[talaniman]

Just curious, since tradition is often passed from generations down, simply as said, because of illiteracy, or lack of material, but doesn't it seem odd that all the modern traditions, are from ancient man, with no more updates, or added knowledge. Is it that the traditions of ancient man is enough, or there is no more divine writing for scripture? It would seem technology would inspire man to more, not just stop in the middle ages.

[Akoue]

This used to bug me too--I'm not really sure when it stopped, or why. I don't think the idea is meant to be that Tradition exists only because of illiteracy or poverty, etc.: It is understood to be a living thing. But it's a living thing that *preserves* what was delivered over to it by Jesus and the Apostles. There is a real tendency to worry about innovation, since this could lead to deformation of what was handed over in the first place. For this reason, new theological insights or ideas have to be tested against what has always been held to be true, to see if they are in harmony with each other. If they are, then that's a good sign for the new insight or idea; if they don't, well, not so good. This is why something like Vatican II stumps a lot of people: It sure looks new to them, and they wonder if it's supposed to replace what came earlier. Of course it's not: It's more like a refresher, a re-appropriation of what came before in the face of a changed world and changed circumstances. But Tradition isn't typically held to be un-dynamic: Through it the unfolding of revelation continues to this day, not because revelation shanges but because we do. That said, what is ancient, and so tested, always has an especially high standing.

I hope this makes sense, at least a little. If not, please say so and I'll have another crack at it.

[Akoue]

Sorry, another ps:

If you have some time, you might want to re-read some of De Maria's earlier posts. He's explained the idea really nicely (better than I just did, but oh well).

[JoeT777]

Just curious, since tradition is often passed from generations down, simply as said, because of illiteracy, or lack of material, but doesn't it seem odd that all the modern traditions, are from ancient man, with no more updates, or added knowledge. Is it that the traditions of ancient man is enough, or there is no more divine writing for scripture? It would seem technology would inspire man to more, not just stop in the middle ages.

Assuming we're talking about Church Tradition, it didn't start in the middle ages. The Church's tradition starts at the ascension of Christ (some Traditions start even earlier). More important is that this Tradition deals with Devine Truth, wherein nothing can be added or subtracted; truth is immutable - truth of any kind. I sometimes think of it this way; It’s like trying to add something new to the sum of 2+2; done right, it always comes out to 4; this is an axiomatic truth of mathematics. Adding or subtracting anything would simply make the answer wrong. But, this concept of math (or Divine Truth) needs to be handed down or taught, as it were, to the next generation. If we don’t, we’d have a bunch of math illiterate kids who are always trying to convince Dad that last week’s allowance of $2 plus this week’s allowance of $2 equals $5 (fork it over Dad!). It just anin’t going to happen is it? Even though I might fail at humor, I hope I didn’t fail at answering your question.

JoeT

[Akoue]

Joe,

I liked that. Something I should have said more clearly is that Tradition is understood to be both the deposit of faith that is preserved and the mechanism (I can't think of a better word for it right now) by which that deposit, that body of teachings, is transmitted. De Maria brought this out nicely in an earlier post by emphasizing the important connection between the body of doctrine and the ecclesial structure that preserves and transmits it. If all anybody had was the body of doctrine, without a viable mechanism for its transmission, the body of doctrine would be lost directly.

There is also the idea, which I know you've brought up, that the Holy Spirit is taken to guide this transmission. Something like this would seem to be imperative if Tradition is to be anything over and above tradition.

[Wondergirl]

I hope this makes sense, at least a little. If not, please say so and I'll have another crack at it.

Sort of but not quite. To me, Tradition for any church body is composed of handed-down stories that start as factual (and may become embellished during the handing down), are rituals that arise in the interest of organizing and consolidating the community of believers, and are adaptations of teaching in order to make a doctrine or belief more palatable.

For instance, I read a book years ago about Christian missionaries who went into a hot, deserty country. The natives worshipped the sun. The missionaries took that ball and ran with it as they introduced their God as the Trinity, one of which is the Son. The natives eagerly embraced this new "Sun." Also, I have always been taught that the early Christian church introduced the veneration of saints in order to extinguish belief in polytheism. The Assumption of Mary is not found in the Bible, but was added later as a doctrine and became part of Tradition in the Catholic and Eastern churches.

Through it the unfolding of revelation continues to this day, not because revelation shanges but because we do.

So are you saying that Catholic priests and nuns will someday be allowed to marry and that the Catholic Church will embrace homosexuals and perform their marriages? Society has changed regarding the first, and is slowly changing to accept the second.

[JoeT777]

Joe,

I liked that. Something I should have said more clearly is that Tradition is understood to be both the deposit of faith that is preserved and the mechanism (I can't think of a better word for it right now) by which that deposit, that body of teachings, is transmitted. De Maria brought this out nicely in an earlier post by emphasizing the important connection between the body of doctrine and the ecclesial structure that preserves and transmits it. If all anybody had was the body of doctrine, without a viable mechanism for its transmission, the body of doctrine would be lost directly.

There is also the idea, which I know you've brought up, that the Holy Spirit is taken to guide this transmission. Something like this would seem to be imperative if Tradition is to be anything over and above tradition.

I was thinking the same thing about your response. I didn't say a word about the mechanics of it all. Well, at least between the two answers he gets keep both the how and the why.

JoeT

[Akoue]

Sort of but not quite. To me Tradition for any church body is composed of handed-down stories that start out as factual (and may become embellished during the handing down), are rituals that arise in the interest of organizing and consolidating the community of believers, and are adaptations of teaching in order to make a doctrine or belief more palatable.

So are you saying that Catholic priests and nuns will someday be allowed to marry and that the Catholic Church will embrace homosexuals and perform their marriages? Society has changed regarding the first, and is slowly changing to accept the second.

Yeah, there are lots of traditions of the sort you describe here. In the capital "T" sense, these don't count as Tradition; some are even customs that are reproved. One of the things Catholics and Orthodox worry a lot about is trying to ensure that traditions don't get confused with Tradition. This is one of the important roles played by bishops (preserving the capital "T" deposit of faith in the face of people who have developed all kinds of traditions over the years). When those traditions are seen as helpful, as deepening the faith of the people, they are typically permitted to continue; when they cut against Tradition, they are suppressed.

As for clerical celibacy and gay marriage... I don't know. There are things which, if the Church permitted them, I would be delighted to see. But it's not for me to decide--and even though my ego would love it if I could make the call, it's probably a very good thing that I'm neither the Pope nor a council of bishops! (I look terrible in hats, for instance.)

I asked a question similar to yours of De Maria and he offered what I thought was a really helpful reply at #35 above. If you have a minute you might take a glance at it and see what you think.

[Wondergirl]

#35 was written by arcura.

[Akoue]

#35 was written by arcura.

Yes, it was. I'm sorry about that. I meant to say #32. #38 is good to (same page).

Numbers and I do not get along!

Which reminds me: Joe, you going to send that twenty back my way?

[talaniman]

we'd have a bunch of math illiterate kids who are always trying to convince Dad that last week's allowance of $2 plus this week's allowance of $2 equals $5 (fork it over Dad!). It just anin't going to happen is it

Lol, you would be hard pressed to find kids, and they can add and know the value of money, to look at 2 + 2 = 4, and not press you to make it 10 + 10 = 20, as dad, 4 bucks ain't gonna cut it. but the analogy is well taken, but my point being that man has acquired even more knowledge to work with than ancient man, and knowledge changes perspectives, and traditions, when new, and better ways of doing things presents itself. As we add knowledge, and close the gaps between tribes, and churches, do we not change tradition also??

[Akoue]

Lol, you would be hard pressed to find kids, and they can add and know the value of money, to look at 2 + 2 = 4, and not press you to make it 10 + 10 = 20, as dad, 4 bucks ain't gonna cut it. but the analogy is well taken, but my point being that man has acquired even more knowledge to work with that ancient man, and knowledge changes perspectives, and traditions, when new and better ways of doing things presents itself. As we add knowledge, and close the gaps between tribes and churches do we not change tradition also???

What we may change is our relation to Tradition. By this I mean that we may come to understand it better, more deeply. If we develop traditions that don't serve that end, then it is our duty to correct those traditions. We have to be vigilant with ourselves.

So traditions chage, but Tradition doesn't.

[Wondergirl]

So traditions chage, but Tradition doesn't.

Does Tradition ever change, or has it ever in the past? Have any ever been added to or discarded?

[Akoue]

Not in the big "T" sense of Tradition, no. But in the small "t" sense, yes, lots of traditions have changed. Some of those small "t" traditions are bad, bad, bad, and have been suppressed because of it. (Bishops in the Philippines have been trying for years to get people to stop nailing themselves to crosses on Good Friday, for example. NOT a good tradition.)

[arcura]

De Mariia,
I agree with you on that.
Fred

[JoeT777]

Sort of but not quite. To me, Tradition for any church body is composed of handed-down stories that start out as factual (and may become embellished during the handing down), are rituals that arise in the interest of organizing and consolidating the community of believers, and are adaptations of teaching in order to make a doctrine or belief more palatable.

You've applied a subjective meaning to 'Tradition,' especially as it may relate to the Christian Church. There can be a tradition of tales and fables we teach our children which are handed down. The fables may contain fact, they may not. In the Christian Church, Tradition is the handing down of Divine Truth. Something that can't be changed; I know you've read were I've said that Truth is God and God is Truth; both immutable and absolute. These are the types of Truth we've been discussing – they simply can't change. However, as Akoue pointed out, we may, for extremely long periods, hold such truths without formulating them in doctrine.

Another concept that may be perplexing is that Church rites and ecclesiastical customs get confused with the fundamental Truths (Traditions) of our faith. That one Diocese may say Mass for St. Christopher on a certain date is a matter of custom not Church Tradition; the main reason is that it doesn't affect the fundamental Truth of our faith.

For instance, I read a book years ago about Christian missionaries who went into a hot, deserty country. The natives worshipped the sun. The missionaries took that ball and ran with it as they introduced their God as the Trinity, one of which is the Son. The natives eagerly embraced this new "Sun." Also, I have always been taught that the early Christian church introduced the veneration of saints in order to extinguish belief in polytheism. The Assumption of Mary is not found in the Bible, but was added later as a doctrine and became part of Tradition in the Catholic and Eastern churches.

The recounting of this story is a distortion of the intent of the priests. These stories get around a lot in the non-Catholic circles as propaganda against the Church to somehow show that the Church doesn't teach the God's Truth. I don't know this particular story, but as you've portrayed it here, the priests were simply trying to find a way to “relate” to the natives who have no concept of God other than as the sun.

I'm not going to touch the Mary Assumption topic here. We've done it before, but if you want, open another thread and we'll discuss it again.

So are you saying that Catholic priests and nuns will someday be allowed to marry and that the Catholic Church will embrace homosexuals and perform their marriages? Society has changed regarding the first, and is slowly changing to accept the second.

To the first, celibate priests is a matter of discipline. Priests don't marry because the Pope has decreed that they can't serve two masters, God and woman.

Second, homosexuality is in conflict with God's revelation (Divine Truth – remember). The Pope can't remove this sanction because it would be an error - the Church doesn't teach error and it doesn't formally cooperate with error. And obviously if homosexuality is in conflict with God's revelations then the marriage of same sex persons can't happen either.

Society might change, Truth is immutable.

JoeT

[Wondergirl]

Not in the big "T" sense of Tradition, no. But in the small "t" sense, yes, lots of traditions have changed. Some of those small "t" traditions are bad, bad, bad, and have been suppressed because of it. (Bishops in the Philippines have been trying for years to get people to stop nailing themselves to crosses on Good Friday, for example. NOT a good tradition.)

But haven't some of the Traditions come about quite recently -- the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and the Assumption in 1950? If they are dogma, why did it take so long for anyone to figure them out -- or is there more to it than that? And why isn't Mary's mother sinless, and her mother, and her mother, all the way back to Eve? Why stop with Mary? (Yes, I know. That's another whole topic and is just a rhetorical question here.)

[Akoue]

But haven't some of the Traditions come about quite recently -- the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and the Assumption in 1950? If they are dogma, why did it take so long for anyone to figure them out -- or is there more to it than that? And why isn't Mary's mother sinless, and her mother, and her mother, all the way back to Eve? Why stop with Mary? (Yes, I know. That's another whole topic and is just a rhetorical question here.)

Leaving the rhetorical part ot one side: To say that a doctrine was defined in 1950 or 1854 isn't to say that it wasn't around previously. In fact, a dogma cannot be defined ex cathedra if at hasn't been around a long time. So, without getting into the details of the two cases you mention (another thread, maybe), the ex cathedra definition of a dogma is not to be a theological innovation. These pronouncements are, as it were, the clear and public declaration of what has been believed (not: what is henceforth to be believed).

[JoeT777]

Lol, you would be hard pressed to find kids, and they can add and know the value of money, to look at 2 + 2 = 4, and not press you to make it 10 + 10 = 20, as dad, 4 bucks ain't gonna cut it. but the analogy is well taken, but my point being that man has acquired even more knowledge to work with than ancient man, and knowledge changes perspectives, and traditions, when new, and better ways of doing things presents itself. As we add knowledge, and close the gaps between tribes, and churches, do we not change tradition also???

Yeah I know about the 20 bucks deal - I call it KIDflation!

Whether the knowledge is great or small, if it is rooted in “truth” then we view this as God's will. I think what you're suggesting is that we make truth subjective, in the sense that it serves our will, our idea of a predetermined outcome. At this point truth no longer is matter of fact, an immutable truth. If the knowledge we gain today wasn't true at the dawn of time – and then it can't be true today. However, our relationships with tribes, churches, etc. in light of that Truth can change but (big T) Tradition cannot.

JoeT

[arcura]

Akoue,
That is s very good explanation.
Peace and kindness,
Fred