing in overhead projectors, PA equipment, and fancy lights. Expensive flashy keyboards and drums became the staple diet of worship and the persistent tinkling of the piano filled up every ounce of quiet space that was left. I loved some of the modern worship songs, but didn't agree that they were the "only way" to do worship.

A number of years ago, I was going through a troubled time in my life, and went away alone on retreat to a Franciscan monastery. Here were a group of brothers who had a sincere faith in Jesus Christ and had committed themselves to a life of chastity, poverty and obedience, as well as extending hospitality and welcome to the stranger, those who were lonely, poor or in need. I was particularly moved by the way they shared everything they had in common and lived simple lives. No charge was made for my accommodation and people were encouraged to donate only if they are able to. I loved the periods of silence and contemplation and the enormous feeling of peace in their home. All the brothers had a very modest and gentle manner about them. None of the combative arguments I got so used to hearing in church. Not a word of judgement about my personal situation or my struggles at home. Just a compassionate, listening ear and an invitation for them to pray with me.

It was in the monastery I got reacquainted with the more historical and traditional aspects of Christian worship, including the liturgy and the sacraments. As the sun was setting and I joined in with the plain chant sung during Compline, I realised that it wasn't just me alone singing to God, or offering my own personal prayers. We were doing this together in community and in true fellowship. There was something special about that which truly resonated with me. There was a feeling of reverence, awe and humility in the way the worship was conducted. Just the serene sound of human voices, worshipping God in unity and truth and sharing in the prayers that Christians have used over the centuries.

Not David said:

I remember barely 2 or 3 years ago I was against tradition and things have changed for me now.

Any other similar case?

Click to expand...

There are of course distinctive and often conflicting traditions.

My sacramental life has been spent among Episcopalians and Catholics as a formal member, and I've spent time in (informal) fellowship with the Orthodox. Over the last several months I decided to once again regularize my status in the Roman Church by making confession.

When I first entered the Church catholic via baptism in a traditional Episcopal parish, I was not anti-tradition, but I was far from orthodox (as I today understand orthodoxy).

Over time the liturgy converted me, which was primarily either Rite I from the 1979 North American prayer book or the 1928 Book of Common Prayer communion service. The manner in which this Episcopal parish executes these rites is reverent, dignified, and worshipful.

I have since the time of my Christian formation experienced also the traditional Roman rite and the Liturgy of St. John of Chrysostom, and having had an AngloCatholic catechesis, among other influences, I have appreciated these ancient rites, although I think the chalice ought to be offered to the laity in the Roman rite.

I have also experienced modern liturgy in different denominations, but mostly Episcopal and Roman Catholic, but these experiences came later in my formation.

While there are better and worse performances in modern liturgy, as with the ancient ones or the rites originating in the Protestant reformation, I thoroughly disapprove of these modern liturgies and overall I avoid them.

Whether we're comparing the 1928 Book of Common Prayer to the '79 Rite II, or the Roman Rite to the Novus Ordo, which eviscerated the Offertory, among many other traditional prayers and immemorial traditions -- just compare how the sacrament of the eucharist is typically received in a modernized Novus Ordo mass to how it is received in the Roman rite -- I cannot approve of the direction modern liturgy has taken, and even those that are well celebrated, I can just barely endure. If the mass is irreverently celebrated, I cannot attend because to do so puts my mental health and faith at risk and would be a grave sin against faith.

I have had people tell me that I must in obedience approve of the modern liturgical trends. I don't see that I am dissenting from the faith because I refuse to accept the repression of an ancient rite and its replacement with a rite so drastically different that it appears to me not to be the Roman rite at all, especially when using alternative anaphoras. The church ought to have said a clear "no" to what was an abuse of power if that's what it took to maintain organic continuity with liturgical tradition.

So to answer the question, I was never anti-tradition per se. I quite liked much of it. But I wasn't in conformity with its basic doctrinal tenets, and understandably so, coming from a mostly secular background with a non-trinitarian religious background that my parents adhered to only nominally.

Through prayer and liturgy and community I eventually became a Christian, and in both the Episcopal and Catholic communions, I have taken refuge in traditional liturgy, the significant difference being that traditional Anglican liturgy originated in the Reformation.

Nevertheless, the manner in which worship was carried out in the 1928 liturgy bears a greater similitude to how I now experience worship in the Roman Rite than it does to the Novus Ordo. Some examples that come to mind are more kneeling in the service, the ad orientem posture of the priest, reception of communion while kneeling, a general sense of solemnity, a sense that what we are doing in liturgy is sacred, holy, and important.

Tigger45 said:

Which is why I think it’s most authentic to pull from the historic church and consensus of the ECF’s.

Click to expand...

I was interested to read what you have written here, my friend, and also what our colleague "thecolorsblend" wrote earlier.

In my own case, studying early church history and the views of the ECFs had the opposite effect on me from what "thecolorsblend" experienced. When I found that the early church was hardly in the apple-pie order that has so often been claimed for it...and that the ECFs rarely reached any "consensus," I felt I had to go the other way.

But when it comes to the value of traditional liturgical worship, we all agree, I know.

Albion said:

In my own case, studying early church history and the views of the ECFs had the opposite effect on me from what "thecolorsblend" experienced. When I found that the early church was hardly in the apple-pie order that has so often been claimed for it...and that the ECFs rarely reached any "consensus," I felt I had to go the other way.

But when it comes to the value of traditional liturgical worship, we all agree, I know.

Click to expand...

Though I am likely not as well versed as you in the fathers, I have enough learning to sense the truth in what you say.

To put my sense of tradition into words, I'd say a man ought to inform his own opinion about a matter of faith and morals and hold himself before the good Lord responsible for his views and actions. A man, woman, or child ought to inform his conscience carefully and prayerfully through this transitory life.

And yet, there are some doctrinal statements like the Apostles' Creed that most traditions have adhered to as well, and it would not make as much sense to commit to the tradition and dissent from some doctrines. If you do so dissent, perhaps you are a Oneness Pentecostal or a Mormon or whatever.

But what I find odd about modern prejudice against traditional rites, whether we're talking about the 1928 Book of Common Prayer in the Episcopal Church, or another rite, is that people seem to believe that if I strongly prefer a traditional rite, then I must be rigid in my thinking, or as I've heard one priest say, "literal."

The traditional liturgies contain in some cases more primitive and more developed elements, some of which derived from times when many theological opinions remained unclear or contested.

A traditional experience of worshipful, God-centered liturgy is not a straitjacket on my mind, and not an abdication of my responsibility to inform my own conscience and understanding as best I can before the One who will judge the "quick and the dead."

A man, a woman, can have a fervent love to worship the Lord in a way traditional to his religious community in the Church, and by no means be a mere rigid or overly simplistic or "literal" person, whatever was meant by that latter comment.

everbecoming2007 said:

But what I find odd about modern prejudice against traditional rites, whether we're talking about the 1928 Book of Common Prayer in the Episcopal Church, or another rite, is that people seem to believe that if I strongly prefer a traditional rite, then I must be rigid in my thinking, or as I've heard one priest say, "literal."

The traditional liturgies contain in some cases more primitive and more developed elements, some of which derived from times when many theological opinions remained unclear or contested.

A traditional experience of worshipful, God-centered liturgy is not a straitjacket on my mind, and not an abdication of my responsibility to inform my own conscience and understanding as best I can before the One who will judge the "quick and the dead."

A man, a woman, can have a fervent love to worship the Lord in a way traditional to his religious community in the Church, and by no means be a mere rigid or overly simplistic or "literal" person, whatever was meant by that latter comment.

Click to expand...

I don't know that I've heard that exact criticism from other people very often. Do you think that by "literal" they mean "not up with the times" or something like that? If that's it, I get the point.

Since the liturgy is age-old, they think we must be committed to doing whatever IS old, regardless of any other consideration. I do know people who think that even studying the ECFs is nearly on the same level as Amish people who dress funny and speak a foreign language.

Albion said:

I don't know that I've heard that exact criticism from other people very often. Do you think that by "literal" they mean "not up with the times" or something like that? If that's it, I get the point.

Since the liturgy is age-old, they think we must be committed to doing whatever IS old, regardless of any other consideration. I do know people who think that even studying the ECFs is nearly on the same level as Amish people who dress funny and speak a foreign language.

Click to expand...

I do think she meant not with the times because she also loathed to refer to the sacrament as "the Body" or "Blood" even after a "heavenly and spiritual" manner, preferring to refer to it as a "story."

Now, I do not wish to presume too much in what this clergy person may have meant or intended, but it seems suspect that someone who desires a traditional rite is "literal."

Not David said:

I remember barely 2 or 3 years ago I was against tradition and things have changed for me now.

Any other similar case?

Click to expand...

I came to Christ through the witnessing and prayers of Baptists, and worshipped with them for quite a while.

In my heart, I retained a belief in the Real Presence, an admiration for people like Mother Teresa and Saint Francis, a deep love of iconography and religious art work, and ritual. But I kept these things as a "stuff I like but will probably never get to live out" category internally for a while. The Baptists had been good to me, were kind, and warm, and I didn't have any where else to go.

I guess it was an aesthetic, soteriological, historical, and silent journey for me. I still love the Baptists. They are generally kind and conservative, hold onto Scripture tightly, and seem better overall at resisting the spirit of this age. Though I have heard that this is changing, and that saddens me.

Albion said:

I was interested to read what you have written here, my friend, and also what our colleague "thecolorsblend" wrote earlier.

In my own case, studying early church history and the views of the ECFs had the opposite effect on me from what "thecolorsblend" experienced. When I found that the early church was hardly in the apple-pie order that has so often been claimed for it...and that the ECFs rarely reached any "consensus," I felt I had to go the other way.

But when it comes to the value of traditional liturgical worship, we all agree, I know.

Click to expand...

Right and to clarify I'm saying 'when' there is a consensus on a subject with the EFC's and it lines up with scripture (like the body and blood concerning the Eucharist) then it settles the matter for me but its true the EFC's weren't always in consensus with each other on all matters.

Not David said:

I remember barely 2 or 3 years ago I was against tradition and things have changed for me now.

Any other similar case?

Click to expand...

I used to be reformed but have since then embraced much of the Orthodox teachings but not all of them.

Tigger45 said:

Right and to clarify I'm saying 'when' there is a consensus on a subject with the EFC's and it lines up with scripture (like the body and blood concerning the Eucharist) then it settles the matter for me but its true the EFC's weren't always in consensus with each other on all matters.

Click to expand...

It's interesting to me that you should say that. Here's the reason.

While I was typing out the previous post in which I made mention of the frequently-missing "consensus" among the ECFs on this or that issue, I was thinking to myself "but that wouldn't apply to the Real Presence." However, I didn't go further into that because I didn't see the need to complicate my reply.

Albion said:

It's interesting to me that you should say that. Here's the reason.

While I was typing out the previous post in which I made mention of the frequently-missing "consensus" among the ECFs on this or that issue, I was thinking to myself "but that wouldn't apply to the Real Presence." However, I didn't go further into that because I didn't see the need to complicate my reply.

Click to expand...

Ironically as I'm sure you know and since the OP mentions traditional 'Christians' the ECF's writings invariably point to scripture to establish their doctrinal points rather than 'tradition'.

I suppose I was very anti-traditional as a young child as my parents were Unitarian. My grandmother was Episcopalian tho' and often took me with her to church (including hat or Kleenex on the head). She and I were commonly talking about philosophy and religion (even when I was quite young - I think some of my most profound thoughts were then). She, I'm sure prayed a lot for my brother and I and when I was 15 I was fully converted by a Baptist. You're right, Gracia, Baptists are so kind! Truly Christian. My grandmother being Episcopalian along with, then, my brother, I was baptized and confirmed in the Episcopalian church. Later in life I became Catholic, for about 20 years now.

Not David said:

I remember barely 2 or 3 years ago I was against tradition and things have changed for me now.

Any other similar case?

Click to expand...

I was staunchly anti-traditional in my adolescent years. I was raised Evangelical/Pentecostal, and while my church wasn't particularly against the idea of tradition, it was a position I came to adopt through various reasons. A position which was eroded away as I began to study Scripture more, as I learned about the history of the Church, etc.

For a time I looked at Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Anglicanism, but found certain things that I simply couldn't accept in good conscience (that isn't a slight against anyone just a statement about where I was at the time). By rather complete accident I found myself becoming Lutheran, Lutheranism hadn't even been on my radar at the time. But a couple conversations back in the day, with one in particular, kind of changed everything for me.

So, yes, I used to be very against even the very idea of tradition and would often speak of any church that was even remotely traditional as being "spiritually dead". Of course my only criteria for making that determination was that they were different than me and what I was used to. Actually talking to other Christians from different denominations and traditions, and bothering to learn what other people believed, and did what they did, pretty quickly put an end to that opinion as I realized that the faith of other Christians was just as vibrant as what I thought I had. I quickly came to appreciate the depth and beauty of the ancient liturgy, and just how alive it is. Far from being dead and cold, it was warm and living--a living faith, a living worship that spread through the entire depth and breadth of history that always--always--puts Jesus Christ first and foremost.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

I was staunchly anti-traditional in my adolescent years. I was raised Evangelical/Pentecostal, and while my church wasn't particularly against the idea of tradition, it was a position I came to adopt through various reasons. A position which was eroded away as I began to study Scripture more, as I learned about the history of the Church, etc.

For a time I looked at Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Anglicanism, but found certain things that I simply couldn't accept in good conscience (that isn't a slight against anyone just a statement about where I was at the time). By rather complete accident I found myself becoming Lutheran, Lutheranism hadn't even been on my radar at the time. But a couple conversations back in the day, with one in particular, kind of changed everything for me.

So, yes, I used to be very against even the very idea of tradition and would often speak of any church that was even remotely traditional as being "spiritually dead". Of course my only criteria for making that determination was that they were different than me and what I was used to. Actually talking to other Christians from different denominations and traditions, and bothering to learn what other people believed, and did what they did, pretty quickly put an end to that opinion as I realized that the faith of other Christians was just as vibrant as what I thought I had. I quickly came to appreciate the depth and beauty of the ancient liturgy, and just how alive it is. Far from being dead and cold, it was warm and living--a living faith, a living worship that spread through the entire depth and breadth of history that always--always--puts Jesus Christ first and foremost.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

Well stated. I am fortunate to be in a congregation that not only remains very traditional, but continues to move in a more traditional liturgical direction. An example of how tradition can be misinterpreted when someone does not have the proper context occurred a few weeks back: We celebrated the Feast of the Purification and Presentation with a slightly abbreviated "Candle Mass"; with the start of the service being the blessing and dedication of the candles to be used in the coming year. The congregations liked it a lot, with a few exceptions who, despite the explanation in the bulletin missed the symbolic concection between Jesus being presented (dedicated) to the temple, and the Song of Simeon's "To be a light to lighten the Gentiles and to be the glory of thy people Israel.".

It does not take much imagination to see the blessing of the candles, points to, and reinforces the Gospel appointed for that day.

Traditional Liturgy provides a depth of teaching that is absent in most reformed protestant Churches. I think, as you have found Crypto, that properly applied, traditions enliven our faith!

ViaCrucis said:

So, yes, I used to be very against even the very idea of tradition and would often speak of any church that was even remotely traditional as being "spiritually dead".

Click to expand...

I had similar ideas as an adolescent. I grew up in a more traditional Lutheran church, but I never really understood any of it because my family started attending other denominations before I was of confirmation age due to our church splitting. Compared to the later [progressively more charismatic] churches, our first church and its organ music seemed sleepy. I thought that because I was going through the motions, it was probably the case with everyone else, as well. I decided I didn't like the hymns because they felt dated and unexciting to sing. I never really thought about Who we were singing them for. I didn't understand why we stood for some things and sat for others, why we greeted our neighbors. I didn't wonder about the reasons behind the banners and themes for the liturgical calendar up until somewhat recently. I didn't give much thought to the importance of communion until I started feeling a deep need for it that I couldn't explain, also somewhat recently.

Much later as an adult, as a "why?" person, I started seeking these answers, and now it finally makes sense! Now I feel an overwhelming appreciation for the Lutheran church I grew up in, even though at the time I was a spoiled child who felt bored by it all. It planted seeds in me that would grow decades later. The "whys" about the traditions became "whys" about bigger things, like Church history, the Reformation, Real Presence, etc. Now that I have a more complete picture of it all, I have the utmost respect for traditional liturgy and I strongly prefer it. The rest of my week feels incomplete without it if I can't attend for some reason. It makes me sad that I didn't appreciate it as a child with my family. Oh, how I wish I could go back and experience it with them like I do now.