Can Sacred Tradition be modified?

[Bohm_Bawerk]

I’m currently reading about the Church’s previous stance on usury. It seems to me that Sacred Tradition can be modified, so I wanted to know definitively whether Sacred Tradition can be changed. . .

*As a sidenote, this question is more difficult than it appears to be (judging from differing opinions from different people)

 

[gelsbern]

Apparently it can. The Mass of Vatican II would be a perfect example of that. If the church decides to change a tradition then it must be modifiable.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Apparently it can. The Mass of Vatican II would be a perfect example of that. If the church decides to change a tradition then it must be modifiable.

But is that tradition (e.g. customs, practices, etc), or Tradition (the kind I’m referring to)?

 

[Spencerian]

I’m currently reading about the Church’s previous stance on usury. It seems to me that Sacred Tradition can be modified, so I wanted to know definitively whether Sacred Tradition can be changed. . .

*As a sidenote, this question is more difficult than it appears to be (judging from differing opinions from different people)

From the Catechism (80-83):

**II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE
**
One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44
**
Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions**

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.

Apparently it can. The Mass of Vatican II would be a perfect example of that. If the church decides to change a tradition then it must be modifiable.

The changes of the Second Vatican Council did not modify the content of the Mass, only the traditions of the Church clergy and laity in the promulgation of the Tradition of the Mass. This wasn’t a perfect change, and the 2011 Roman Missal adjustments for the liturgy will correct the larger inconsistencies of the English translation of the original Latin liturgical text. Otherwise, the Extraordinary Form and Ordinary Form of the Mass work the same. While the explanation isn’t correct in regards to the differences of Tradition over tradition, the example seems appropriate.

But is that tradition (e.g. customs, practices, etc), or Tradition (the kind I’m referring to)?

The changes in how the liturgy should be done, based on the Catechism, appears to be both Sacred Tradition and liturgical tradition. Note the passage in red, above, to answer this question. Elements of the Mass will fall under “disciplinary, liturgical and devotional” traditions that the Church has authority to modify.

Remember also that we are not just speaking of the Latin Rite. Other rites have distinctly different liturgical processes and traditions that do not match that of the Latin Rite but which are still acceptable in the eyes of the Holy See, for these rites are in communion with the essentials of Sacred Tradition maintained by the Magisterium.

 

[ANNE_2]

The answer to the OP is “No”.
Sacred Tradition can not and has not been changed.
Be careful on how you define ‘Sacred Tradition’.

Use the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition”, (and/or the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, First Edition” which was written during the Council of Trent over 400 years ago), for accurate definitions.

" CCC - 78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it.
Through Tradition, “the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.”
"The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer. "

 

[tafan]

I’m currently reading about the Church’s previous stance on usury. It seems to me that Sacred Tradition can be modified, so I wanted to know definitively whether Sacred Tradition can be changed. . .

*As a sidenote, this question is more difficult than it appears to be (judging from differing opinions from different people)

I would be interested in what you are reading on the concept of usury. I do not think the principals have changed that much, but the economic system and our understanding of economics have. So the applied rules have changed.
I have stated before, the church has been woefully nnegligent on this issue in the modern day. The Bishop’s really need to put some serious thought into a clarification of usury as it applies to our modern day system. Usurous practices are one of the great social justice problems right now, especially with respect to the poor. The church remains largely silent on it, and there is a lot of bad information out there, from prominent catholics. Which leads to the saying the Church has changed its stance. One of the apologists on this sight, I don’t remember which one, on the Catholic Answers radio show gave a really bad answer with regards to credit card interest that I heard myself.