F
Flame4
Guest
What’s the difference between Tradition and tradition within the Church. I’ve seen this used, so I’m curious. Thanks.
- Status
D
davidv
Guest
Tradition is the teachings hand on from the Apostles to their successors. “tradition” is the uniquely human things that are created to enrich our experience or to establish order. From the CCC:
F
FightingFat
Guest
There are many traditions, singing hymns, Eucharistic processions, in Spain every holy day seems to involve throwing a donkey off something. Tradition however is Apostolic in origin, something taught by the apostles.
Check out Dei Verbum Chapter II vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
Check out Dei Verbum Chapter II vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
S
sulkow82
Guest
Tradition (capital “T”) is the official teachings handed down from the Apostles. The Scriptures are written Tradition. Oral Tradition (which is what most people refer to as Tradition) can also be teachings from early teachers which the Church holds in high regard. For example writings from St. Augustine are considered part of Oral Tradition. I sometimes describe it as the “sacred discussion” about the Scriptures.
When talking about tradition (with a lower case “t”) this is closer to “customs.” The public saying of the rosary or Angelus before Mass are not part of Tradition, however, they do help us draw closer to God. This is why they are worthy traditions.
N
NHInsider
Guest
That’s a bit of a stretch - not all of the writings of the ECF would be considered part of Tradition. It’s more formal than that, and points to the promise of Jesus that is in tomorrow’s Gospel (John 14) - that the Holy Spirit would teach the Apostles “everything.” The Sacred Discussion (I like the term) winds up containing many ideas that are not, ultimately determined to be inspired by the Holy Spirit - some of which are determined to be downright heretical. But it is often through the Sacred Discussion that the Holy Spirit leads the Church to the determination of what is right (as in tomorrow’s first reading from Acts 15 - you can imagine that was a pretty heated discussion - but in the end, the Apostles were able to say “it is the decision of the Holy Spirit, and of us. . . .”
S
sulkow82
Guest
True. Some of the ECF actually did slip into heresy. Even if they slip into heresy and thus force the Church to respond with censure. In a way, that heresy is part of Tradition as an example of what not to believe. The Council of Nicea would not have been called if it were not for the Arians (?). (I get my heresies confused sometimes.) The part which does get formal is the identification of what we are permitted or required to believe.
When I was talking about the ECF, I was more talking about documents like Suma Theologica.
D
davidv
Guest
As the teachings handed on from Christ, Tradition cannot contain heresy.
N
NHInsider
Guest
And the Summa, great though it is, is not magesterial. . . .
the reality is that you can’t nail down “Tradition” because the whole idea is what Jesus promised the Apostles in today’s Gospel - that He would send the Holy Spirit to “teach [them] everything and remind [them] of what [He] had said:” which makes it possible for the Church to respond to a changing world with unchanging Truth.
the reality is that you can’t nail down “Tradition” because the whole idea is what Jesus promised the Apostles in today’s Gospel - that He would send the Holy Spirit to “teach [them] everything and remind [them] of what [He] had said:” which makes it possible for the Church to respond to a changing world with unchanging Truth.
C
callmeChris
Guest
To put it in short: (T)raditon is what has been handed down, taught and acted upon by the First Apostles. tradition-with a small ‘t’ is the human aspect of the Church- Latin Mass, annulments, indulgences, praying the rosary, etc. In a way they both come together.
L
losh14
Guest
I think that defining Tradition should begin with those teachings closest to the Magisterium presently - the Catechism, pronouncements ex catedra, ecumenical council decisions and evangelistic letters from the Pope (who most often speaks on behalf of the College of Cardinals rather than tossing his own opinion out there). Writings of the ECF are good, but, like Scripture, they need to be understood within context of how the Church teaches them in order to really be considered Tradition. Indeed, we can’t just say that we include Scripture in Tradition - it is our understanding, tempered by two millenia of discussion, meditation, prayer and thought, that differentiates how we interpret Scripture and why we do so differently from our Protestant brethren.
To put it differently, if we contend (as most of us do) that all in Catholicism derives from Scripture, Tradition gives us the unfilled-in hows of Scripture. Scripture tells us to bless bread and wine for Eucharist - but it leaves us no prayers to do so. Tradition remembers the prayers of consecration. Through Scripture, Jesus tells us “the Father and I are One” but Tradition defines the hypostatic union. Scripture tells us that we must be baptized to see Heaven, and we ought to raise our children to fear the Lord. Tradition gives us examples and means of how to do so - through the Sacraments of Initiation as well as a Church that supports families, holds marriage to be inviolable and lifelong, and offers education - religious and otherwise - to the young.
Fr. John Waiss and evangelical John McCarthy began their debate in “Letters between a Catholic and an Evangelical” with Tradition - and McCarthy rather brilliantly tossed the ball to Waiss with “Defend Tradition,” thus giving Waiss a ridiculously large field to cover. I found it frustrating that Waiss did not attempt to narrow down the field or even conceptually render it so as to make his work easier. I think he lost that debate, rhetorically, because he left himself too open to attack.
To put it differently, if we contend (as most of us do) that all in Catholicism derives from Scripture, Tradition gives us the unfilled-in hows of Scripture. Scripture tells us to bless bread and wine for Eucharist - but it leaves us no prayers to do so. Tradition remembers the prayers of consecration. Through Scripture, Jesus tells us “the Father and I are One” but Tradition defines the hypostatic union. Scripture tells us that we must be baptized to see Heaven, and we ought to raise our children to fear the Lord. Tradition gives us examples and means of how to do so - through the Sacraments of Initiation as well as a Church that supports families, holds marriage to be inviolable and lifelong, and offers education - religious and otherwise - to the young.
Fr. John Waiss and evangelical John McCarthy began their debate in “Letters between a Catholic and an Evangelical” with Tradition - and McCarthy rather brilliantly tossed the ball to Waiss with “Defend Tradition,” thus giving Waiss a ridiculously large field to cover. I found it frustrating that Waiss did not attempt to narrow down the field or even conceptually render it so as to make his work easier. I think he lost that debate, rhetorically, because he left himself too open to attack.
R
Richmart
Guest
I’ve always hated the fact that the word is Tradition. When arguing sola scriptura, is has the sound of not carrying much weight, like it was a family tradidion handed down, when in reality, it holds the weight of the Gospel. Just a thought.
L
losh14
Guest
I agree - and there’s the unfortunate connotation with Mk 7:8 “traditions of men.” Perhaps exegesis or empirical noosphere or informed judgment or tested application or Magesterial conclusion would be better.
Often, when I hear similar modes of reasoning from our Protestant brethren - ie “John Calvin reasoned this in ‘Institues’” it only comes out as “Scripture says”.
A
ALISANDRO
Guest
.Hi Fighting Fat, I know not whether what you say be truth, not being of your persuasion, but Matt.15:3-9 would seem to indicate that our Lord was against it, tradition I mean, and as for, " throwing a donkey off something ", well, it goes without saying that the practice would have been frowned upon. Christian regards, ALISANDRO.
C
CalCatholic
Guest
In the verse you quoted, Jesus is talking to the scribes and the Pharisees about their traditions, not the Traditions that later Christians will pass on from the teachings of Jesus through the Holy Spirit. Refer to 1 Corinthians 11:2, where the Apostle Paul tells the Christians living in Corinth; “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.” or where Paul tells the Thessalonians in 2 Thessalonians 2:15; "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."
(All Scripture quotes from the RSV-2CE.)
A
ALISANDRO
Guest
.
Hi CalCatholic, thank you so much for correcting me on the word “Traditions”.(with a capital “T”). Being partially computer iliterate I had no idea that the word was case sensitive. However, in the KJV Paul is instructing the Christians at Corinth to, “…keep the ORDINANCES…”. Admittedly, “ordinances” is sometimes translated as “traditions” but seeing that the word “ordinance” has the meaning, “An authoritative rule, law or regulation, (Macquarie Dictionary)”, and a “tradition”, with or without a capital “T” means, “…a handed down belief, legend or custom…” none of which imply obligation, it would seem impertinant to use the word “Traditions” in this verse. Not being so well versed in Scripture as you would seem to be CalCatholic, I must defer to your expertise in regard to other Scritural quotes that do contain examples of the legitimate use of the word “Traditions” and “traditions”. Christian regards, ALISANDRO.
P.S. I am thinking going onto your list of “Friends” if you’ll have me.
- Status