Is tradition holding mainstream religions back?

[on_the_hill]

For example: if you use only clear glass dishes for eating, you can know how clean they are. Thus, there becomes a rule that we must eat only from clear glass dishes.

But we now have modern dishwashers and soaps and don’t need to rely on our eyes to see if the dishes are clean.

But to keep tradition, we say that we eat from only clear glass as a sign of our obedience to God.

 

[SalamKhan]

Here’s an example from my own religious tradition (Islam).

People will claim that it is obligatory for women to cover their faces in public. They attempt to justify this by claiming this is the ‘Sunnah’ of the Prophet (S). Hang on a minute, how could it be, when during Hajj (greater pilgrimage), one of the pillars of our religion, women are required to have their faces uncovered?

 

[Hodos]

Depends on your means of contraceptive. Abortifacients definitely go against Christian beliefs as they are a violation of the Fifth Commandment. If my practice violates divine revelation of right and wrong, then certainly, my actions confuse others who look to me to understand how Christian doctrine is lived.

 

[PetraG]

“Did the Protestant reformers get it right?”

The things the Protestant reformers got right–because there were some actual abuses identified–were things that Tradition would have said were abuses.

The New Testament is very clear that although the Church had to sort out problems and answer questions as time went on, this never involved abandoning past teaching. It involved clarifying a situation or deciding how the Faith was to be applied to a certain new situation.

In other words, for Christianity to be true, it is true that although the Church grows in understanding the Church will not deny the Traditions handed down by the Apostles.

Consider the example of women. After talking about whether women ought to have their heads covered, St. Paul said: “But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God.” 1 Cor. 11:16. He was clearly not talking about a dogma, but about a discipline that had a reason behind it, something that could be changed.

I think @on_the_hill had the right answer, which is that you have to differentiate between small “t” tradition and large “T” Tradition. No, the New Testament repeatedly warns against changing the large “T” tradition: that which is unequivocally and indisputably true. As for the small “t” kind, changing those needs to happen within the boundaries of appropriate obedience.

 

[De_Maria]

Did the likes of the Protestant reformers

No.

or Muhammad Abduh (Muslim reformer) get it right?

No idea who he is or what he was doing. Islam is a man made religion.

Some may claim the truth is the truth regardless of whether it resonates with the modern mind or not. But keep in mind, God gave us intellect, intuition & consience. Some of these traditions were shaped in societies in which slavery was the norm & women weren’t supposed to be seen or heard in public life, just to name a few examples of the top of my head, and some of that really shows in the most conservative forms of the mainstream religions. Is that really a good thing?

Catholicism was established by Jesus Christ to reveal God’s Truths to mankind. Her Teachings are infallible.

No, I didn’t. The Protestant reformers started leaving tradition, on account of much of it being man-made,

No. They left the Church because they didn’t agree with the Teachings of Jesus Christ on certain matters like faith and works and perseverance in well doing.

& Muslim reformers such as Muhammad Abduh did similar.

Islam is not our concern. They have their own various governments to address their various contradicting doctrines. Shiite, Sunni, etc.

What does that have to do with the Protestant denominations? What does that have to do with Protestantism itself? Does the question have anything to do with their specific doctrines? No, no it doesn’t.

Any Protestant doctrine that contradicts the Catholic Church, contradicts the Word of God who established the Catholic Church.

 

[De_Maria]

Truth is truth. Tradition either affirms truth or obfuscates it. Tradition that obfuscates truth should not be maintained. Tradition that supports or affirms truth should be maintained as a teaching mechanism. All tradition must be evaluated on this criteria.

The Sacred Tradition passed down by Jesus Christ through the Catholic Church, is infallible, whether you agree with it or not.

 

[SalamKhan]

LOL, you don’t talk like that in real life…

 

[SaberBob]

On Amazon, I have a (1 ) review of the ultra-liberal "Catholic’ book Christ Among Us and let me steal from my own work…
(This is from memory not c&p)

In the 1981 movie My Dinner with Andre, the character Andre has been blathering through most of the movie about how life is organic a changing thing, and rules and conventions only stifle change. Finally, the character Wally has enough and gently but firmly says you can “change” a tree by chopping it down and sawing off the limbs but now you no longer have a tree but a log. In other words, there is change which is living and natural and then there is change which is violent and irrevocably destroys what you saught to “improve”.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’d like to know exactly what Catholic “traditions” the OP thinks are holding Catholicism back.

Also which “Protestant reformers” he thinks are correct given that there are hundreds of them, each with their own version of which traditions to keep and which to toss out.

 

[De_Maria]

Nor do you.

 

[Michael16]

Personally, I don’t think Tradition is holding the Church back. It’s preserving her in the face of destructive liberalism. The Church teaches the fullness of the Faith. Alter any of it, you alter the Faith and then stray from the Faith.

About the Protestant movements: I’m not sure what to say beyond I see little good in what happened and a lot of bad. At least they’re still Christians though. The only thing I can agree with Luther is this: True contrition of the heart is required for the Absolution of one’s sins.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Can’t think of any that would cause a hindrance, unless it’s part of doctrine, but being wrong pretty much invalidates everything anyways.

 

[De_Maria]

What? Are you angry because I told you that the Traditions of the Catholic Church are the Word of God?

 

[De_Maria]

Lol! Right.

 

[Tommy999]

If I understand the question correctly, I think most religious traditions are good and are based on fundamental truths. I think those who reject existing traditions will end up creating their own, even if they don’t realize it.

By the same token, I think it is ok to question the practicality of existing religious norms and traditions. For example, while I respect all clergy, I don’t think they should receive unconditional “benefit of the doubt” on all things. I think some of clergy sex scandals were allowed to perpetuate because tradition says that clergy represent God so they are above reproach and their actions should not be questioned by laity.

While most clergy are holy men of God, they should still be viewed as people capable of sinning and shouldn’t be given unquestioned authority to the point of being given carte blanche to do whatever they wish. For example, nowadays I would not want to leave clergy of any denomination alone with young boys or girls for any length of time if I care (and I do) for their welfare.

Context: I recently watched ‘Spotlight’ movie.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

By the same token, I think it is ok to question the practicality of existing religious norms and traditions. For example, while I respect all clergy, I don’t think they should receive unconditional “benefit of the doubt” on all things.

I myself would not consider this a “tradition” of the Catholic church. It’s more of a cultural thing and I think it was originally rooted in the idea that the priest, or the Protestant minister even, was often one of the most, or the most, educated person in the village. Having said that, I know that the women in my mother’s family were not afraid to question priests or members of religious orders, not on doctrine but on their other behavior, and including back in the 30s, 40s and 50s.

Doctrinal matters would have been considered the priest’s specialty and, there being no CAF where people would post, “My priest said X. Is this really what the Church teaches?” one was kind of stuck accepting whatever the priest said Catholic teaching was, unless perhaps you could check with another priest who was independent of the first priest. Priests were also more likely pre-Vatican II to be knowledgeable about and faithful to Catholic teaching when they instructed people on doctrine. Once you got away from doctrine, everything else was up for grabs and the level of deference to the priest was up to individuals’ personality and culture.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

To follow on to my previous post, when discussing “tradition” in the Catholic Church we really need to differentiate between sacred tradition, which is part of the teaching of the Church and in some cases has been made a dogma of the Church (example would be the Marian dogmas), and thus cannot and should not be changed as it’s truth; and traditions that just have to do with norms and accepted practices (such as worship positions, type of music used at Mass etc) and aren’t sacred teachings of the Church.

Many of the latter kinds of “traditions” having to do with norms and such were already broadened or removed by Vatican II. This can be a good or a bad thing, but the point is that everybody in the Church is not following the same tradition when it’s not a matter of Church teaching. The Eastern and Western Catholic churches also have different traditions relating to things like fasting or the use of icons; the Church allows for different approaches on this already.

There are also so-called “traditions” that one group of Catholics might see as a “traditional” practice but really isn’t traditional and is more likely cultural or something that a particular group embraces and not everybody.

So it’s a bit confusing to just make statements about “Tradition” without explaining which traditions you mean.

The Protestant churches primarily split from the Catholic church over doctrinal differences. This goes far beyond just getting rid of old hidebound “tradition”, it is actually a debate about the truth of Church teaching.

 

[Tommy999]

Yes. Thanks for distinguishing between traditions/norms/customs and Tradition, versus dogmas. That helps.

Out of curiosity, what categories would priests remaining unmarried and celibate, not eating fish on Fridays, and the Sunday obligation fall under? In other words, Dogma, Tradition, Church discipline, or something else?

 

[SalamKhan]

I really don’t think it’s a matter of tradition/custom versus Sacred Tradition. For example, although Catholics are unwilling to admit that the monarchical episcopate is a 2nd century development, some Catholics actually admit that the priesthood is a 4th century development; bishops couldn’t be in so many places & so started ordaining priests. So yeah, supposedly a divinely ordained hierarchy, but that seems pretty man-made to me.

 

[Annie]

I think priest were being ordained by the Apostles, so not a 4th century novelty.

“Some Catholics” do not determine truth, moral or historical.