What is tradition (small t)

  • Thread starter Thread starter SAVINGRACE
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SAVINGRACE

Guest
I have read articles in National Catholic Register where it states “according to tradition this is the house that Mary lived with St John in Ephesus” or “according to tradition this is the birthplace of Christ”.

What is it? How reliable is it? How is it tested?
 
That which has been handed down through generations ,
Mainly oral tradition.
It becomes part of " knowledge" of a culture .Sometimes referred to as popular tradition ,folklore and in any case forms part of the culture ,beliefs , ways habitual to that culture ,etc.
Briefly…
Some can be supported by written data ,archaelogical,etc.and some cannot.
 
That which has been handed down through generations ,
Mainly oral tradition.
It becomes part of " knowledge" of a culture .Sometimes referred to as popular tradition ,folklore and in any case forms part of the culture ,beliefs , ways habitual to that culture ,etc.
Briefly…
Some can be supported by written data ,archaelogical,etc.and some cannot.
Also, “tradition” (with a small t) in the Church is something that can be changed or modified, or even abandoned if appropriate. It is not like Sacred Tradition, which forms part of the deposit of faith. A good example is head covering of women in Church. This tradition has largely been abandoned by the majority of women since the new Code of Canon Law was issued, although women are free to cover their heads if they wish. (And I do not wish to get into a discussion about this, I am only using it as an example of a small “t” tradition which changed after many centuries).
 
It means the same as the old expression, ‘it is written…’

Today you might want to say ‘everybody believes…’
 
“According to tradition” means that someone said so years ago but wasn’t able to prove it but successive generations thought the same. It doesn’t necessarily mean they’re right or wrong. People have chosen to believe these things over the years but you can disagree and still be a faithful Catholic. If it increases your fervour and your faith then fine. If you think it’s a load of unscientific hogwash, also fine, so long as you don’t deliberately offend people.
 
Pax Christi and Happy New Year!

Two small t’s, to be exact.

Tradition, written or oral, is widely accepted as true, but not Scriptural or logically proven.

Many stories of the Saints are traditional and not in conflict with the faith, so they are OK for the faithful to accept.

Some practices, such as praying the Rosary, are traditional. Not required, but not problematic either.

Tradition is a good and valuable thing. “Hold fast to the traditions that have been handed down to you.” It says that somewhere in the epistles…

God bless!
 
Pax Christi and Happy New Year!

Two small t’s, to be exact.

Tradition, written or oral, is widely accepted as true, but not Scriptural or logically proven.

Many stories of the Saints are traditional and not in conflict with the faith, so they are OK for the faithful to accept.

Some practices, such as praying the Rosary, are traditional. Not required, but not problematic either.

Tradition is a good and valuable thing. “Hold fast to the traditions that have been handed down to you.” It says that somewhere in the epistles…

God bless!
The tradition that you refer to in the scripture quote refers to Sacred Tradition as handed down to us from the Apostles and is part of the deposit of faith and is part of Divine Revelation, which is to be believed by all the faithful, but may not necessarily be in the Bible, as scripture states that not everything was written down and was passed on orally. Sacred Tradition plus Sacred Scripture form the deposit of faith. It does not refer to ordinary traditions that may have been practiced at that time and passed down. I think you know that, but your statement is a little confusing and could be interpreted as referring to ordinary traditions.

In any case, this is major misunderstanding that many non-Catholics have, and even some Catholics. They are unfamiliar with what we call Sacred Tradition and confuse it with ordinary traditions and disciplines that have been practiced for generations.
 
“According to tradition” means that someone said so years ago but wasn’t able to prove it but successive generations thought the same. It doesn’t necessarily mean they’re right or wrong. People have chosen to believe these things over the years but you can disagree and still be a faithful Catholic. If it increases your fervour and your faith then fine. If you think it’s a load of unscientific hogwash, also fine, so long as you don’t deliberately offend people.
This is probably the best answer to the OP.

When the Pope said that Vatican II must be interpreted in light of tradition, he more likely than not meant according to the norms practiced since the Council of Trent. Can’t say for sure, though.
 
I know about Sacred Tradition and manmade tradition. That is not what I am talking about when I posted this thread.

Please refer to the original post.
 
“According to tradition” means that someone said so years ago but wasn’t able to prove it but successive generations thought the same. It doesn’t necessarily mean they’re right or wrong. People have chosen to believe these things over the years but you can disagree and still be a faithful Catholic. If it increases your fervour and your faith then fine. If you think it’s a load of unscientific hogwash, also fine, so long as you don’t deliberately offend people.
Thank you, I think this answers my question.
 
I have read articles in National Catholic Register where it states “according to tradition this is the house that Mary lived with St John in Ephesus” or “according to tradition this is the birthplace of Christ”.

What is it? How reliable is it? How is it tested?
tradition with a small “t” does not have to be believed by Catholics.
 
tradition with a small “t” does not have to be believed by Catholics.
I’d be careful with saying something like this. When the Pope says Vatican II must be interpreted in light of tradition, I wouldn’t ignore that statement just because the translation happens to come out in a lower case “t.”
 
tradition with a small “t” does not have to be believed by Catholics.
Perhaps we could do better at differentiating Sacred Tradition from pious tradition than simply upper-case/lower-case.
 
I’d be careful with saying something like this. When the Pope says Vatican II must be interpreted in light of tradition, I wouldn’t ignore that statement just because the translation happens to come out in a lower case “t.”
Would you consider the OP is about “manmade tradition?”.
 
Would you consider the OP is about “manmade tradition?”.
Hmmm, interesting question. Are there any other sources? I suppose something like the Shroud of Turin or the relics of martyrs could fall into that same category. Some say the latter has been authenticated by the Church since the 6th century (or some other time) but what about before then?
 
Hmmm, interesting question. Are there any other sources? I suppose something like the Shroud of Turin or the relics of martyrs could fall into that same category. Some say the latter has been authenticated by the Church since the 6th century (or some other time) but what about before then?
No there are no sources. What I understand from the answers to my post is that any “tradition” (small t) encouraged by the Church is okay.
 
I’d be careful with saying something like this. When the Pope says Vatican II must be interpreted in light of tradition, I wouldn’t ignore that statement just because the translation happens to come out in a lower case “t.”
But what I said is correct. We are not obliged to believe/accept tradition with a small “t”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top