What Is Tradition?

[elt1956]

This was my question to JR a Senior member of the CAF. JR has helped me many times in clearing up a lot of confusion I have. I want to thank him for being so patient with me and answering most politely.

PLEASE NOTE: This is forum is for serious, adult, civilised discussion only. No arguing, no “I’m right, your wrong” stances please, or I will pull it. Thank you. Peace.

QUES: Are all popes fallible when they teach against tradition?

1. By virtue infallibility no pope can teach against Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition means the faith that the Apostles passed down to us or the dogmas that were taught by the Church in the past. Those things are always in place and no pope has ever taught anything in violation of those truths.
2. There is also tradition with a lower case “t”. Such traditions include the way that we celebrate the mass. The Tridentine Rite (TLM) was not handed down to us by the Apostles. It was handed down by the Council of Trent. It was never said that no pope could ever change it. The Council made it clear that it was the official way to celebrate the mass in the Western Church and no one could touch it. Obviously, the phrase “no one” does not include a pope. For it to include popes too, it would have to be the same for all Catholics. What I mean is that the East and West would have to celebrate the Tridentine form, because it is the only form acceptable to Jesus Christ.

We know that this is not true, because in the East there are many forms of celebrating the Catholic mass: Melchite, Russian, Syrian, and many others that we just group under the label of Byzantine. Therefore, the TLM is not a tradition with a capital T. If it were, the universal church would have to follow it, not just the Europeans. Remember, at the time of the Council of Trent there were no such places as the Americas. The Europeans were the West and Asia was the East. Today the West includes the Americas, parts of Africa and Australia, in other words, any place that the Europeans colonized.

1. Like this there are other traditions, such as celibacy, religious garb, how we venerate the saints, do we light a candle or say a special prayer or go to a feast day mass for the saint of our choice, etc.
2. There are other traditions that pertain to specific situations. For example, not eating meat on Fridays, fasting on certain days of the year, going to Good Friday services.
   All of the traditions that the Apostles handed down to us must be upheld by the popes. All the other traditions that came down from other popes or councils must be upheld if they are matters of dogma, such as the Immaculate Conception or morality such as the laws on abortion.

Even in the area of morality. There are very few moral laws to which the Church applies infallibility. It only applies infallibility to those moral laws that are absolutely clear: murder, adultery, theft, idolatry and so forth. These are clear. For example the teaching on artificial birth control was never declared to be infallible. We must obey it, because we trust that the Holy Spirit guided the Church when it declared it. But Paul VI left the door open in case some new awareness of Christ’s mind on the issue surfaces in the future. So far, nothing new has surfaced.

Can the popes err when they contradict tradition? Yes. Is every contradiction of tradition an error? No. Not all traditions are binding on the pope; therefore he can change some traditions, such as he did with the no meat on Fridays. This tradition did not come from the Apostles and was not an infallible teaching of a previous pope. This is why the changes in the liturgy are possible and why Benedict XVI has said that the ordinary form of the mass is the NO, and the TLM is extraordinary. TLM is not an infallible teaching of a pope, not handed down by the Apostles. It is part of Church tradition, but not tradition with a capital T. It does not make the Church more or less Catholic.

Hope this helps.

JR

 

[pnewton]

Since normal teaching does not entail the charism of infallibility, then I believe a pope could be fallible, if he is teaching counter to the Magisterium of the Church. If such a teaching did not affect my every day life, I would let if ride and see how things played out. He also could be fallible, even in agreement with the Magisterium in areas besides faith and morals. Finally, in areas of discipline, I would hang with the Holy Father even if I thought he was wrong.

 

[JReducation]

Since normal teaching does not entail the charism of infallibility, then I believe a pope could be fallible, if he is teaching counter to the Magisterium of the Church. If such a teaching did not affect my every day life, I would let if ride and see how things played out. He also could be fallible, even in agreement with the Magisterium in areas besides faith and morals. Finally, in areas of discipline, I would hang with the Holy Father even if I thought he was wrong.

I agree with everything you’re saying. I believe that you and I are saying the same thing. You just said it more concisely.

However, I like the closing remark that you make most of all, because it’s a good piece of advice for everyone. Besides, let’s be fair and honest. On matters of dscipline, the Church is never going to please everyone. All of us have to learn to say, “It’s my tun now to be unhappy.”

JR

 

[elt1956]

I agree with everything you’re saying. I believe that you and I are saying the same thing. You just said it more concisely.

However, I like the closing remark that you make most of all, because it’s a good piece of advice for everyone. Besides, let’s be fair and honest. On matters of dscipline, the Church is never going to please everyone. All of us have to learn to say, “It’s my tun now to be unhappy.”

JR

Okay, JR I am tossing the ball back to you and asking anyone that posts if they can name one Tradition with a Captal T and one tradition with a lower case t of the Catholic Church. I’m helping the moderators so that leaves me out.

Seriously. Upper case T - The Immaculate Conception. Lower cast t - attire suitable for attending Mass (If the Pope wanted to say anything)

 

[pnewton]

Apostalic Tradition - the canon of Sacred Scripture

tradition - the Mananitas at Advent

 

[scylla]

A good way to understand lower case tradition is to see it as a reflection of the truth of our faith.

We believe that Jesus is present in the Tabernacle, Jesus is God and we show our respect for His presence in a certain way with our actions, such as genuflecting.
Those actions might change as a result of a change in circumstances such as me being in a wheelchair, I just nod my head instead, but I still reflect the reality of the Presence of Jesus in the Tabernacle. If I don’t believe in the Presence of Jesus, I would encourage ignoring that Presence.

The problem then lies in the recent desire by many to change traditions because of their personal desire to make the faith easier or more acceptable, or unfortunately because those who desire the change don’t believe in the truth of the faith.

So anyone even a Pope can change a tradition and it can harm the faithful, if it does not reflect the truth of the faith accurately or if people misrepresent the change. If people do not understand the change it can lead to people even denying the faith.

Usually people are unhappy if the practice bothers what they believe to be right. So a feminist would be bothered by seeing respect to a male priesthood and a defense of that. A faithful Catholic would be bothered by disrespect, encouragement of a female priesthood and encouragement of dissent.
Ultimately it comes down to what the Church says so the faithful Catholic is right and the feminist is wrong and going against God, but these days many people are scared to say so.
So we end up with a denial of tradition and a rejection of many of the Churches teachings.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[JReducation]

A good way to understand lower case tradition is to see it as a reflection of the truth of our faith.

We believe that Jesus is present in the Tabernacle, Jesus is God and we show our respect for His presence in a certain way with our actions, such as genuflecting.
Those actions might change as a result of a change in circumstances such as me being in a wheelchair, I just nod my head instead, but I still reflect the reality of the Presence of Jesus in the Tabernacle. If I don’t believe in the Presence of Jesus, I would encourage ignoring that Presence.

The problem then lies in the recent desire by many to change traditions because of their personal desire to make the faith easier or more acceptable, or unfortunately because those who desire the change don’t believe in the truth of the faith.

So anyone even a Pope can change a tradition and it can harm the faithful, if it does not reflect the truth of the faith accurately or if people misrepresent the change. If people do not understand the change it can lead to people even denying the faith.

Usually people are unhappy if the practice bothers what they believe to be right. So a feminist would be bothered by seeing respect to a male priesthood and a defense of that. A faithful Catholic would be bothered by disrespect, encouragement of a female priesthood and encouragement of dissent.
Ultimately it comes down to what the Church says so the faithful Catholic is right and the feminist is wrong and going against God, but these days many people are scared to say so.
So we end up with a denial of tradition and a rejection of many of the Churches teachings.

God Bless
Scylla

I think I understand what you’re saying, but let me try and tell me if I got it right.

Are you saying that traditions (with lower case t) support our faiht?

If so, I agree.

Are you saying that when traditions are changed, people can misunderstnad or even reject the change?

If so, I agree.

Are you saying that popes have the authority to change traditions, but some changes are not such a good idea?

If so, I agree.

Are you saying that some people are going to be offended by tradition itself, such as the woman who wants to be a priest?

If so, I agree.

Are you saying that some traditions make a statement about what we belive?

If so, I agree.

Did I get that right?

JR

 

[scylla]

I think I understand what you’re saying, but let me try and tell me if I got it right.

Are you saying that traditions (with lower case t) support our faiht?

If so, I agree.

Are you saying that when traditions are changed, people can misunderstnad or even reject the change?

If so, I agree.

Are you saying that popes have the authority to change traditions, but some changes are not such a good idea?

If so, I agree.

Are you saying that some people are going to be offended by tradition itself, such as the woman who wants to be a priest?

If so, I agree.

Are you saying that some traditions make a statement about what we belive?

If so, I agree.

Did I get that right?

JR

I agree

 

[scylla]

Now the problem is those who propose that traditions are just cultural ways of expressing the faith that can change. They deliberately ignore the reflection of truth in the faith that these practices exhibit.

So for a person desiring the change tradition they would say something like this…
“we don’t kneel in this culture because our way of showing respect for a person is standing, and we are unified by standing together”
This is ignoring the presence of God but just merely taking a cultural norm of showing respect for someone important and standing, plus it feels better.

Those who desire change not because it better reflects Doctrine and Dogma usually do so out of a desire to reject Doctrine or Dogma and to make themselves feel better doing it. If I do not believe in the Real Presence, I would not want to kneel to something I do not believe in and reject.

Our actions reflect our beliefs.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[JReducation]

I agree

Thanks. I just wanted to make sure that I got you right. English is not my native language and sometimes it’s difficult to understand Americans, because there are so many different styles of speaking and writing in such a large country.

JR

 

[Windmill]

We should be very, very slow to change anything about the Faith. I don’t think that just because something is not infallibly defined as de fide that it is, therefore, free to be dispensed with.

As an aside, shortly after Humanae Vitae was released, a group of American Jesuits convened to discuss the binding nature of this church teaching, and they concluded that it was infallible by way of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church.

 

[JReducation]

Now the problem is those who propose that traditions are just cultural ways of expressing the faith that can change. They deliberately ignore the reflection of truth in the faith that these practices exhibit.

So for a person desiring the change tradition they would say something like this…
“we don’t kneel in this culture because our way of showing respect for a person is standing, and we are unified by standing together”
This is ignoring the presence of God but just merely taking a cultural norm of showing respect for someone important and standing, plus it feels better.

Those who desire change not because it better reflects Doctrine and Dogma usually do so out of a desire to reject Doctrine or Dogma and to make themselves feel better doing it. If I do not believe in the Real Presence, I would not want to kneel to something I do not believe in and reject.

Our actions reflect our beliefs.

God Bless
Scylla

Here I would have to appeal to my Franciscan heritage, especially our Holy Father Francis and Bonaventure. They were both great protectors of reverence for everything that is holy, especially the Blessed Sacrament. However, they were also great promoters of what they called “the seamless coat of many colours.”

For example, in the Middle Ages the homily was always in Latin and Gregorian chant was used at mass and in the Liturgy of the Hours. The only form of pageantry in the Church was the pageantry associated with bishops and popes.

Our Holy Father demanded great respect for the Eucharist and the Word of God. However, he dismissed the Latin sermon and replaced it with the sermon in the language of the people. His order was the first to use the language of the people in any part of the mass.

He also stopped the Gregorian chant among the Brothers, not the cloistered nuns, just the Brothers. They were not to use Gregorian chant, because it was very difficult to use good Gregorian chant. At the time, there were rules that said you could not enter religious life if you could not chant.

Francis wanted to open his order to as many men as possible. So the chanting was dispensed with and all the psalms in the Divine Office were read and are still read to this day. The Brothers who were priests used plain chant instead of Gregorian chant to celebrate the mass.

Francis also introduced a form of hymn called Laudas. These were short songs in Italian using local music and instruments. They were not liturgical in the proper sense, because Gregorian chant was the ordinary form of liturgical music. Nonetheless, when his Brothers celebrated mass they used these Laudas and the people learned them and sang along.

Francis also introduced the Christmas pageant and the Stations of the Cross into the Church. Both were in Italian. Later they were translated into Latin so that the Brothers could take them to other countries. Eventually, they were re-translated into the language of the host country.

The Stations quickly became a popular tradition within the Church. Today, most Catholic pray the Stations of the Cross and don’t even know that they are a Franciscan contribution to Church tradition. Many parishes use the living nativity, which most people don’t know was introduced by Francis into the midnight mass of his time.

What is more interesting is that Francis was never a priest or a bishop. His order had very fiew priests and less bishops. They are an order of Brothers. Francis was a Brother.

As you can see, Holy Mother Church does make exceptions for the introduction of new contributions that will enhance the faith of people and it also accepts change in traditions as long as they enhance the faith of the Church.

Francis and Bonaventure went on to become two of the greatest saints in the Catholic history. Our Holy Father was proclaimed to be The Mirror of Perfection and Bonaventure was proclaimed the Seraphic Doctor.

JR

 

[scylla]

Oh I certainly agree, changing traditions is possible and can be good as long as it reflects our faith.
Most of the recent changes done not in obedience to Vatican II were done in rejection of the faith or to promote other desires.

Saint Francis was an extremely holy man and I agree that some changes are for the good, and should be implemented if they are accurate responses to authentic Catholic belief.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

This was my question to JR a Senior member of the CAF. JR has helped me many times in clearing up a lot of confusion I have. I want to thank him for being so patient with me and answering most politely.

PLEASE NOTE: This is forum is for serious, adult, civilized discussion only. No arguing, no “I’m right, your wrong” stances please, or I will pull it. Thank you. Peace.

QUES: Are all popes fallible when they teach against tradition?

1. By virtue infallibility no pope can teach against Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition means the faith that the Apostles passed down to us or the dogmas that were taught by the Church in the past. Those things are always in place and no pope has ever taught anything in violation of those truths.

Popes have taught contrary to Tradition: Pope Honorious taught the heresy that Jesus had only one will and he was condemned as a heretic by a later Council for doing so. If you read the Catholic Encyclopedia at newadvent.org, it will say he was only condemned as a heretic for not defending the truth, but that is not exactly true. He was condemned for agreeing with the heretics of his day - specifically Sergius - and teaching the heresy.

Pope John XXII also taught contrary to Tradition when he taught that souls who died in the state of grace would not possess the beatific vision until after the general judgment. He was rebuked by his Cardinals, but persisted in teaching this error publicly. He finally renounced the error on his death bed. After Pope John XXII died, the next Pope defined the doctrine de fide.

What no Pope has ever done is attempted to define a dogma that is false. Papal Infallibility would prevent that, as the Pope is infallible when he defines a dogma.

1. There is also tradition with a lower case “t”. … 3. Like this there are other traditions, such as celibacy, religious garb, how we venerate the saints, do we light a candle or say a special prayer or go to a feast day mass for the saint of our choice, etc. … 4. There are other traditions that pertain to specific situations. For example, not eating meat on Fridays, fasting on certain days of the year, going to Good Friday services.

These traditions would fall into the category of either “disciplines”, or customs that have obtained the force of law. They differ substantially from doctrinal teachings that are part of the deposit of faith.

All of the traditions that the Apostles handed down to us must be upheld by the popes.

The apostles handed down doctrines via Tradition, as also “disciplines”.

The disciplinary traditions handed down by the apostles are known as “immemorial customs”, and do have the force of law. I believe even these can be abrogated, but only if it is specifically abrogated by the Pope.

An example of an “immemorial custom” would be head coverings for women. This was taught in the Bible and has been a practice of Catholics ever since. It was never explicitly abrogated by the Pope, or by canon law. All that happened is that the new code of canon (1983) law did not address it. That means that head coverings for women are still required since they are an immemorial custom that has never been abrogated…

All the other traditions that came down from other popes or councils must be upheld if they are matters of dogma, such as the Immaculate Conception or morality such as the laws on abortion.

Correct. These are articles of faith that have been handed down to us via tradition and defined by the Popes. All Catholics - including future Popes - are bound to adhere to these teachings.

Even in the area of morality. There are very few moral laws to which the Church applies infallibility. It only applies infallibility to those moral laws that are absolutely clear: murder, adultery, theft, idolatry and so forth. These are clear. For example the teaching on artificial birth control was never declared to be infallible.

But who gets to decide which moral teachings are “perfectly clear”? What if someone believes that birth control is clearly a mortal sin? Or what if another person think it is not perfectly clear that abortion is a mortal sin? This is answered by, what is known as, ordinary infallibility…

Ordinary infallibility applies to those teachings which the Church has always held universally. That birth control is a mortal sin is one of those teachings, and it can never change.

If the Church has always held this a teaching We must obey it, because we trust that the Holy Spirit guided the Church when it declared it. But Paul VI left the door open in case some new awareness of Christ’s mind on the issue surfaces in the future. So far, nothing new has surfaced.

A new awareness of Christ’s mind on this subject will not surface since public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle. Birth control is a mortal sin and that can never change. If it did change, it would mean that the Church deceived us from 2000 years.

continue

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

continuation

Can the popes err when they contradict tradition? Yes. Is every contradiction of tradition an error? No.

But we must distinguish between disciplinary and doctrinal traditions.

Not all traditions are binding on the pope; therefore he can change some traditions, such as he did with the no meat on Fridays. This tradition did not come from the Apostles and was not an infallible teaching of a previous pope.

But these are not doctrinal traditions. They are not part of the deposit of faith. They are disciplines. Disciplines can change, but doctrines can’t.

This is why the changes in the liturgy are possible and why Benedict XVI has said that the ordinary form of the mass is the NO, and the TLM is extraordinary. TLM is not an infallible teaching of a pope, not handed down by the Apostles. It is part of Church tradition, but not tradition with a capital T. It does not make the Church more or less Catholic.

The argument of the Traditonalists against the Novus Ordo Mass is more complicated than that. It really nees a thread of its own. Consider this: Everything that the heretics of the 16th century did for the express purpose of destroying the Mass has been implemented in the Novus Ordo. And what is interesting is that the same effect has been produced by these changes.

Pope Benedict himself has said that he believes the crisis the Church is going through is due, primarily, to what he calls “the disintegration of the liturgy”.

**Cardinal Ratzinger: **“I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy”,

You said that the Traditional Mass is not more Catholic than the Novus Ordo. But what if the Novus Ordo has implemented all the changes that the heretics of the 16th century did? Does that not diminish it Catholicity? And what if the Nuvos Ordo departed from the doctrinal teachings defined at the Council of Trent? That is exactly what several of the top Cardinals in Rome said was the case when the new Mass came out.

Cardinals Ottoviani and Bacci: [T] the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. … the New Order has no intention of standing for the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent to which the Catholic conscience is bound. (latin-mass-society.org/study.htm )

 

[JReducation]

You post is very long and some of it reflect much of what I said, though you use more technical language than I did. Which is fine. No problem.

As to the moral decrees, such as Humanae Vitae I would encourage you to read Cardinal Levada’s statement on this.

For those who don’t know, Cardinal Levada replaced Cardinal Ratzinger.

Levada makes it clear that the church prudentially does not always apply infallibility to all moral statements, because some of the issues are not absolute. He cited Humanae Vitae as one of those that does not carry infallibility. He does not say that one should or can disobey it. He simply says that it is deliberately left as is, for future developments.

As to the Novus Ordo, you mentioned many “ifs”. That’s what they are. If they had embraced the heressies of the past the Holy Father would not have declared it to be to Ordinary Form for the Latin Church.

No one denies that there are nut cases out there who can take anything and make it whatever they want, but that’s not the group who runs the Church. As to the different opinions of the Cardinals regarding the NO, they have a right as princess of the Church to express their opinions. We have the obligation, as laity, to obey and follow Peter, just like these Cardinals did after they had expressed their concerns. They didn’t leave the Church, because the Pope proceeded with the NO. They accepted.

There is no law in the Church that says one cannot have an opinion.

JR

 

[elt1956]

Oh I certainly agree, changing traditions is possible and can be good as long as it reflects our faith.
Most of the recent changes done not in obedience to Vatican II were done in rejection of the faith or to promote other desires.

Saint Francis was an extremely holy man and I agree that some changes are for the good, and should be implemented if they are accurate responses to authentic Catholic belief.

God Bless
Scylla

Scylla, Would you clarify or list some of the changes you feel were a rejection of the faith? Were they Tradition, or tradition. Thanks. Charybdis. Peace

 

[Gara3987]

This was my question to JR a Senior member of the CAF. JR has helped me many times in clearing up a lot of confusion I have. I want to thank him for being so patient with me and answering most politely.

PLEASE NOTE: This is forum is for serious, adult, civilised discussion only. No arguing, no “I’m right, your wrong” stances please, or I will pull it. Thank you. Peace.

QUES: Are all popes fallible when they teach against tradition?

1. By virtue infallibility no pope can teach against Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition means the faith that the Apostles passed down to us or the dogmas that were taught by the Church in the past. Those things are always in place and no pope has ever taught anything in violation of those truths.
2. There is also tradition with a lower case “t”. Such traditions include the way that we celebrate the mass. The Tridentine Rite (TLM) was not handed down to us by the Apostles. It was handed down by the Council of Trent. It was never said that no pope could ever change it. The Council made it clear that it was the official way to celebrate the mass in the Western Church and no one could touch it. Obviously, the phrase “no one” does not include a pope. For it to include popes too, it would have to be the same for all Catholics. What I mean is that the East and West would have to celebrate the Tridentine form, because it is the only form acceptable to Jesus Christ.

We know that this is not true, because in the East there are many forms of celebrating the Catholic mass: Melchite, Russian, Syrian, and many others that we just group under the label of Byzantine. Therefore, the TLM is not a tradition with a capital T. If it were, the universal church would have to follow it, not just the Europeans. Remember, at the time of the Council of Trent there were no such places as the Americas. The Europeans were the West and Asia was the East. Today the West includes the Americas, parts of Africa and Australia, in other words, any place that the Europeans colonized.

1. Like this there are other traditions, such as celibacy, religious garb, how we venerate the saints, do we light a candle or say a special prayer or go to a feast day mass for the saint of our choice, etc.
2. There are other traditions that pertain to specific situations. For example, not eating meat on Fridays, fasting on certain days of the year, going to Good Friday services.
   All of the traditions that the Apostles handed down to us must be upheld by the popes. All the other traditions that came down from other popes or councils must be upheld if they are matters of dogma, such as the Immaculate Conception or morality such as the laws on abortion.

Even in the area of morality. There are very few moral laws to which the Church applies infallibility. It only applies infallibility to those moral laws that are absolutely clear: murder, adultery, theft, idolatry and so forth. These are clear. For example the teaching on artificial birth control was never declared to be infallible. We must obey it, because we trust that the Holy Spirit guided the Church when it declared it. But Paul VI left the door open in case some new awareness of Christ’s mind on the issue surfaces in the future. So far, nothing new has surfaced.

Can the popes err when they contradict tradition? Yes. Is every contradiction of tradition an error? No. Not all traditions are binding on the pope; therefore he can change some traditions, such as he did with the no meat on Fridays. This tradition did not come from the Apostles and was not an infallible teaching of a previous pope. This is why the changes in the liturgy are possible and why Benedict XVI has said that the ordinary form of…

JR

There are two Main forms (parents or roots per se) of tradition, which are called Divine Tradition, and Ecclesiastical Tradition. “Divine Traditions belong generally to the Faith; Ecclesiastical to discipline(1)”. Divine is the Parent of Dominical Tradition and Divine Apostolic Tradition (Dominical is from the Latin word Dominus, or Lord), Dominical Traditions are traditions that were revealed By Christ Himself, Divine Apostolic Traditions are those revealed by the Holy Ghost through the Apostles (In a sense the Holy Scriptures would fall under Divine Apostolic Tradition). “They all consist of Dogmatic truths, commandments and institutions which God directly revealed or instituted for man(1)” (refer to John 16, 12-13]. There is no distinction Between Divine (Domincal) and Divine-Apostolic Traditions, they came from God, whether through the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost. **(These cannot be Altered)

***“Ecclesiastical Traditions *- are those that were introduced by the Apostles themselves, or in post -Apostolic times(1)”, hence there is Simple-Apostolic and Ecclesiastical. (An example of this would be like saying the Saint Michael Prayer after Low Mass {Note this is just an example, the Saint Michael Prayer was founded by Pope Leo XIII, for more info on that click HERE}).

This is merely a simple examination of Tradition, This information can be found from Tradition and the Church, By Msgr. George Agius, D.D., J.C.D. Chapter 1 Page 5, 6.

I hope that this Helps out.

Take Care and God Bless.

PS. Tradition (Divine Tradition) & tradition (Ecclesiastical Tradition)

(1) Tradition and the Church, Msgr. George Agius., Chapter 1 Pg. 5 & 6.

 

[JReducation]

There are two Main forms (parents or roots per se) of tradition, which are called Divine Tradition, and Ecclesiastical Tradition. “Divine Traditions belong generally to the Faith; Ecclesiastical to discipline(1)”. Divine is the Parent of Dominical Tradition and Divine Apostolic Tradition (Dominical is from the Latin word Dominus, or Lord), Dominical Traditions are traditions that were revealed By Christ Himself, Divine Apostolic Traditions are those revealed by the Holy Ghost through the Apostles (In a sense the Holy Scriptures would fall under Divine Apostolic Tradition). “They all consist of Dogmatic truths, commandments and institutions which God directly revealed or instituted for man(1)” (refer to John 16, 12-13]. There is no distinction Between Divine (Domincal) and Divine-Apostolic Traditions, they came from God, whether through the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost. **(These cannot be Altered)

***“Ecclesiastical Traditions *- are those that were introduced by the Apostles themselves, or in post -Apostolic times(1)”, hence there is Simple-Apostolic and Ecclesiastical. (An example of this would be like saying the Saint Michael Prayer after Low Mass {Note this is just an example, the Saint Michael Prayer was founded by Pope Leo XIII, for more info on that click HERE}).

This is merely a simple examination of Tradition, This information can be found from Tradition and the Church, By Msgr. George Agius, D.D., J.C.D. Chapter 1 Page 5, 6.

I hope that this Helps out.

Take Care and God Bless.

PS. Tradition (Divine Tradition) & tradition (Ecclesiastical Tradition)

(1) Tradition and the Church, Msgr. George Agius., Chapter 1 Pg. 5 & 6.

Thanks for your contribution. You gave all of the technical terms. I had thought about them and then I thought I would confuse people.

But you’re right about them. Good job!

JR

 

[scylla]

Scylla, Would you clarify or list some of the changes you feel were a rejection of the faith? Were they Tradition, or tradition. Thanks. Charybdis. Peace

Sure, I would be happy to,

The traditions I am speaking of that have changed are essentially small traditions and can certainly be changed. There is nothing really stopping us from changing them, and this is why they have been changed.

For example out here on the west coast (at least in my diocese) I have noticed that many of the Priests\Sisters rarely wear their habits. Now the Sisters never do, at least the ones I see here.
Now I know they do not have to wear them, they might need to go jogging, sleep, take showers, etc…
But when your vocation is to be a witness to Christ and be a visible sign of fidelity to Christ to the world, the new tradition of blending in with the world seems to be a rejection of being a beacon on a hill to others.
I am not sure how this reflects our Catholic faith as it did before when the tradition was to wear a habit and visibly express the faith to the public.

This can also be said with public processions of the faith, Corpus Christi, stuff like that, in many places they have been replaced with sometimes nothing or maybe a car wash.

In our worship I see this too, in replacing kneeling with standing, having the rosary before Mass to the liturgy of the bulletin, which is before Mass, and after Mass, and sometimes during Mass. I can mention more, but I don’t want to start going into rant mode.

God Bless
Scylla

The path to God is tough narrow and sometimes, like the path between a sea monster and a whirlpool.