How to tell Tradition from tradition?

[Erich]

CCC 83 says,

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.

I know (from Fidei Depositum) that the CCC “is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium.” I also know (from Laetamur Magnopere) that the CCC is “a full, complete exposition of Catholic doctrine, enabling everyone to know what the Church professes, celebrates, lives, and prays in her daily life.”

As a practical mater, how can anyone (particularly non-Catholics) know what part of the CCC is the “Tradition (which) comes from the apostles and hands on what they recevied from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit”, and what part of the CCC is the “various theological, disciplinary, liturgical, or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time … in which the great Tradition is expressed”?

 

[Liberian]

Erich,

This is completely off-topic, but I LOVE your signature line!

• Liberian

 

[challenger]

Tradition=doctrine

tradition=practice

However, they are related. For example, a tradition is the elevation of the Host after the Consecration. This mediates the Tradition that the Host is truly the body of Christ.

 

[Erich]

In By What Authority? An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition Mark Shea lists five crucial but weakly attested non-negotiables of Christian theology and ethics, namely:

1. the canon of Scripture itself
2. the sanctity of human life
3. monogamy
4. the Trinity
5. public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.

I saw, on a non-Catholic site, where someone was asked how he knew that public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. His response was, “According to the Scriptures, in these last days (Hebrews 1:2) God has communicated with mankind in His Masterpiece, His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the final and perfect communication from the Triune God. As John says (John 20:30-31), everything essential for salvation has been revealed to mankind. The last book, the Revelation of St John, even says that nothing should be added or detracted from it.”

Aside from the obvious contradiction of a non-Catholic steadfastly maintaining that “nothing should be added or detracted” from Scripture, Hebrews 1:3 goes on to say, “When he had accomplished purification from sins, he took his seat at the right hand of the Majesty on high” – so it would seem to me that, for non-Catholics, public revelation should have ended with the Ascension, not with the death of the last Apostle.

Anyone else have any ideas on how to respond to the arguments posed in the above-referenced thread?

 

[viktor_aleksndr]

challenger:

Tradition=doctrine

tradition=practice

However, they are related. For example, a tradition is the elevation of the Host after the Consecration. This mediates the Tradition that the Host is truly the body of Christ.

should we say Consecrated Host?