The Mutability of Tradition

[The_Maestro]

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

Thanks, that all makes sense.

Are the Popes bound to tradition in any way, even if they alone have the authority to introduce change (which is undoubtedly the case)?

 

[ProVobis]

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.

I would agree that they would be important if we had the original scripture (EXACT language) in our hands. But we don’t. We go with early translations, paraphrasing, and different eyewitness accounts, such as FOUR gospels, not one. And the entire NT wasn’t written until well into the 2nd century, when there was I believe a Vetus Latina, a predecessor to the Latin Vulgate.

 

[clem456]

…

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

Quote:
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.

Yes, the Church is wise and prudent when changing things. Suspicious, I do not necessarily go along with…

 

[Genesis315]

Thanks, that all makes sense.

Are the Popes bound to tradition in any way, even if they alone have the authority to introduce change (which is undoubtedly the case)?

It’s tought to draw a bright line, other than he cannot remove or alter any constituent element of the Church, or any divine or natural law. In theory, everything else is possible. In practice, it seems to me the unwritten rule is to not make changes unless there is a very, very good reason to–but we can’t declare a decision invalid just because we think the reason wasn’t good enough.

For example, Paul VI may have made some major changes, but before he did it was pretty unanimously agreed among the bishops that some changes needed to be made for the good of the Church (what the changes should be was what was debated)–it appears to me he had the good of the Church in mind when he made the decisions he did (regardless of how Catholics may disagree as to whether it was ultimately a good decision or not).

If we look at the whole history of the Church, there have no doubt been occasions where such changes have not born fruit and where restoration became desirable, but overall this flexibility has allowed the Church the unique ability to flourish in many disparate times and places, and not be generally limited to a particular nation, culture, or ethnicity. There’s a reason Our Lord didn’t write a missal or a code of canon law in stone tablets.

 

[The_Maestro]

Ok, so the ministers of the sacraments are not to despise, omit, or change the approved rites of the Church. So? I don’t understand why there is any question here. You seem to be worrying about the fact that the rites have been lawfully and wisely changed by the Church over the centuries, rather than focusing on the obedience of the Church’s pastors to Church authority as it is presented to them. Today’s pastors do not follow traditions that were in place at the time of Trent, because, well, they live now. They cannot live in two times. Only God exists outside of time. We live in the present. Augustine has a good treatment of this in “Confessions”.

Well, note that the canon from Trent uses the expression “received and approved,” which is a standard way of referring to tradition.

I am not worried about change per se; I recognize that there have indeed been many legitimate changes over the ages, which merely added to and perfected what was already there. I am worried rather about abandoning an entire tradition, i.e. abandoning the “received and approved” rites.

 

[The_Maestro]

By the way, it’s interesting also to note that Pope Pius IX, at the First Vatican Council, personally swore the Profession of Faith of the Council of Trent, which contains that line: “I also receive and admit the accepted and approved ceremonies of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of the aforesaid sacraments.” That seems to indicate that the Pope is subject to tradition even in these rites… But of course, the degree to which he is so subject is a matter open to debate.

@Genesis315: So would you say that, since changes may be made only when there is very, very good reason (necessity, even), an effort must be made then to preserve the substance of the tradition overall? So if change can only occur under those circumstances in which it is truly necessary, then the norm is to preserve tradition?

 

[clem456]

Well, note that the canon from Trent uses the expression “received and approved,” which is a standard way of referring to tradition.

I am not worried about change per se; I recognize that there have indeed been many legitimate changes over the ages, which merely added to and perfected what was already there. I am worried rather about abandoning an entire tradition, i.e. abandoning the “received and approved” rites.

The traditions we have now are received and approved, as they were at the time the quote from Trent was written. The traditions build on what came before rather than abandoning.

 

[The_Maestro]

The traditions we have now are received and approved, as they were at the time the quote from Trent was written. The traditions build on what came before rather than abandoning.

Funny thing, Pope Paul VI said these words of the new mass:

A new rite of the Mass: a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries. This is something that affects our hereditary religious patrimony, which seemed to enjoy the privilege of being untouchable and settled. It seemed to bring the prayer of our forefathers and our saints to our lips and to give us the comfort of feeling faithful to our spiritual past, which we kept alive to pass it on to the generations ahead…(Source.)

In any case, I don’t so much want to debate about the mass of Paul VI, but talk more about the principles guiding the Church’s regulation of tradition.

 

[edwest2]

A lot of academics and opinions usually don’t mix very well. Read any encyclical by any Pope and you will find Biblical references and references to previous Popes and other encyclicals.

I hope this is not another “the Church can change” thread. Christ’s disciples were given authority and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Disputes were settled about this or that practice or custom at the time. At first, some Jews thought only Jews could become followers of Christ, but God personally corrected that idea. Local customs, especially ethnic customs, were partly incorporated or allowed. For example, a Polish immigrant who attended Mass at a Polish Catholic Church wearing the traditional dress of his region. It is amazing that even today, regional traditional dress still exists and it is celebrated.

But, if anything, the Church has made certain clarifications to the questions of the times through her encyclicals and while the Mass is a subject of debate, it shouldn’t be.

“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”

Summorum Pontificum - Pope Benedict

So, aside from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I don’t think there is a one size fits all formula. For example, abstaining from meat on Friday, which my family observed, was modified to abstaining from something on Friday. The essence remained but the outward act could be abstaining from meat as before or abstaining from something else. Also, Jesus Himself laid out the proper form for fasting. Fasting is not considered optional, but later, questions arose about those who were ill or those who engaged in hard labor. The Church decided an exception could be made in those specific cases.

By my reading of Church history, while Divine Revelation and Tradition remained, the people created new customs, practices and habits as time passed and other, older versions disappeared. Some of these new ideas the Church had no problem with. In the case of things that involved public morals and decency, the Church always spoke to place the people in the proper orientation. Basically, if you do this or dress like this, it is wrong and here’s why.

So I don’t look at any Catholic tradition as mutable but the Church is very observant, especially as it regards faith formation and its duty to call all to holiness and renounce sin and the associated sinful acts. The main problems are a desire for novelty or a desire to present clever - at least to the originators - ideas to the Church and the public as: “See. We have created a new philosophy or principle and if the Church would just accept what we’ve created then things will be better for all.” Depending on what it is, the Church takes the new idea apart and tells the faithful why new Philosophy A is bad in detail.

Saints and theologians who have been properly taught are a different matter.

Peace,
Ed

 

[clem456]

Although it does not entirely address this issue, this is some fairly straightforward info in this regard:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s1c2a2.htm

…
ARTICLE 2
LITURGICAL DIVERSITY AND THE UNITY OF THE MYSTERY

Liturgical traditions and the catholicity of the Church

1200 From the first community of Jerusalem until the parousia, it is the same Paschal mystery that the Churches of God, faithful to the apostolic faith, celebrate in every place. The mystery celebrated in the liturgy is one, but the forms of its celebration are diverse.

1201 The mystery of Christ is so unfathomably rich that it cannot be exhausted by its expression in any single liturgical tradition. The history of the blossoming and development of these rites witnesses to a remarkable complementarity. When the Churches lived their respective liturgical traditions in the communion of the faith and the sacraments of the faith, they **enriched one another and grew in fidelity to Tradition **and to the common mission of the whole Church.66

1202 The diverse liturgical traditions have arisen by very reason of the Church’s mission. Churches of the same geographical and cultural area came to celebrate the mystery of Christ through particular expressions characterized by the culture: in the tradition of the "deposit of faith,"67 in liturgical symbolism, in the organization of fraternal communion, in the theological understanding of the mysteries, and in various forms of holiness. Through the liturgical life of a local church, Christ, the light and salvation of all peoples, is made manifest to the particular people and culture to which that Church is sent and in which she is rooted. The Church is catholic, capable of integrating into her unity, while purifying them, all the authentic riches of cultures.68

etc…

 

[thistle]

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?

The words of consecration did NOT change. pro multis remains the same. It was simply the English translation that was made more accurate.

 

[The_Maestro]

The words of consecration did NOT change. pro multis remains the same. It was simply the English translation that was made more accurate.

Yes, the words of consecration did change, with the reform of Pope Paul VI. Compare:

Tridentine Missal: FOR THIS IS MY BODY.

Pauline Missal: FOR THIS IS MY BODY WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU.

Tridentine Missal: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND EVERLASTING TESTAMENT, THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH FOR YOU AND FOR MANY SHALL BE SHED UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.

Pauline Missal: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT, WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS. DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.

These are accurate translations of the original Latin of both missals. Note that even then, there is a difference between the words from the Tridentine Missal and those of the Pauline Missal. It isn’t too large a difference, and it doesn’t affect the meaning or anything; so obviously, it is valid. But it is a change nonetheless.

 

[ProVobis]

The words of consecration did NOT change. pro multis remains the same. It was simply the English translation that was made more accurate.

Not that simple. The English rendition apparently had been translated into Spanish, Italian, German, and other national languages. I still don’t know if the Italian bishops have corrected theirs. Spanish was, without the fanfare.

 

[Hypnotoad]

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?

It would be interesting to find out the common guide; however, it would be hard to prove that it should never be changed. I do though believe you could provide a stronger case for why it shouldn’t be changed based on the writings of the Saints, Popes, and other respected Church members. The Council of Trent was great because it’s guide was “keep the traditions which best outwardly express the Traditions Catholics believe either by Word or by Letter.”

Moving forward to Vactican II we see Pope Paul VI stress this same type of thinking in Sacrosanctum Concilium. Yet one might ask; what happened? The conclusion I’ve come to is too much freedom was given to Bishops to be trusted to uphold the same type of thinking as past Popes, Saints, and Church Fathers. The attitude has quickly changed from “lets celebrated the Mass in the way the Church wants”…to…“lets celebrate the Mass in a way the Church will allow”.

youtube.com/watch?v=Gz02BRdbZKo

 

[Cat]

I’m still not sure exactly what “traditions” are being discussed.

Are we talking about the Mass? Or daily life?

When it comes to daily life, traditions change because the lifestyle of people changes because of various inventions, etc.

E.g., in the “olden days,” many families went to bed early, around 8:00 p.m… It was dark, and there was no sense staying up wasting kerosene. There was nothing much to do in the dark. And it was cold, as there was no central heating–no sense wasting wood or coal building up the fire so that people could sit around and do nothing. There were no potato chips or Oreos for people to munch on in the late evening. Dinner was finished, the stove shut up, and the dishes washed and put away hours earlier.

(Sounds kind of good to me!)

But with the discovery of how to harness electricity and the invention of the light bulb, life changed drastically for Americans. People started staying up late. And once the radio became a common fixture in most homes, people had something to do! And then came the television, and many families started scheduling their evenings around a time of viewing.

All of this changed family life and scheduling, and this meant changes in various traditions. I’m guessing that many families who once prayed a Rosary before bed gave it up once they started watching George Burns and Gracie Allen on television.

And I’m guessing that a lot of families who once prayed a blessing over their family breakfast gave that up decades ago when mom started working outside the home, and kids and dad started grabbing a bowl of cold cereal for breakfast and eating while reading the paper.

I’m not saying that these changes are good (or bad). But they happen all through history, and they will continue to happen. I think that Holy Mother Church is wise to not require a list of “To Dos” outside of Mass, as inevitably, as times and situations change, people will simply not do the “list.” And that’s OK–after all, we are not a religion of practices–we are a religion of a Person, Jesus Christ.

 

[ProVobis]

These are accurate translations of the original Latin of both missals. Note that even then, there is a difference between the words from the Tridentine Missal and those of the Pauline Missal. It isn’t too large a difference, and it doesn’t affect the meaning or anything; so obviously, it is valid. But it is a change nonetheless.

In fairness to thistle, I think one can say the consecration in the Latin, in fact the entire Roman canon, did not change save for the Mystery of Faith relocation.

Fr. Z had an interesting page on his blog showing part of the MIssal of 750AD. Someone from that period could probably easily recognize today’s Latin OF’s EP1, whereas the best English translation of that period couldn’t possibly match today’s English translation of the same. In short, comparing translations doesn’t prove a thing, especially when you have the originals.

 

[thewanderer]

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?

Actually, only kind of. The Eastern and Western Rites can be pretty different. I know the difference between a low EF Mass in an austere Church with tall pillars etc is going to look very different to an outside observer than a Byzantine Rite Liturgy. Both are Catholic, but they will not look the same to an outside observer. One is quiet with no visible participation from the laypeople, the Mass is in a foreign language, with much kneeling on the part of the people, the other has no kneeling, the people sing throughout the liturgy as a part of the liturgy, the liturgy is largely in English (or, I believe, whatever the vernacular happens to be, I have only been to Byzantine Liturgies in the US). A Catholic Byzantine Liturgy looks a heck of a lot more like an Orthodox Byzantine Liturgy than it does the EF, especially a low mass. There is no reason to claim that all Catholic worship services ought to have the same exterior look.

 

[ProVobis]

A Catholic Byzantine Liturgy looks a heck of a lot more like an Orthodox Byzantine Liturgy than it does the EF, especially a low mass.

One can say the same about the Lutheran/Anglican and English Mass worship too, no? It seems you just demonstrated my point.

There is no reason to claim that all Catholic worship services ought to have the same exterior look.

I didn’t say that either. I’m fully aware of the many rites we have and have had.

 

[Lormar]

E.g., in the “olden days,” many families went to bed early, around 8:00 p.m… It was dark, and there was no sense staying up wasting kerosene. There was nothing much to do in the dark. And it was cold, as there was no central heating–no sense wasting wood or coal building up the fire so that people could sit around and do nothing. There were no potato chips or Oreos for people to munch on in the late evening. Dinner was finished, the stove shut up, and the dishes washed and put away hours earlier.

(Sounds kind of good to me!)

Sounds good to me too, except for the no Oreos or chips, but I’m sure they had suitable substitutes back then.

 

[thewanderer]

One can say the same about the Lutheran/Anglican and English Mass worship too, no? It seems you just demonstrated my point.

I didn’t say that either. I’m fully aware of the many rites we have and have had.

Maybe I misunderstood your point? I thought you were saying that it is important for Catholic Liturgy to always look the same. I was pointing out that this just isn’t true. We have many traditions within the Catholic Church and they are all good. I’m sorry if I misunderstood you.