Sacred Tradition - Its dual meanings

[SanctusMarcus]

Just wish to clarify if this is correct.

Sacred Tradition can have two meanings. It can refer to:

(a) the act of the transmission of Divine Revelation from God to the Church;
(b) the content of Divine Revelation.

(a) In its first meaning, Tradition (traditio: meaning to hand on) refers to the act of transmitting the entire Revelation of God to the Church down through the centuries. This transmission is acted through Apostolic Succession. This Revelation was given by Christ to the Apostles, who then handed it on to their successors, who handed it to their successors, and on it goes until the end of time. As Revelation is transmitted, it is preserved, expounded and published. The organ of the Church that guides its preservation, exposition and publication is the Magisterium (Teaching Office), which resides in the Roman Pontiff and the bishops in communion with him. Both Tradition and the Magisterium are guided by the Holy Spirit, so that Divine Revelation is faithfully transmitted through Tradition, and faithfully expounded by the Magisterium. In conjunction with this, Divine Revelation is also transmitted via the Church’s life and worship, which are also guided by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, by whatever means Revelation is handed down, it is guided by the Holy Spirit.

(b) In its second meaning, Tradition refers to the content of Divine Revelation, called the Deposit of Faith. The content of Divine Revelation consists of inspired Tradition (Sacred Scripture) and uninspired Tradition (all other truths not committed to writing under Divine Inspiration). This latter meaning is usually what people think of about Tradition. It is important to stress that the latter Tradition is not inspired, i.e., although many Traditions are written down by Church Fathers, Popes, Councils and other works etc., they are not written by Divine Inspiration. Only Scripture is Divinely Inspired. However, both Scripture and Tradition are the Word of God, and both are infallible and protected by the Holy Spirit from error.

 

[Gorgias]

No, this seems somewhat ‘off’ to me.

There’s not “inspired tradition” and “uninspired tradition”. Rather, I’d stick to the standard explanation: there’s the “Deposit of the Faith”, which is composed of “Sacred Scripture” and “Sacred Tradition.” You’ll find a good explanation of these in the Catechism.

 

[SanctusMarcus]

I am using various Church documents, including the CCC. I have, since posting my original message, changed my article somewhat. However, the reason why I originally used “uninspired Tradition” is because a book I am reading from, Apologetics & Catholic Doctrine, states that Tradition isn’t inspired:

Tradition is not inspired, but by assistance of the Holy Spirit, the Church, which is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth”, is guaranteed against error in her exposition of Tradition.

My article is answering the question: What is Sacred Tradition? I have noticed reading the Catechism, Dei Verbum, Lumen Gentium and others that there isn’t one single definition of Tradition. It’s used to mean how the Deposit is transmitted as well as what the Deposit consists of.

To quote my Apologetics book:

Tradition includes Sacred Scripture, but also embraces all those truths which, though never committed to writing under Divine Inspiration, have been handed down within the Church from age to age in various ways.

And also:

“Tradition” can have two meanings: the act of transmitting the Revelation from God, and the content of that Revelation.

This would be so much easier if it was just: What is the Deposit of Faith?!

 

[Gorgias]

However, the reason why I originally used “uninspired Tradition” is because a book I am reading from, Apologetics & Catholic Doctrine, states that Tradition isn’t inspired

Yep. I get it. That’s the sense I had, as I read your original post. However, if we’re proclaiming this as catechesis to folks, it might be more helpful to proclaim what Tradition is, rather than what it is not. We already have enough of a problem with folks who think that “not infallible” means “I don’t have to listen to it”…!

I’m not sure I’d ever lead an apologetics discussion with “Tradition includes Sacred Scripture”, since it would lead a non-Catholic to rebut with “then why bother with it? why not just hold to Scripture?” or “are the non-Scriptural parts even valid, then?”. I think that I would, rather, lead with “Tradition proceeds not only from what is written in Scripture, but what is written in that other font of Divine Revelation – Apostolic Teaching, which proceeds from Jesus’ teaching to the Apostles!”