C
Crimson_Silence
Guest
What does tradition mean to people here? And should traditions be preserved? Or should everything – religious or secular – continously be demolished and created new again and again?
- Status
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
It would depend on what tradition, religious or secular you mean, right? If it’s a nice family tradition, like opening presents on Christmas Eve, that’s a good thing to preserve. If it’s a state’s tradition to sell slaves around, that’s a tradition to get rid of. As Catholics, if it’s a Tradition that passes on a teaching of divine revelation, then, of course, it should be preserved. Here are some Church docs on What is Sacred Tradition
L
Loving_disciple
Guest
Both something must always be kept but things like methods of evangelization always need refining
P
philv
Guest
2 Thess 2:15 “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.”
2 Tim 3:16 “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,”
2 Tim 3:16 “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,”
- Note that Paul was referring to the Old Testament and a few NT letters at the time. So everything after that is also later tradition written down. The “by our letter” part in 2 Thess 2:15 also applies as tradition.
T
Tom_Baum
Guest
At one time, all that is called “tradition” was something new.
C
Crimson_Silence
Guest
The post asks what is tradition to people here. I think I would get diverse responses on what tradition is to people; whether religious or secular.
Well this is a post I wasn’t expecting to find. Please elaborate; with examples of previous and new.
F
felsguy
Guest
If I understand correctly, you are asking folks here for their personal take on the meaning of tradition so here’s mine which is in no way unique.
It all comes down to the big “T” and little “t” contrast.
With a big “T,” Tradition, in the singular, better called Sacred Tradition, is “the living transmission of the message of the Gospel in the Church, flowing from the oral preaching of the Apostles and the written message of salvation under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Scripture). Tradition is preserved and handed on as the Deposit of Faith under the guidance of the bishops, successors of the Apostles.” - USCCA: Glossary
In the little “t” usage, the CCC (#83) speaks of "various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.”
It’s my observation that this distinction often is not understood or not made in discussion by some which can lead to confusion, anxiety, arguing, etc.
It all comes down to the big “T” and little “t” contrast.
With a big “T,” Tradition, in the singular, better called Sacred Tradition, is “the living transmission of the message of the Gospel in the Church, flowing from the oral preaching of the Apostles and the written message of salvation under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Scripture). Tradition is preserved and handed on as the Deposit of Faith under the guidance of the bishops, successors of the Apostles.” - USCCA: Glossary
In the little “t” usage, the CCC (#83) speaks of "various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.”
It’s my observation that this distinction often is not understood or not made in discussion by some which can lead to confusion, anxiety, arguing, etc.
M
MorEphrem
Guest
The dispensable attitude certain legalistic Latins take towards “small t” tradition is worrying to me, as though it is unnecessary if it was one way or another. Perhaps the change of tradition does not have immediate moral consequences for the hierarch who does so, but the prudential implications are quite evident. Even tradition itself proceeds from (or should) from the wisdom of our forefathers.
In the same vein, while one might categorize liturgical particulars as tradition, inorganically modifying it and canning things for the sake of innovation are problematic and I think the '70s were as effective an empirical study as there will be to prove that point. “Small t” tradition is spoken of as something in an abstract, as though we can isolate culture in a vacuum and experience things, as temporal human beings, outside a worldview; this is clearly false. Inculturation and the lens through which we see things are very important.
So, finally getting to the OP’s question. “Small t” tradition, normatively, reflects Tradition, and if it does so effectively why should one innovate and endanger the souls of the faithful by possibly creating incoherent tradition? As the old adage goes, don’t fix what’s not broken. I would have to say tradition should only be changed if the message is unsalvageable.
In the same vein, while one might categorize liturgical particulars as tradition, inorganically modifying it and canning things for the sake of innovation are problematic and I think the '70s were as effective an empirical study as there will be to prove that point. “Small t” tradition is spoken of as something in an abstract, as though we can isolate culture in a vacuum and experience things, as temporal human beings, outside a worldview; this is clearly false. Inculturation and the lens through which we see things are very important.
So, finally getting to the OP’s question. “Small t” tradition, normatively, reflects Tradition, and if it does so effectively why should one innovate and endanger the souls of the faithful by possibly creating incoherent tradition? As the old adage goes, don’t fix what’s not broken. I would have to say tradition should only be changed if the message is unsalvageable.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Etymology
F
felsguy
Guest
If it was my immediately previous post which caused you worry, I can only say that I find guidance in the catechisms I quoted. If that makes me a “legalistic Latin”, so be it. Gosh, I would think that makes me a “traditonal Catholic.”
.
M
MorEphrem
Guest
Sorry if it seemed like I was picking on you. No, I wasn’t responding to your post - nor does your post particularly bother me. There are honestly just people who think that tradition is the immediate fad that can receive a complete overhaul tomorrow and it wouldn’t make a difference.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
And what is so sad to me is that this is that the falsity of this sort of thinking is so blindingly obvious.
F
felsguy
Guest
Can’t argue with that. Peace, friend
O
otjm
Guest
Coupled with that are those who feel that if a tradition was in place at a certain point in time (and let’s put that point in time as the start of Vatican 2), that it is from time immemorial, immutable, and by its very existence a sign that it is the only way the matter can be treated.
Every “small t” tradition started at some time since the founding of the Church. Many, if not most that were in existence at the time of Vatican 2 either replaced a prior tradition, or started one where there had been none.
Often there is almost outright horror expressed over changes the Church has made, often times because those who are horrified see only what they choose to see concerning why the changes were made. Whatever happens in the Church usually takes decades, if not centuries, to sort itself out. And through the 2000 years, the Church has managed to stay afloat, in spite of the criticisms launched against it for the decisions made.
S
sirach2v4
Guest
Tradition is the handing down of truths about Catholicism, some of which are recorded in the Bible. The Church takes both the Old Testament and the New Testament as inspired by God.
The relation between the testaments is either 1) continuity, 2) discontinuity (termination), or 3) progression. (This is from Benedict XVI’s Verbum Domini.)
The highest tradition in the Church is the interpretation of scripture. As varying opinions emerged about the meaning of scripture, problems were resolved, resulting in teaching which became an integral part of the overall ongoing tradition.
Rubrics (procedures about how to say Mass, for example) have developed and, certainly, changed over time, based on experience and doctrinal development.
My opinion is that all Christian churches have Traditions and they have a magisterium, teaching authority, even though they would deny it. So, the assertion of Tradition in the Catholic Church is only to be expected, and the faith depends on it, as a matter of fact.
If tradition was bad (and scripture says otherwise), then you’d be looking at the absurdity that churches never did anything the same way twice or that they changed their teaching constantly, which would ridiculous, as well.
The best advice is to stay within the Catholic Church. If you find priests or bishops misbehaving, which happens, then move to another Catholic Church. But, a few bad apples don’t spoil the barrel, in this case.
The relation between the testaments is either 1) continuity, 2) discontinuity (termination), or 3) progression. (This is from Benedict XVI’s Verbum Domini.)
The highest tradition in the Church is the interpretation of scripture. As varying opinions emerged about the meaning of scripture, problems were resolved, resulting in teaching which became an integral part of the overall ongoing tradition.
Rubrics (procedures about how to say Mass, for example) have developed and, certainly, changed over time, based on experience and doctrinal development.
My opinion is that all Christian churches have Traditions and they have a magisterium, teaching authority, even though they would deny it. So, the assertion of Tradition in the Catholic Church is only to be expected, and the faith depends on it, as a matter of fact.
If tradition was bad (and scripture says otherwise), then you’d be looking at the absurdity that churches never did anything the same way twice or that they changed their teaching constantly, which would ridiculous, as well.
The best advice is to stay within the Catholic Church. If you find priests or bishops misbehaving, which happens, then move to another Catholic Church. But, a few bad apples don’t spoil the barrel, in this case.
M
MorEphrem
Guest
But doesn’t the very sense of the word tradition have a sort of organic connotation to it? And with something that it is organic, certain parts will both die and more will be produced. However, to discard and then artificially create doesn’t seem like organic tradition, does it? It’s like if someone in a family said “ok, instead of our longstanding Christmas family tradition of X, we’ll start doing Y instead; they’re equivalents but I feel Y will better.” There are very obvious issues that would pop up with those - as though one can simply just “think up” new traditions. And the result of synthetic tradition are synthetic results - like Anaphorae that are falsely based on prayers that were never used for what they were claimed to be used for.
O
otjm
Guest
It is interesting that you speak about families. When two people marry, they bring to the new family traditions from the one they grew in; what may come out of that is that one tradition continues on; that tradition carries on with modifications from the other; that tradition continues on with modifications from elsewhere; or from the agreement of the two parties to add something; it can be a blend of the two prior traditions, it can be a reverse (the other person of the couple reveals to some degree; or they can abandon both traditions and start something new; either all at once or over time.
And if they cone up with a different tradition, it is no less a tradition if it is not some morphing of the prior traditions. It is a tradition if it is repeated - and I would leave it to sociologists to say how long a repetition is required before it is recognized as a traditional.
So also the Church. Perhaps there is some research that shows that all traditions that were current as of, say, the start of Vatican 2, were traditions that morphed out of other traditions. I don’t know of any; which does not mean they do not exist. But I have my doubts that all of the traditions that existed at that time were from another tradition.
There have been some commentaries in the past in this subset or others (perhaps liturgy) which have spoken of a 40 year rule I suspect there is more to the 40 year rule than what was mentioned. However, we now have some things which have been occurring for 50 years; it is not up to me to suggest that they are legitimate accepted traditions by the Church (though they might qualify as such among the majority of Mass attenders). I know of nothing in Church documents which requires that any tradition must come from the top down; in fact, I would suspect that any number of traditions (small “t”) have come from the bottom up. If I were to suggest one, it would be the Divine Mercy chaplet; it spread among the laity; was suppressed, then released again by John Paul 2. but its spread is not because of the Magisterium; it is because of the response the laity has to it. And that did not come from another tradition; it came right out of the laity responding to Sister Faustina’s visions.
If something is “synthetic”, then I would presume it would not have a long life; but a short life is not necessarily indicative that something was “synthetic” either.
Too often, what happens is we get our tails in a knot over something that we personally don’t like, and seek out others who don’t like it for confirmation. That neither proves nor disproves the validity or worth of the new “something”; time does that. In the meanwhile, with the explosion in communication, the discussion heats up far more than it would have 50 or 75 years ago.
Then too, “something” can spread much faster than it did back then.
Much of the discussion I see has a whole lot more to do with not liking A and much preferring B than it does to the legitimacy of A, but the discussion continues on about the legitimacy.
- Status