Appeal to tradition fallacy and Catholic Tradition

[Aizensama]

Hello,
I want to get other Catholics perspectives on something that’s been boggling my mind lately. I assume most people here know about logical fallacies, including the appeal to tradition fallacy. For those who don’t know what that is, an appeal to tradition is an argument that states that something is correct or better simply because it’s old (Here’s a good description of it). My question is how can Catholics make arguments from and about Apostolic Tradition without making this fallacy

I’ve asked this question before on ask a Catholic, but because I didn’t explain enough, the response was (admittedly) frustrating.

So does anyone have have any ideas?

Thanks.

 

[sw85]

Hello,
I want to get other Catholics perspectives on something that’s been boggling my mind lately. I assume most people here know about logical fallacies, including the appeal to tradition fallacy. For those who don’t know what that is, an appeal to tradition is an argument that states that something is correct or better simply because it’s old (Here’s a good description of it). My question is how can Catholics make arguments from and about Apostolic Tradition without making this fallacy

I’ve asked this question before on ask a Catholic, but because I didn’t explain enough, the response was (admittedly) frustrating.

So does anyone have have any ideas?

Thanks.

It doesn’t really apply. No one thinks Catholic Tradition is correct simply because it is Tradition. We say it is reasonable for a man to believe that Catholic Tradition is correct precisely because it is Tradition.

More pointedly, a man who is not familiar with the entirety of Tradition has no business rejecting it in its entirety. A man has no business saying Aquinas’ metaphysics is bunk if he has read nothing more of Aquinas than what he has encountered in the first half of one chapter of a book by Richard Dawkins. We modern Catholics, largely a generation of sexual degenerates and functional apostates, have no business second-guessing the received wisdom of a thousand years of sainted theologians just because we don’t like some of its implications. These are all loose appeals to tradition, but in the fallacious sense.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Hello,
I want to get other Catholics perspectives on something that’s been boggling my mind lately. I assume most people here know about logical fallacies, including the appeal to tradition fallacy. For those who don’t know what that is, an appeal to tradition is an argument that states that something is correct or better simply because it’s old (Here’s a good description of it). My question is how can Catholics make arguments from and about Apostolic Tradition without making this fallacy

I’ve asked this question before on ask a Catholic, but because I didn’t explain enough, the response was (admittedly) frustrating.

So does anyone have have any ideas?

Thanks.

Do you have a specific doctrine in mind that you think this applies to? Without giving this a lot of thought–as I am sure you’ll get good responses from others better versed than I am–I don’t think we say a teaching is right because it is old–we say it is right because it was taught by Christ and apostles and is a part of revelation. Now that makes it old but “age” is not why it is correct. It is not the “age” of the teaching but the fact that is was taught by Christ and his apostles–as we are Christians.

Peace,
Mark

 

[TimothyH]

Something old is “tradition” (lower case t).

Revealed truth is “Tradition” (upper case T)

Just because something is tradition, doesn’t mean it is Tradition.

The Feast of the Immaculate Conception is tradition - an old custom. The Immaculate Conception itself is Tradition - truth revealed to us by God.

Priestly vestments are tradition - an old custom. The Priesthood is Tradition - a truth revealed to us by God.

We appeal to Tradition. We don’t appeal to tradition. We appeal to truth revealed to us by God, through Christ, and handed down from the Apostles. We don’t appeal to thing simply because they are old.

-Tim-

 

[revert_jen]

For those who don’t know what that is, an appeal to tradition is an argument that states that something is correct or better simply because it’s old… My question is how can Catholics make arguments from and about Apostolic Tradition without making this fallacy

Well, the short answer is that we don’t appeal to Apostolic Tradition simply because it’s old. We appeal to Apostolic Tradition because it is Apostolic.

–Jen

 

[TimothyH]

Well, the short answer is that we don’t appeal to Apostolic Tradition simply because it’s old. We appeal to Apostolic Tradition because it is Apostolic.

–Jen

We appeal to it because it is revealed truth.

 

[revert_jen]

We appeal to it because it is revealed truth.

Well, yes, OK, but it doesn’t sound as pithy that way.

–Jen

 

[pablope]

Hello,
I want to get other Catholics perspectives on something that’s been boggling my mind lately. I assume most people here know about logical fallacies, including the appeal to tradition fallacy. For those who don’t know what that is, an appeal to tradition is an argument that states that something is correct or better simply because it’s old (Here’s a good description of it). My question is how can Catholics make arguments from and about Apostolic Tradition without making this fallacy

I’ve asked this question before on ask a Catholic, but because I didn’t explain enough, the response was (admittedly) frustrating.

So does anyone have have any ideas?

Thanks.

This is a good article that may help you…calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

He adopts a pick-and-choose approach. This approach attempts to avoid the dilemma raised above by methodologically, though not explicitly, counting as ‘traditional’ [as in “traditional Christian orthodoxy”] only whatever the Church said and did that agrees with or is at least compatible with one’s own interpretation of Scripture. ‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology.

This pick-and-choose approach to the tradition shows that it is not the fact that an Ecumenical Council declared something definitively that makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler. What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.

 

[lifeandhope]

We modern Catholics, largely a generation of sexual degenerates and functional apostates, have no business second-guessing the received wisdom of a thousand years of sainted theologians just because we don’t like some of its implications.

AMEN! (I used to be baptist…can I still say 'Amen?!)

This is a well-stated description of the current state of affairs within The Church and the church.

 

[revert_jen]

This is a good article that may help you…calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

He adopts a pick-and-choose approach. This approach attempts to avoid the dilemma raised above by methodologically, though not explicitly, counting as ‘traditional’ [as in “traditional Christian orthodoxy”] only whatever the Church said and did that agrees with or is at least compatible with one’s own interpretation of Scripture. ‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology.

When you say “he” here, it seems that you are not talking about the article’s author, but about Albert Mohler, who is a Reformed Baptist and also the President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

This pick-and-choose approach to the tradition shows that it is not the fact that an Ecumenical Council declared something definitively that makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler. What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.

Some further information about this article might be helpful here:

First, the point of the article is to refute Mohler’s position. That wasn’t very clear to me from the quotes above.

Second, the article does appear to be very good, and worth a detailed read, but it is quite long so be prepared.

Third, the main point (just scratching the surface) appears to be a very good one (yes, I’ll read the whole article in detail later! ), and one that is relevant to this question. Basically, either God has guided His Church since Christ’s ascension, or He hasn’t. If He has, then those things that His Church have declared as revealed truth are supported by the power of the Holy Spirit. If He hasn’t, then we really have nothing to go on, not even (for example) the New Testament, since if the Holy Spirit wasn’t guiding the Church, then He wasn’t guiding the Church in defining the contents of the New Testament. The term the author uses to describe the case where God just started His church and then abandoned it is “Ecclesial Deism.” (This may be a well known term, but I haven’t heard it before.) It is a good term, since deism proper usually refers to a belief that God set the universe in motion and then left it alone, and this theory implies that although God didn’t do this with the universe, He did do it wth the Church.

All of which is to say, like TimothyH, that the point is the guidance of God, not the number of years.

Anyway, when I read the quoted post, I got some very wrong ideas, although maybe it was just me.

–Jen

 

[Actaeon]

Hello,
I want to get other Catholics perspectives on something that’s been boggling my mind lately. I assume most people here know about logical fallacies, including the appeal to tradition fallacy. For those who don’t know what that is, an appeal to tradition is an argument that states that something is correct or better simply because it’s old (Here’s a good description of it). My question is how can Catholics make arguments from and about Apostolic Tradition without making this fallacy

I’ve asked this question before on ask a Catholic, but because I didn’t explain enough, the response was (admittedly) frustrating.

So does anyone have have any ideas?

Thanks.

The fallacy you refer to is quite different than what the church applies…

Let’s put it this way… four monkeys are in a cage with a stair case. On top of a staircase is a banana. Whenever one monkey tries to get the banana by climbing the stairs, an experimenter will spray all of the monkeys with a blast of water from a fire hose. Eventually, the monkeys learn that going for the stairs means a blast of water, and the group will assault any monkey who goes for the stairs. Eventually, all of the monkeys cease any attempt to get the banana.

Next, experimenters replace one of the monkeys with an entirely new monkey, who, predictably, goes for the banana. On approaching the stairs, the other monkeys grab the new monkey and beat him. Eventually, the new monkey stops going for the banana as well (even though he has no idea why he’s being beaten). Experimenters decide at this point NOT to spray the monkeys if they go for the banana (there is now no impetus to not go fo the banana).

Next, the experimenters replace ANOTHER of the original monkeys with a new monkey. Again, the new monkey goes for the banana. Again, the new monkey gets beaten as a result. Again, the new monkey learns not to go for the banana.

The replacements are repeated until none of the original monkeys remain, and still if a new replacement monkey is added, the monkeys will beat it if it goes for the banana (despite the fact that they have no idea why or that the ACTUAL impetus behind that imperative is gone).

These monkeys are victims of the fallacy of appeal to tradition, because the impetus to NOT get the banana is gone, but they continue to operate under “what has always been done”. All they know is that they are supposed to beat a monkey who goes for the banana, despite the fact that the premise behind such action is no longer true. (and yes, this was a real experiment).

Okay, time to contrast: the fallacy of appeal to tradition does not mean that EACH AND EVERY TRADITION is wrong, it merely means that without testing the premises we cannot ascertain if a tradition is true. Granted that a fundamental aspect of catholic faith is that it is reasonable, we can ascertain by testing traditional teachings that they are logically coherent and fit within the ever-developing picture of doctrinal revelation in keeping with scripture and magisterial teaching. In other words, the church (and human reason) is like a monkey that doesn’t stop trying the premise to see if the banana can now be reached… we keep testing the traditions to be sure that they are true.

 

[pablope]

When you say “he” here, it seems that you are not talking about the article’s author, but about Albert Mohler, who is a Reformed Baptist and also the President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Yes… the “he” is Mohler. I omitted saying that the rest was a quote directly from the article.

Second, the article does appear to be very good, and worth a detailed read, but it is quite long so be prepared.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Catholics are often accused of “inventing” doctrines, especially during the Middle Ages. If we can show a historic continuity, it significantly weakens the accusation. This is a historic argument, not a logical one, and it is perfectly valid.

 

[TimothyH]

Well, yes, OK, but it doesn’t sound as pithy that way.

–Jen

Thank you for your tact.

Mine was what’s called a “Drive-by post” and I apologize.

-Tim-

 

[sw85]

Well, the short answer is that we don’t appeal to Apostolic Tradition simply because it’s old. We appeal to Apostolic Tradition because it is Apostolic.

–Jen

We appeal to it because it is revealed truth.

Another way of putting it (hinted at in my own post) is that we appeal to it not because it’s old but because it’s authoritative.

Here the atheist might object that we’re replacing one fallacy (“appeal to tradition”) with another (“appeal to authority”). To which a proper response is, how do you know “appeal to authority” is a “fallacy”? Because the textbook for the Introduction to Logic course you’re taking mentions it as such? I thought so.

 

[1ke]

Hello,
I want to get other Catholics perspectives on something that’s been boggling my mind lately. I assume most people here know about logical fallacies, including the appeal to tradition fallacy. For those who don’t know what that is, an appeal to tradition is an argument that states that something is correct or better simply because it’s old (Here’s a good description of it). My question is how can Catholics make arguments from and about Apostolic Tradition without making this fallacy

I’ve asked this question before on ask a Catholic, but because I didn’t explain enough, the response was (admittedly) frustrating.

So does anyone have have any ideas?

Thanks.

Because that is not what Tradition with a capital T means. Divine Revelation is comprised of both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. One is written, one is oral. Both are the reveald truth of God.

Tradition with a small t is another matter. The traditions (a.k.a. disciplines) in the Church are completely changeable and one could certainly apply the logical fallacy of appeal to tradition to that. Although even within small t tradition, we certainly do look to the continuity of passing on the faith. Things are not better simply because they are old, but they are also not better simply because they are new. Often the small t traditions have something larger behind them, the meaning of why we do them is tied in to Tradition, capital T.

 

[Actaeon]

Another way of putting it (hinted at in my own post) is that we appeal to it not because it’s old but because it’s authoritative.

Here the atheist might object that we’re replacing one fallacy (“appeal to tradition”) with another (“appeal to authority”). To which a proper response is, how do you know “appeal to authority” is a “fallacy”? Because the textbook for the Introduction to Logic course you’re taking mentions it as such? I thought so.

Well, to be honest, we’re not really appealing to the authority of Sacred tradition AUTHORS either… we are treating them as primary source documents, which are historically authoritative. Any historian will tell you that the BEST POSSIBLE sources for understanding anything relating to history (including tradition) are primary sources.

But you’re right to point out that there is a problem with something being a logical fallacy: a logical fallacy points out a means in which something cannot be empirically proven… but it does not mean that the conclusion is not true anyway… I might believe that 2 + 2 = 4 because my teachers have always told me so (an appeal to authority), and while 2 + 2 = 4 for entirely different reasons, the conclusion is still correct. So to say that NOTHING can be believed without a logically conclusive syllogism is simply false. If that were the case, I would have no reason to believe in any consciousness other than mine… everyone else is merely a creation of my subconscious mind, anamatons I have created for my own existance… because I cannot empirically prove the thoughts or emotions of others.

But let’s look at a flaw in the common teaching of appeal to authority: you bump into an issue with sources that are truly authoritative. Let’s say I invent a card game, called snoodle. I am now an authority on how snoodle is played. If you want to argue that a particular move in snoodle is allowed, you appeal to my authority, because I invented the game. I am what would be termed a legitimate authority in this case… and while a simple appeal to authority is SOMETIMES dubious based on the fact that there are areas where authorities may differ in opinion, an appeal to a legitimate authority is actually a VALID and LOGICAL argument: because you can’t argue with the legitimate authority on a subject.

So looking back at sacred Tradition, we believe it is handed to us by God. While we might STUDY sacred Tradition through the writings of the ECFs and doctors of the church, what we are actually appealing to is the divinely revealed truth of God, who is a legitimate authority. Therefore, if there really is sacred tradition and it is revealed by God, then an appeal to authority is actually a very compulsive argument (which flows naturally from arguing that God exists, Christ exists, and that there is precedent for sacred tradition).

 

[steve_b]

Hello,
I want to get other Catholics perspectives on something that’s been boggling my mind lately. I assume most people here know about logical fallacies, including the appeal to tradition fallacy. For those who don’t know what that is, an appeal to*** tradition is an argument that states that something is correct or better simply because it’s old*** (Here’s a good description of it). My question is how can Catholics make arguments from and about Apostolic Tradition without making this fallacy

I’ve asked this question before on ask a Catholic, but because I didn’t explain enough, the response was (admittedly) frustrating.

So does anyone have have any ideas?

Thanks.

As you probably know there is a big difference between (t)radition and (T)radition.

• (T)radition is both oral and written that comes from an apostle. Scripture is an example of (T)radition that is written. But it began as oral teaching.
• Both (T)raditions, oral and written, are authoritative and we are to obey them BOTH.[2 Thes 2:15]

(T)radition is not correct because it’s old, but because it was knowledge delivered to the Church, by an apostle, either in writing or orally, and passed on faithfully by the Church (the pilar and foundation of truth[1 Tim 3:15] ) who received the oral teaching. All (T)radition including scripture, began orally.

There should be continuity of thought that one can follow back to Jesus and His apostles. Catholics can easily show (T)radition in an unbroken line from the 1st century because the Catholic Church was there. Peter and Paul in Rome, ordaining specific men to succeed them, and teach others to not only follow but agree with Rome … newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

BTW, Irenaus who wrote “Against Heresies” was himself, living in the time,1 man away from John the apostle. When Irenaeus begins to list names in his wtiting, who does he begin with? Peter and Paul. Which means John, the last of the apostles to die, agrees with this as well, because Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp who was a disciple of St John… Irenaeus makes the point that this teaching he gives comes from faithful men down to his time and he names them in sequence of when they were in office