The Mutability of Tradition

[felsguy]

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?

We may be talking about two slightly different things here. For example, when I was growing up there was a tradition in my parish that on Mother’s Day men wore a red or white carnation depending on whether their mother was living or deceased. That is no longer done. No authority forced it out it. For whatever reason or combination of reasons that traditional practice just faded away.

Similarly the liturgy of Holy Saturday was always celebrated in the morning. The rites no longer take place in the morning. Here competant authority replaced a traditional practice with a new practice. Over time this new practice will, perhaps already has, become a tradition. Was the traditional way “forced out?” I supposed you could choose to say so. I would be more likely to say “ended” or “changed.” Regardless of the terminology, was this a legitimate exercise of ecclesiastical authority? In the traditional way of responding, I would answer “in the affirmative.”

.

 

[thistle]

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.

All disciplines (which Catholics can disagree with but must accept) can be changed. They are only binding until they change.

The form of the Mass can be changed as well. The only things in a Mass that cannot be changed are the words of consecration and the priest receiving Communion. Everything else can be changed.

On teachings you are being vague. Show me a teaching in the CCC that is based only on a small “t” tradition.

 

[Cat]

This is just my opinion, and keep in mind that I converted to Catholicism from Evangelical Protestantism, so I have no background of Catholic small-t traditions.

I think that perhaps the saints were so strict about keeping the small-t traditions because these traditions contributed to unity in the Church. Even though we like to think that Catholicism was The Only Christianity in the past, this really isn’t true. There were always heretical teachings being bandied about, and “messiahs” claiming to be another Christ. Also, there were various sinful lifestyles that could tempt people away from the Church and Jesus Christ (e.g., earning a living as a bandit or a prostitute instead of doing something good and honorable that made less income).

A careful adherence to a “lifestyle” of certain practices and disciplines is very helpful to holding people together in a strong “team.” Consider sports teams–they all have their “uniforms” and “colors”, cheers, mascots, rituals, etc. These “traditions” help the team members and also their fans to remain a tight unit, committed to the team and to each other.

Those people who started to deviate from the small-t traditions were possibly more likely to drift away from the Church and Jesus, and of course be in danger of hellfire as they fell into a state of mortal sin.

So of course the saints would emphasize, with very strong language, the importance of staying with the group and doing what everyone else does, and not trying to be a “loner”. The concept of “doing your own thing” didn’t exist back then in society or in the Church.

Today, Christian unity is still a major issue in the Christian Church. Not only do we have a “split” Christian Church (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant), but we have a great deal of diversity within those three groups. I honestly don’t think the saints of the past anticipated any of that diversity. Their world was very small, consisting only of the land and people where they lived. E.g., they couldn’t conceive of a society in which women played an equal role in the workplace and the government. They couldn’t conceive of a society in which so many children lived past infancy. They couldn’t conceive of an internet which shrinks the world.

My personal opinion is that the saints’ statements about small-t traditions were appropriate and necessary for their times and people, but that these statements make no sense today in a diverse world in which most of us are capable of understanding how people can have different religious practices, but still be One in Christ.

The saints were humans, not divine. Their writings are not Sacred Scripture–and even in the Sacred Scripture, there are practices that were once mandatory that no longer apply to us who under the New Covenant. And most important, we cannot pick and choose which of the saints’ admonitions to follow and ignore the rest of their writings–if we are going to elevate the teachings about adherence to small-t traditions to the level of dogma, then we must elevate ALL of their teachings to dogma.

Finally, we are to be guided in our practices by Holy Mother Church, and our Church does not ask us to adhere to small-t traditions. Whether we agree with our Church is not important. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, and we can trust our Church. In this day and age, it is by our obedience to Holy Mother Church, not by consistently practicing a list of small-t traditions, that we maintain our unity with Christ and stay safe from drifting away into heresy and/or sin. Trust and obey–that’s more important to Christian unity in today’s world than saying certain prayers, making certain gestures, or wearing certain articles.

 

[ProVobis]

You should as long as they are Catholic

That’s the thing. One recent memorial Mass/service (after cremation) was at a Lutheran Church, the other one at a Catholic Church. Very little difference.

 

[ProVobis]

All disciplines (which Catholics can disagree with but must accept) can be changed. They are only binding until they change.

The form of the Mass can be changed as well. The only things in a Mass that cannot be changed are the words of consecration and the priest receiving Communion. Everything else can be changed.

I don’t think anyone can argue about what CAN be done. I can call a nuclear physics class a philosophy course but that would be pointless. But what’s the best way to show that the substance hasn’t changed other than by leaving intact most of the externals and visuals? We’re talking Lex Credendi here.

 

[ProVobis]

All disciplines (which Catholics can disagree with but must accept) can be changed. They are only binding until they change.

The form of the Mass can be changed as well. The only things in a Mass that cannot be changed are the words of consecration and the priest receiving Communion. Everything else can be changed.

I don’t think anyone can argue about what CAN be done. I can call a nuclear physics class a philosophy course but that would be pointless. But what’s the best way to show that the substance hasn’t changed other than by leaving intact most of the externals and visuals? We’re talking Lex Credendi here.

 

[ProVobis]

All disciplines (which Catholics can disagree with but must accept) can be changed. They are only binding until they change.

The form of the Mass can be changed as well. The only things in a Mass that cannot be changed are the words of consecration and the priest receiving Communion. Everything else can be changed.

I don’t think anyone can argue about what CAN be done. I can call a nuclear physics class a philosophy course but that would be pointless. But what’s the best way to show that the substance hasn’t changed other than by leaving intact most of the externals and visuals? We’re talking Lex Credendi here.

And BTW, the words of consecration WERE changed, remember? From “pro multis” to “for all men” to “for all” to “for many.” What was the point of that exercise when “pro multis” (that’s Tradition with a capital T) had already been understood since the gospels were written?

 

[AndyP2010]

That’s the thing. One recent memorial Mass/service (after cremation) was at a Lutheran Church, the other one at a Catholic Church. Very little difference.

So how many average Catholics would know the deference between a Mass said at a sedavacantist church and the EF?

 

[AndyP2010]

I don’t think anyone can argue about what CAN be done. I can call a nuclear physics class a philosophy course but that would be pointless. But what’s the best way to show that the substance hasn’t changed other than by leaving intact most of the externals and visuals? We’re talking Lex Credendi here.

And BTW, the words of consecration WERE changed, remember? From “pro multis” to “for all men” to “for all” to “for many.” What was the point of that exercise when “pro multis” (that’s Tradition with a capital T) had already been understood since the gospels were written?

What a wonderful argument you have just made for returning the Mass to greek. It is my understanding that only the greek and hebrew text of scripture are considered inspired. So only the words of institution in greek are truly big “T” TRADITION. Now the Church isn’t about to do that so we do the best we can as Dr Hahn explains below.
Consuming the Word:

This is the process Christianity has followed in all its efforts at enculturation. It is a necessary process but it comes, sometimes, at a price. For the sake of understanding, we translate unfamiliar and ancient concepts into our own categories. Diatheke is divided into three words in Latin: testamentum, which can mean “will”; foedus, which means “alliance”; and pactum which usually means “treaty.”

In english it’s simply “covenant” which is closer in meaning to the greek. He further explains the greek word is used to denote a family bond ie “marriage covenant” whereas testament is used to denote a contract as in last “will and testament”.

 

[felsguy]

This is just my opinion, and keep in mind that I converted to Catholicism from Evangelical Protestantism, so I have no background of Catholic small-t traditions.

I think that perhaps the saints were so strict about keeping the small-t traditions because these traditions contributed to unity in the Church. Even though we like to think that Catholicism was The Only Christianity in the past, this really isn’t true. There were always heretical teachings being bandied about, and “messiahs” claiming to be another Christ. Also, there were various sinful lifestyles that could tempt people away from the Church and Jesus Christ (e.g., earning a living as a bandit or a prostitute instead of doing something good and honorable that made less income).

A careful adherence to a “lifestyle” of certain practices and disciplines is very helpful to holding people together in a strong “team.” Consider sports teams–they all have their “uniforms” and “colors”, cheers, mascots, rituals, etc. These “traditions” help the team members and also their fans to remain a tight unit, committed to the team and to each other.

Those people who started to deviate from the small-t traditions were possibly more likely to drift away from the Church and Jesus, and of course be in danger of hellfire as they fell into a state of mortal sin.

So of course the saints would emphasize, with very strong language, the importance of staying with the group and doing what everyone else does, and not trying to be a “loner”. The concept of “doing your own thing” didn’t exist back then in society or in the Church.

Today, Christian unity is still a major issue in the Christian Church. Not only do we have a “split” Christian Church (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant), but we have a great deal of diversity within those three groups. I honestly don’t think the saints of the past anticipated any of that diversity. Their world was very small, consisting only of the land and people where they lived. E.g., they couldn’t conceive of a society in which women played an equal role in the workplace and the government. They couldn’t conceive of a society in which so many children lived past infancy. They couldn’t conceive of an internet which shrinks the world.

My personal opinion is that the saints’ statements about small-t traditions were appropriate and necessary for their times and people, but that these statements make no sense today in a diverse world in which most of us are capable of understanding how people can have different religious practices, but still be One in Christ.

The saints were humans, not divine. Their writings are not Sacred Scripture–and even in the Sacred Scripture, there are practices that were once mandatory that no longer apply to us who under the New Covenant. And most important, we cannot pick and choose which of the saints’ admonitions to follow and ignore the rest of their writings–if we are going to elevate the teachings about adherence to small-t traditions to the level of dogma, then we must elevate ALL of their teachings to dogma.

Finally, we are to be guided in our practices by Holy Mother Church, and our Church does not ask us to adhere to small-t traditions. Whether we agree with our Church is not important. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, and we can trust our Church. In this day and age, it is by our obedience to Holy Mother Church, not by consistently practicing a list of small-t traditions, that we maintain our unity with Christ and stay safe from drifting away into heresy and/or sin. Trust and obey–that’s more important to Christian unity in today’s world than saying certain prayers, making certain gestures, or wearing certain articles.

very well said

.

 

[ProVobis]

What a wonderful argument you have just made for returning the Mass to greek.

I’ll go with that if you will.

But remember we don’t have the original Greek. We may in fact, have Greek today that was actually translated from the Latin. Yes, that’s true.

So only the words of institution in greek are truly big “T” TRADITION.

If you want to be technical about it, the original was in Aramaic. I guess it would be a matter of when the big “T” Tradition was officially over with. Is there a Church definition of this? I don’t think small letters were even invented till the Irish monks did it several centuries later.

 

[ProVobis]

So how many average Catholics would know the deference between a Mass said at a sedavacantist church and the EF?

Probably none but that’s because the missal of 45 (or whatever they use) is not that much different than the missal of 62. But that’s the point of the discussion, is it not?

 

[The_Maestro]

All disciplines (which Catholics can disagree with but must accept) can be changed. They are only binding until they change.

I’m trying to determine though if there are any limits to that change.

The form of the Mass can be changed as well. The only things in a Mass that cannot be changed are the words of consecration and the priest receiving Communion. Everything else can be changed.

Actually, as somebody pointed out, the words of consecration have been changed. When Paul VI introduced the New Mass in 1969 he changed the words of consecration, both of the host and the chalice. (And actually, those changes didn’t have anything to do with “pro multis”; that was only a translation problem.)

Also, if you read the very words of the Council of Trent, it condemns with an anathema anyone who says that the rites of the sacraments might be done away with and replaced with new rites. So maybe in small ways the form of the mass might change; but it oughtn’t to be a complete change. For example, if you read Adrian Fortescue, writing in 1912 about the history of the Roman mass, he says it is essentially the same as the mass of ancient Christianity, despite whatever minor changes may have been added over time (legitimately so).

On teachings you are being vague. Show me a teaching in the CCC that is based only on a small “t” tradition.

Well, for example, when the CCC teaches about sacred art (no. 2500). This kind of teaching has never been infallibly defined or taught by the Church, and yet it is still authoritative. It is a part of the small-t tradition.

 

[The_Maestro]

This is just my opinion, and keep in mind that I converted to Catholicism from Evangelical Protestantism, so I have no background of Catholic small-t traditions.

I think that perhaps the saints were so strict about keeping the small-t traditions because these traditions contributed to unity in the Church. Even though we like to think that Catholicism was The Only Christianity in the past, this really isn’t true. There were always heretical teachings being bandied about, and “messiahs” claiming to be another Christ. Also, there were various sinful lifestyles that could tempt people away from the Church and Jesus Christ (e.g., earning a living as a bandit or a prostitute instead of doing something good and honorable that made less income).

A careful adherence to a “lifestyle” of certain practices and disciplines is very helpful to holding people together in a strong “team.” Consider sports teams–they all have their “uniforms” and “colors”, cheers, mascots, rituals, etc. These “traditions” help the team members and also their fans to remain a tight unit, committed to the team and to each other.

Those people who started to deviate from the small-t traditions were possibly more likely to drift away from the Church and Jesus, and of course be in danger of hellfire as they fell into a state of mortal sin.

So of course the saints would emphasize, with very strong language, the importance of staying with the group and doing what everyone else does, and not trying to be a “loner”. The concept of “doing your own thing” didn’t exist back then in society or in the Church.

Today, Christian unity is still a major issue in the Christian Church. Not only do we have a “split” Christian Church (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant), but we have a great deal of diversity within those three groups. I honestly don’t think the saints of the past anticipated any of that diversity. Their world was very small, consisting only of the land and people where they lived. E.g., they couldn’t conceive of a society in which women played an equal role in the workplace and the government. They couldn’t conceive of a society in which so many children lived past infancy. They couldn’t conceive of an internet which shrinks the world.

My personal opinion is that the saints’ statements about small-t traditions were appropriate and necessary for their times and people, but that these statements make no sense today in a diverse world in which most of us are capable of understanding how people can have different religious practices, but still be One in Christ.

The saints were humans, not divine. Their writings are not Sacred Scripture–and even in the Sacred Scripture, there are practices that were once mandatory that no longer apply to us who under the New Covenant. And most important, we cannot pick and choose which of the saints’ admonitions to follow and ignore the rest of their writings–if we are going to elevate the teachings about adherence to small-t traditions to the level of dogma, then we must elevate ALL of their teachings to dogma.

Finally, we are to be guided in our practices by Holy Mother Church, and our Church does not ask us to adhere to small-t traditions. Whether we agree with our Church is not important. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, and we can trust our Church. In this day and age, it is by our obedience to Holy Mother Church, not by consistently practicing a list of small-t traditions, that we maintain our unity with Christ and stay safe from drifting away into heresy and/or sin. Trust and obey–that’s more important to Christian unity in today’s world than saying certain prayers, making certain gestures, or wearing certain articles.

Very interesting, thank you for your opinion. I think that’s actually a good representation of the mainstream view about small-t traditions, although I myself don’t necessarily agree with all of it. I think small-t traditions are still important today. In fact, I think part of the crisis in the Church today (there is in fact a crisis) is due to the fact that so many Catholics have abandoned these small-t traditions, particularly in the western Church.

I agree that we don’t need to elevate the teachings of the saints on this matter to the level of dogma. However, I think we should regard them as possessing a very high authority. This is especially because they all, or the majority of them who write about it, seem to agree on this matter. The Fathers of the Church, for example. There are quite a few quotes from them which say that tradition applies to discipline as well, and that therefore these disciplines are binding (not ruling out legitimate change, of course). When the Fathers agree on something, that is to be regarded as very authoritative. And when the saints and the sensus Catholicus down through the ages is agreed on something, that is also said to be very authoritative. Pope Pius IX teaches that we ought to submit to these teachings, even if they aren’t dogma. And it seems to me that according to these sources, traditions, even in matters of discipline (small t) are indeed binding.

 

[ProVobis]

think that perhaps the saints were so strict about keeping the small-t traditions because these traditions contributed to unity in the Church.

I don’t think this is necessarily true. There seems to have always been a drift away from “unity” per se. Look at the letters of St. Paul to different groups, for example? Why are different practices (women speaking in Church, etc.) preached? Or would you consider all the practices in the early church a part of the big “T” Tradition?

 

[The_Maestro]

I should say also that the small-t traditions weren’t just about unity, but about giving a living expression to Catholic doctrine. For example, in the liturgy, there was the principle lex orandi, lex credendi, according to which the law of prayer represented the law of belief. And one of the quotes I gave from St. Basil makes this very point: “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.”

 

[AndyP2010]

Since the Church has defined the end of public revelation to end with the death of the last apostle so I would guess big T ends there as well. As for the greek liturgical text I would expect those used by eastern Catholics as well as the Orthodox aren’t translations from the latin we could use those. Also were the 2nd 3rd and 4th Eucharistic prayers translated into latin after VII.

To add somewhat to Dr. Hahn’s observation in my earlier post; enculturation also allows us gains as well. Per his example Testament also means to bare witness. So are we not witnessing calvary and the upper room as well as the resurrection at Mass.

 

[Genesis315]

The principle to follow concerning when canon law, rites, etc. should be changed is when it is for the good of the Church: “unto edification and not unto destruction.” (2 Cor 13:10).

Of course, the responsibility for determining when changes should be made falls to the Pope and bishops. Our Lord did not promise them perfect prudence, so not all changes will necessarily bring forth the intended fruit (it is theologically certain, however, that it is impossible for the Church’s general laws and rites to impose anything per se at odds with sound belief and good morals).

The canons from Trent concerning those who say that rites and whatnot must be changed are referencing the Protestants who said that the Church either did not have the authority to impose such rites or that said rites were at odds with sound belief and good morals, and were therefore incentives to sin. Elsewhere the Council of Trent affirmed the Church’s power to change anything concerning the administration of the sacraments:

“It furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, it may ordain,–or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places.”
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct21.html

Furthermore, the forbiddance of changing rites applied to those without the authority to do so. This forbiddence has been affirmed by Vatican II and subsequent Popes.

Pius XII clarified that ultimatley, the authority lies with the Pope:

“58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.”
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei_en.html

 

[ProVobis]

Since the Church has defined the end of public revelation to end with the death of the last apostle so I would guess big T ends there as well.

So you’re saying it’s big T Tradition that women aren’t supposed to talk in Church, etc per St. Paul, and this is forever binding?

 

[The_Maestro]

Since the Church has defined the end of public revelation to end with the death of the last apostle so I would guess big T ends there as well. As for the greek liturgical text I would expect those used by eastern Catholics as well as the Orthodox aren’t translations from the latin we could use those. Also were the 2nd 3rd and 4th Eucharistic prayers translated into latin after VII.

To add somewhat to Dr. Hahn’s observation in my earlier post; enculturation also allows us gains as well. Per his example Testament also means to bare witness. So are we not witnessing calvary and the upper room as well as the resurrection at Mass.

I don’t think the language in which the scriptures were written is part of the Divine Tradition. It’s the content of the teaching expressed in that language.