The Mutability of Tradition

[The_Maestro]

One of the questions I have been studying lately is the extent to which tradition in the Church can change. Oftentimes we see a distinction made between “big T” and “small t” tradition. Big T Tradition is also sometimes called Divine Tradition. This refers to one of the sources of divine revelation and the Deposit of Faith, along with the Bible. It is obvious that this Tradition cannot change, since it contains the immutable truth of God’s revealed words. Small t tradition, on the other hand, is sometimes referred to as ecclesiastical tradition. (This term is actually sometimes used to mean any Catholic tradition in general also… So it’s important to be clear what we mean here.) This ecclesiastical tradition refers to all those things in the Church which are extrinsic to divine revelation and the Deposit of Faith - such as Catholic disciplines, prayers, customs, practices, art, liturgy, and even some Magisterial teachings which are not necessarily infallible, though still authoritative. Usually, however, this tradition is understood to refer mainly to discipline and practice. Now obviously, this kind of tradition is more changeable and reformable than big-T, Divine Tradition. But can this tradition be changed at a whim, if it is so reformable, or are there principles which guide the reform of this kind of tradition? What are these principles?

It is interesting to note that many of the Popes and Saints and other writers throughout the Church’s history have spoken of disciplinary tradition as something to be respected and venerated to such a degree that change was looked upon as something to be avoided unless necessity arose.

For example, St. Augustine writes:

"The customs of God’s people and the institutions of our ancestors are to be considered as laws. And those who throw contempt on the customs of the Church ought to be punished as those who disobey the law of God.”

St. Basil the Great:

“Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us in a mystery by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay—no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, the greatest doctor of the Church:

“Even as he would be guilty of falsehood who would, in the name of another person, proffer things that are not committed to him, so too does a man incur the guilt of falsehood who, on the part of the Church, gives worship to God contrary to the manner established by the Church or divine authority, and according to ecclesiastical custom.”

There are some other sources as well which come straight from the Magisterium, not the least of which is the Council of Trent:

If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema.

The Profession of Faith of the Council of Trent, likewise:

I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church…I also receive and admit the accepted and approved ceremonies of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of the aforesaid sacraments.

And there are many other sources as well (see this page). The general attitude toward change here is one of suspicion and great caution, not one of eagerness, even in matters of discipline. This is not to say that the Church has never allowed any change in such matters - she has, and she teaches that she alone has the authority to do so. But in practice, she has mostly only exercised this authority under certain limits. The question is, what are these limits? What are the principles which guide the development of the ecclesiastical (small t) traditions of the Church?

Thoughts anybody?

 

[YoungTradCath]

The general attitude toward change here is one of suspicion and great caution, not one of eagerness, even in matters of discipline. This is not to say that the Church has never allowed any change in such matters - she has, and she teaches that she alone has the authority to do so. But in practice, she has mostly only exercised this authority under certain limits.

That, really, is what principle it comes down to.

 

[The_Maestro]

Okay, yes, in general. But I am hoping to get something more specific here.

 

[thistle]

One of the questions I have been studying lately is the extent to which tradition in the Church can change. Oftentimes we see a distinction made between “big T” and “small t” tradition. Big T Tradition is also sometimes called Divine Tradition. This refers to one of the sources of divine revelation and the Deposit of Faith, along with the Bible. It is obvious that this Tradition cannot change, since it contains the immutable truth of God’s revealed words. Small t tradition, on the other hand, is sometimes referred to as ecclesiastical tradition. (This term is actually sometimes used to mean any Catholic tradition in general also… So it’s important to be clear what we mean here.) This ecclesiastical tradition refers to all those things in the Church which are extrinsic to divine revelation and the Deposit of Faith - such as Catholic disciplines, prayers, customs, practices, art, liturgy, and even some Magisterial teachings which are not necessarily infallible, though still authoritative. Usually, however, this tradition is understood to refer mainly to discipline and practice. Now obviously, this kind of tradition is more changeable and reformable than big-T, Divine Tradition. But can this tradition be changed at a whim, if it is so reformable, or are there principles which guide the reform of this kind of tradition? What are these principles?

It is interesting to note that many of the Popes and Saints and other writers throughout the Church’s history have spoken of disciplinary tradition as something to be respected and venerated to such a degree that change was looked upon as something to be avoided unless necessity arose.

For example, St. Augustine writes:

St. Basil the Great:

St. Thomas Aquinas, the greatest doctor of the Church:

There are some other sources as well which come straight from the Magisterium, not the least of which is the Council of Trent:

The Profession of Faith of the Council of Trent, likewise:
And there are many other sources as well (see this page). The general attitude toward change here is one of suspicion and great caution, not one of eagerness, even in matters of discipline. This is not to say that the Church has never allowed any change in such matters - she has, and she teaches that she alone has the authority to do so. But in practice, she has mostly only exercised this authority under certain limits. The question is, what are these limits? What are the principles which guide the development of the ecclesiastical (small t) traditions of the Church?

Thoughts anybody?

What small “t” traditions are Catholics bound to believe?

 

[Zekariya]

What small “t” traditions are Catholics bound to believe?

Small “t” traditions (not necessarily bound):

Names of the three wise men
Marian apparitions
Etc.

 

[The_Maestro]

What small “t” traditions are Catholics bound to believe?

Well, for example, prayers like the rosary, the stations of the cross, or any other prayers. Practices like fasting and abstinence on the appointed days. The various systems of spirituality which have been handed on to us by the Saints. And most notably, the liturgy of the Church, such as the rites of the holy Mass. That kind of thing.

 

[ProVobis]

But in practice, she has mostly only exercised this authority under certain limits. The question is, what are these limits? What are the principles which guide the development of the ecclesiastical (small t) traditions of the Church?

Thoughts anybody?

Not that my opinion matters, but I would think anything that makes the “after” look unrecognizeable (or undistinguishable) would be beyond the limits I would have set. For example, if I go to a Vietnamese wedding, I should be able to tell if it’s a Catholic one or not. (I wasn’t the only one fooled at such a Baptist event once.) Is that what you’re looking for?

 

[thistle]

In other words Catholics are not bound by small “t” traditions so what is the issue? We can accept them or not.
I seem to be missing the point of this thread.

 

[The_Maestro]

In other words Catholics are not bound by small “t” traditions so what is the issue? We can accept them or not.
I seem to be missing the point of this thread.

No… According to Trent, which I quoted, whoever says that the rites of the Church - which are usually said to be small-t traditions - can be rejected or replaced is anathema. So we are bound by some of these small-t traditions. Not necessarily all of them, maybe. There are different degrees of binding force among the small-t traditions.

The point of this thread is to discuss the principles which govern the change of tradition. What are the limits of change in tradition? How much may they be changed? Do the ecclesiastical authorities have any kinds of duties when it comes to regulating these traditions? Etc.

 

[AndyP2010]

Not that my opinion matters, but I would think anything that makes the “after” look unrecognizeable (or undistinguishable) would be beyond the limits I would have set. For example, if I go to a Vietnamese wedding, I should be able to tell if it’s a Catholic one or not. (I wasn’t the only one fooled at such a Baptist event once.) Is that what you’re looking for?

I think in some respects this might only apply to someone who grew up in Vietnamese cultural tradition. I would expect that the Baptist adopted many of the same cultural tradition when setting up their practices that we did.

 

[AndyP2010]

Here on the cultural impact on tradition in Latin America.

Someone has joked, “In Central America it’s not really a valid Mass unless there is a dog present.” I was therefore amused to see that at one of the Pope’s liturgies in Brazil a stray dog wandered onto the stage. For five years I took some American high school kids to El Salvador on a mission trip. The Catholicism I experienced there helps me admire and understand Pope Francis. Sometimes there were dogs at the liturgy. Sometimes there were madmen and screaming children. There was loud music and no air conditioning. It was hot. It was real. It was the beautiful struggle man!
I’d like to share some learning points from El Salvador that have helped me understand Pope Francis and where the Lord is taking the church.

Read the whole thing.

 

[felsguy]

Small t traditions are habits, customs, practices, are they not? They come, they go with time.

 

[ProVobis]

Small t traditions are habits, customs, practices, are they not? They come, they go with time.

Okay, but where’s the pastoral value in forcing them out (or making it look that way)altogether? For example, confessionals, statues, kneelers, altar rails, high altars, icons etc.

 

[ProVobis]

I think in some respects this might only apply to someone who grew up in Vietnamese cultural tradition. I would expect that the Baptist adopted many of the same cultural tradition when setting up their practices that we did.

That seems to be true in the U.S. as well. I can park in almost any church (with a cross) parking lot, come in through a side entrance, and basically see and feel the same worship service, no?

 

[felsguy]

Okay, but where’s the pastoral value in forcing them out (or making it look that way)altogether? For example, confessionals, statues, kneelers, altar rails, high altars, icons etc.

Never said there was pastoral value in forcing something out. I was just pointing out that often the way a certain thing is done fades away and/or is replaced by a new practice as time goes by.

.

 

[The_Maestro]

Never said there was pastoral value in forcing something out. I was just pointing out that often the way a certain thing is done fades away and/or is replaced by a new practice as time goes by.

.

If this is true (which it may very well be, in certain respects), then may the ecclesiastical authorities ever force traditions out? If so, under what conditions?

 

[thistle]

No… According to Trent, which I quoted, whoever says that the rites of the Church - which are usually said to be small-t traditions - can be rejected or replaced is anathema. So we are bound by some of these small-t traditions. Not necessarily all of them, maybe. There are different degrees of binding force among the small-t traditions.

The point of this thread is to discuss the principles which govern the change of tradition. What are the limits of change in tradition? How much may they be changed? Do the ecclesiastical authorities have any kinds of duties when it comes to regulating these traditions? Etc.

Sorry but I still don’t get it.

Give me, say, three small “t” traditions that as a Catholic I am bound by.

 

[AndyP2010]

That seems to be true in the U.S. as well. I can park in almost any church (with a cross) parking lot, come in through a side entrance, and basically see and feel the same worship service, no?

You should as long as they are Catholic

 

[The_Maestro]

Sorry but I still don’t get it.

Give me, say, three small “t” traditions that as a Catholic I am bound by.

Well, the Council of Trent already gives one, namely the liturgical rites in the administration of the sacraments. So the tradition of the holy mass, for example.

Also the traditional non-infallible teachings of the Church. These require the religious submission of mind and will. So, for example, when the Popes teach about Christian education, or any number of things.

And the traditions regarding fasting and abstinence. While these have changed through time, they have always been retained to some degree or other. The Church has appointed days during the year when we are required to fast and abstain.

Things like that.

 

[The_Maestro]

That seems to be true in the U.S. as well. I can park in almost any church (with a cross) parking lot, come in through a side entrance, and basically see and feel the same worship service, no?

Shouldn’t be also that if, hypothetically, I were able to go back a hundred years or so and walk into a Church, then again I would basically see and feel the same worship? Tradition does, after all, imply an extent through time - more so than in location.