Tradition/tradition

[Mikaele]

I know of Traditions (like the canon of scripture,) that can't change. But recently I've heard people use the Church' position on freedom of religion and slavery pre-Vatican ll to support their ideas about the church changing her teachings... also the same thing with these deaconesses in the early church. Some help would be much appreciated.

[mommas_boy]

Deaconesses did not possess Orders. They merely assisted with the baptism of women in a time when baptism was done nude, and did so only for th purposes of modesty. No change occurred in regards to the teaching of the Church on priestly ordination.

Edited September 22, 2010 by mommas_boy

[Mikaele]

What are some Traditions?

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Mikaele' timestamp='1285131354' post='2175240']
What are some Traditions?
[/quote]
If I understand you right, what you're asking here has to do with the level of authority various types of Church teaching have. A great place to start with this is the [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfadtu.htm"]CDF Doctrinal commentary[/url] on [i]Profesio fidei[/i] which outlines the various types of teaching the Church gives, along with the proper response to these teachings by a faithful Catholic. EWTN also provides a handy [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/SUMMARY.HTM"]summary[/url]of this document.

Former Phatmass Scholar Laudate_Dominum addressed this question in two Q&A posts as well: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=45544&view=findpost&p=847002"]One[/url]and [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=45635&view=findpost&p=849163"]Two[/url].
I'll reproduce those posts here:
One:
[quote]From Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, by Ludwig Ott:

The Theological Grades of Certainty

1. The highest degree of certainty appertains to the immediately revealed truths. The belief due to them is based on the authority of God Revealing (fides divina), and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact that a truth is contained in Revelation, one's certainty is then also based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Church (fides catholica). If Truths are defined by a solemn judgment of faith (definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, they are "de fide definita."

2. Catholic truths or Church doctrines, on which the infallible Teaching Authority of the Church has finally decided, are to be accepted with a faith which is based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiastica). These truths are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper.

3. A Teaching proximate to Faith (sententia fidei proxima) is a doctrine, which is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation, but which has not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church.

4. A Teaching pertaining to the Faith, i.e., theologically certain (sententia ad fidem pertinens, i.e., theologice certa) is a doctrine, on which the Teaching Authority of the Church has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation (theological conclusions).

5. Common Teaching (sententia communis) is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of the free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally.

6. Theological opinions of lesser grades of certainty are called probable, more probable, well-founded (sententia probabilis, probabilior, bene fundata). Those which are regarded as being in agreement with the consciousness of Faith of the Church are called pious opinions (sententia pia). The least degree of certainty is possessed by the tolerated opinion (opimo tolerata), which is only weakly founded, but which is tolerated by the Church.

With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf. D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called "silentium obsequiosum." that is "reverent silence," does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error. [/quote]
Two:
[quote]1. De Fide - Infallible teachings.
De fide doctrines are those taught definitively by the extraordinary magisterium, or continuously taught by the ordinary magisterium. Teachings of the extraordinary magisterium come by way of conciliar decrees or dogmatic papal pronouncements. For example, the Council of Ephesus formally declared Mary to be Theotokos (Mater Dei, Mother of God), thus it is de fide. Pope Leo XIII formally declared Mary’s Immaculate Conception, therefore it is de fide. The ordinary magisterium refers to the constant and repeated teachings of the Pope and Bishops in union with him, which have not been formally defined by an act of the extraordinary magisterium. For example, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist was a de fide teaching of the ordinary magisterium before it was formally defined. In current times I’d say the teaching that only men can be ordained to the priesthood is an obvious definitive teaching of the ordinary magisterium, and thus we know that it will never be “overturned”, despite the cries of dissenters. John Paul II and the Pope formally known as Cardinal Ratzinger have said as much. Historically, it is often when definitive teachings of the ordinary magisterium are challenged that they are then formally defined by an act of the extraordinary magisterium. Often times a teaching of the ordinary magisterium may be the subject of controversy as to its precise theological formulation.

The dogma of Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception is a good example of this. The tendency throughout history, and the discernable teaching of the ordinary magisterium, was to regard Our Lady as the holiest human person and the greatest saint, she enjoyed a singularly privileged state. But the exact nature of her singular status was at times disputed. Some theologians saw it only possible to attribute Our Lady with a kind of sanctification in the womb like St. John the Baptist, but to a higher degree. Others speculated that Our Lady was immaculately conceived and never knew sin. Many theologians never addressed the issue directly, but their theology implied the Immaculate Conception. In some cases a theologian saw fit to even speculate that Our Lady was subject to venial sins and faults because of the fact that we are all redeemed by Christ, and it would seem that if Mary was totally free from sin she did not need a redeemer; yet she was nonetheless regarded as the holiest human being by such theologians. The sense of the faithful embodied in both public and private devotion testify to the belief in Mary's singular holiness and immaculate state. Through an act of the extraordinary magisterium, the centuries of speculation and controversy have been closed and we have an infallible formulation of Our Lady’s singular grace that at the same time explains how she was redeemed by Christ in a most profound way. The truth contained in the teachings and devotion of the Church through the centuries, of Our Lady as the archetype and mother of the Church, has been illuminated by the brilliance of this formulation.
In the Church of more recent times, one may regard the teaching of Our Lady as Mediatrix to be similar. It is clearly a definitive teaching of the ordinary magisterium because it has been repeatedly taught by the Popes, as well as many great saints and doctors of the Church, yet the precise formulation and extent of this doctrine is still a matter of dispute to some extent. Perhaps one day this doctrine will be elevated to the level of formally proclaimed dogma, as many seem to believe (including myself).
Here we can see examples of the distinction between implicitly revealed and explicitly revealed truths. Prior to its definition, the Immaculate Conception was more an implicitly revealed truth.

After this (de fide teachings), there are theological propositions or opinions; I’ll simply call them teachings, which fall under one of four possible levels of certainty:

1. Sententia Fidei Proxima – Teachings proximate to the faith.
These are teachings or opinions which are regarded as truths of revelation that have not been formally declared or addressed by the magisterium. For example, that Confirmation is not necessary for salvation. The Church has declared the necessity of Baptism, and said teachings do not rule out the possibility of further disputing the necessity of Confirmation; but it is simply taken for granted that Confirmation is not necessary for salvation, even though there is no formal decree which addresses the matter specifically. Or perhaps the view that the outward sign of a sacrament is both the physical matter and the spoken word. This has always been regarded to be the case although I don’t know of any formal decree which concretizes this distinction. So for example, baptism with water which lacks the uttering of the baptismal formula is obviously not valid; or simply saying the words of consecration without the bread and wine. This is an obvious theological opinion based on revealed truth, although it may be lacking an explicit formulation in official teaching. Another example would be the teaching that Mary never committed a venial sin in her life. This is simply taken for granted in light of the Immaculate Conception, although this precise theological proposition may be lacking an explicit expression in magisterial teachings.

2. Sententia Certa – Theologically certain teachings.
These are teachings that have not been formally decreed but which can be known to be true because of their close connection with formally revealed truths. For example, that the human race can be traced back to a single pair of common ancestors (Adam and Eve). The denial of this is incompatible with dogma or at least highly problematic; therefore we can know with high certainty that it is true. My example on a recent thread in the debate table was the view that the future does not exist even to God’s foreknowledge except as possibility. This philosophical view undermines certain dogmatic formulations and thus I concluded that it is proximate to heresy. In fact the teaching that the future, including our future free acts, has a definitive existence in relation to God that is more than possibility is clearly a sententia certa opinion or teaching.

3. Sententia Communis – Common teachings.
These are teachings or formulations that belong to the area of free opinion, but which tend to be the common consensus among faithful theologians. For example, that the saints in heaven are able to intercede for the souls in purgatory, or perhaps that Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Another example might be the teaching that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are infused with sanctifying grace, or that God gives sinners the necessary grace for conversion (as distinct from the teaching that God desires the salvation of all which is at least sententia Fidei proxima).

4. Sententia Probabilis – Probable teachings.
These are teachings that are of lesser certainty and are regarded as more or less probable, rather than more or less certain. One example would be the theological opinion that Mary suffered a physical death before being assumed into heaven. You could hold the contrary view without being a heretic by any means, but the common view among theologians is that Mary actually suffered death before being assumed. However, I think one could make a case for consider this view as a matter of sententia communis. I would regard Molinism and various limbo theories as of this category of teaching. Views regarded as opimo tolerata are simply theological opinions which are tolerated (because they aren’t heretical) but which have the lowest degree of grounding or probability in the faith.

It should be noted in light of this that the common assertion that there are only two infallible dogmas (Assumption and Immaculate Conception) is utterly false. If you were to comb through Denzinger's text or Ott's book and count the number of de fide statements and formulations you will end up with at least 250 infallible dogmas.
The actual process of identifying the degree of certainty for non-dogmatic teachings and opinions can be a bit grey at times and is itself open for dispute. But the above represents the classical categories as best as I understand them.[/quote]

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Mikaele' timestamp='1285121510' post='2175214']
I know of Traditions (like the canon of scripture,) that can't change. But recently I've heard people use the Church' position on freedom of religion and slavery pre-Vatican ll to support their ideas about the church changing her teachings... also the same thing with these deaconesses in the early church. Some help would be much appreciated.
[/quote]
Chur
With regard to slavery you might want to read a book called "The Popes and Slavery". I can't recall the priests name who wrote it offhand. The fact is that those who make this claim that the Church changed its view have a very superfiicial understanding of "slavery" and broad brush it in to what we know as slavery today that disgusts the right thinking man naturally. That being enslaving someone and owning them merely because you can or you feel they are inferior and you are in a position of power to do so. Race based slavery is the type of slavery that comes to mind in most people. Oddly enough if they looked at the teaching of the magesterium primarily the writings of the Popes, Euguene IV, Paul II, Leo XII, etc. etc. all provided in this book, you will find that from its onset in the early 2nd millenium race based slavery was consistently and completely condemned! The Church did not change it's position at all. What confuses people is that prior to the second millenium there was little race based slavery and so the Church spoke little on the matter. Most slavery was indentured servitude and slavery based on wars and those who were criminals. These types of slavery were tolerated by the Church for reasons the book gets in to. Indentured servitude was in fact an economic system in the roman empiire. The Church allows for this type of "slavery" which in reality is not that different from our current system of working for a wage except that the master provided for the "slave" directly. Scripture of coruse has examples of this such as when Jacob signed up for two seven year periods of servitude for the right to marry I think it was Latham's daughter Rebecca? I'm going by memory here. I could look it up in the Bible. But you get the point. Much more I could say. Do a google for "The Popes and Slavery" and you can find articles based on this book. Fr. Panzer I think was the name of the priest that wrote it. Hope that helps. Ask questions if it does not.

Thessalonian

Just found an article by Fr. Panzer.

http://www.cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a003.html

Edited September 23, 2010 by thessalonian

[kafka]

[quote name='Mikaele' timestamp='1285121510' post='2175214']
I know of Traditions (like the canon of scripture,) that can't change. But recently I've heard people use the Church' position on freedom of religion and slavery pre-Vatican ll to support their ideas about the church changing her teachings... also the same thing with these deaconesses in the early church. Some help would be much appreciated.
[/quote]
Sacred Tradition is the first pillar of the Catholic Faith and the first font of Divine Revelation. Sacred Scripture is the second pillar of the Faith and the second font of Divine Revelation. Sacred Magisterium is not Divine Revelation but the third pillar of the Faith teaching truths from Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.

Sacred Tradition is the Deeds wrought by God in salvation history (Dei Verbum n. 2) from the Second Vatican Council. The first Vatican Council basically defined Sacred Tradition as unwritten truths of Divine Revelation but this doctrine was clarified by Dei Verbum.

Sacred Tradition is infallible and inerrant, since a Deed wrought by God cannot contain or express any falsehood.

What is an example of Sacred Tradition? The salvific death of Jesus Christ on the Cross. It is the greatest Deed God has wrought in salvaiton history.

traditions with a little 't' are customs, pious beliefs, or some liturgical norms of the Church for example the pious belief that the Gospel writer Luke was influenced by Mary in some of his writing.

The Canon of Sacred Scripture was discerned by the Living Tradition of the Church which is basically the Church as members of Christ's body living the truths of God's salvific deeds and transmitting them on to the next generation. So very many Catholics lived the truths of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. They meditated upon Scripture, studied it and eventually a Canon was discerned. Then the Magisterium definitively taugth what the Canon of Sacred Scripture is at the Councils of Florence, and infallibly retaught at Trent and Vatican I and in Vatican II and some Popes retaught the Canon in some encyclicals. . The Magisterium has the authority to teach what the Canon of Scripture is since each completed book of Scripture is a unique Deed wrought by God with the help of men who were inspired by God in history.

The truths of Divine Revelation are eternal since they are wrought and written by God who is Eternity and Truth, yet the faithful on earth slowly discern these truths over space and time since Divine Revelation or the Deposit of Faith is like one deep ocean which never changes. One may always dive in and discover something new yet nothing new is added in the discovery since the ocean is always there to be explored.

Edited September 23, 2010 by kafka

[Mr.Cat]

[quote][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council"][b]Second Vatican Council[/b][/url] - [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html"][b]Pastoral Consitution on the Church[/b][/url]
"Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, [u][b]slavery[/b][/u], prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator."[/quote]I suppose you could interpret this as either a continuation or as a change in the attitude of the Church towards slavery. But prior to the Second Vatican Council there was no sweeping condemnation of all forms of slavery without any kind of qualification for slavery.

So I will tend to agree with the conclusions of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avery_Dulles"][b]Cardinal Avery Dulle[/b][/url] (1918-2008), this does seem like a change in the attitude of the Church to slavery. The Church of the 21st century is not exactly like the Church of the 1st century, maybe it shouldn't be. The Church has developed in different ways over the centuries while trying to remain true her indefectibility... the salvation of souls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery

Edited September 23, 2010 by Mr Cat

[Klaudi87]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1285203419' post='2175382']
Sacred Tradition is the first pillar of the Catholic Faith and the first font of Divine Revelation. Sacred Scripture is the second pillar of the Faith and the second font of Divine Revelation. Sacred Magisterium is not Divine Revelation but the third pillar of the Faith teaching truths from Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.

Sacred Tradition is the Deeds wrought by God in salvation history (Dei Verbum n. 2) from the Second Vatican Council. The first Vatican Council basically defined Sacred Tradition as unwritten truths of Divine Revelation but this doctrine was clarified by Dei Verbum.

Sacred Tradition is infallible and inerrant, since a Deed wrought by God cannot contain or express any falsehood.

What is an example of Sacred Tradition? The salvific death of Jesus Christ on the Cross. It is the greatest Deed God has wrought in salvaiton history.

traditions with a little 't' are customs, pious beliefs, or some liturgical norms of the Church for example the pious belief that the Gospel writer Luke was influenced by Mary in some of his writing.

The Canon of Sacred Scripture was discerned by the Living Tradition of the Church which is basically the Church as members of Christ's body living the truths of God's salvific deeds and transmitting them on to the next generation. So very many Catholics lived the truths of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. They meditated upon Scripture, studied it and eventually a Canon was discerned. Then the Magisterium definitively taugth what the Canon of Sacred Scripture is at the Councils of Florence, and infallibly retaught at Trent and Vatican I and in Vatican II and some Popes retaught the Canon in some encyclicals. . The Magisterium has the authority to teach what the Canon of Scripture is since each completed book of Scripture is a unique Deed wrought by God with the help of men who were inspired by God in history.

The truths of Divine Revelation are eternal since they are wrought and written by God who is Eternity and Truth, yet the faithful on earth slowly discern these truths over space and time since Divine Revelation or the Deposit of Faith is like one deep ocean which never changes. One may always dive in and discover something new yet nothing new is added in the discovery since the ocean is always there to be explored.
[/quote]

Right on! Pope Agatho: " Nothing of the things appointed ought to be dimished; nothing changed; nothing added but they must be preserved both as regards EXPRESSION and MEANING"

[Ioannes]

[quote name='mommas_boy' timestamp='1285124113' post='2175226']
Deaconesses did not possess Orders. They merely assisted with the baptism of women in a time when baptism was done nude, and did so only for th purposes of modesty. No change occurred in regards to the teaching of the Church on priestly ordination.
[/quote]

I'd point to the Council of Nicea in 325AD and its mention of deaconess and implies their hierarchal and consecrated status. It has always been the status of the Eastern Orthodox Church that Deaconesses did possess an office. The Patriarch of Japan had several deaconesses throughout his tenure and the Russian Orthodox Church continues the office today.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Ioannes' timestamp='1287115427' post='2179700']I'd point to the Council of Nicea in 325AD and its mention of deaconess and implies their hierarchal and consecrated status. It has always been the status of the Eastern Orthodox Church that Deaconesses did possess an office. The Patriarch of Japan had several deaconesses throughout his tenure and the Russian Orthodox Church continues the office today.[/quote]I will be honest, I have never seen a definition from an ecumenical council or pope that meets the criteria a "[i]definitive definition[/i]" about this. Pope John Paul II came close, but the Holy See clarified that it wasn't the intention of the pontiff nor how they interpreted it. To extend matters, most definitions on these matters are not focused on the Deaconate. But it is in the commonly accepted tradition of the Church and Catholicism that its unaccepted, invalid, and scandalous.

But I think the issue is NOT weather there were "deaconesses", because factually there were, its a question if they were admitted to the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Because theoretically the Church could create an office of deaconesses and have a special blessing set aside for them, but under the current mode of theological thought, just not admit them to the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Could that change... I suppose so, but I wouldn't advise holding your breath about it.

Edited October 15, 2010 by Mr Cat

[Ioannes]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1287124550' post='2179723']
I will be honest, I have never seen a definition from an ecumenical council or pope that meets the criteria a "[i]definitive definition[/i]" about this. Pope John Paul II came close, but the Holy See clarified that it wasn't the intention of the pontiff nor how they interpreted it. To extend matters, most definitions on these matters are not focused on the Deaconate. But it is in the commonly accepted tradition of the Church and Catholicism that its unaccepted, invalid, and scandalous.

But I think the issue is NOT weather there were "deaconesses", because factually there were, its a question if they were admitted to the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Because theoretically the Church could create an office of deaconesses and have a special blessing set aside for them, but under the current mode of theological thought, just not admit them to the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Could that change... I suppose so, but I wouldn't advise holding your breath about it.
[/quote]

I'm sorry, I was mistaken. It was the Council of Chalcedon in 451AD.

"A woman shall not receive the[b] laying on of hands[/b]([i]cheirotonia) [/i]as a deaconess under forty years of age, and then only after searching examination. And if, after she has had hands laid on her and has continued for a time to minister, she shall despise the grace of God and give herself in marriage, she shall be anathematized and the man united to her."

In the Ancient Byzantine Liturgy, Cheirotonia, Laying on of Hands, was used to ordinate Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, as well as Deaconesses. In fact, The Bishop of Rome John Paul II recognized the ordination of women bishops in the Armenian Apostolic Church through agreements of mutual recognition and of the validity of sacraments and orders. This would imply that they were admitted to the Sacrament of Holy Orders. You could argue that the Fathers were mistaken and meant to use [i]cheirothesia, [/i]which would be a blessing into a minor order. This is mostly a Western argument; however, this would call into question the infallibility of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. As it stand now, the only Liturgy that exists is from the Ancient Byzantine Rite and it is demonstrably a ritual of ordination for the “servant who is to be ordained to the office of a deaconess.”

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Ioannes' timestamp='1287267453' post='2180058']I'm sorry, I was mistaken. It was the Council of Chalcedon in 451AD.

"A woman shall not receive the[b] laying on of hands[/b]([i]cheirotonia) [/i]as a deaconess under forty years of age, and then only after searching examination. And if, after she has had hands laid on her and has continued for a time to minister, she shall despise the grace of God and give herself in marriage, she shall be anathematized and the man united to her."

In the Ancient Byzantine Liturgy, Cheirotonia, Laying on of Hands, was used to ordinate Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, as well as Deaconesses. In fact, The Bishop of Rome John Paul II recognized the ordination of women bishops in the Armenian Apostolic Church through agreements of mutual recognition and of the validity of sacraments and orders. This would imply that they were admitted to the Sacrament of Holy Orders. You could argue that the Fathers were mistaken and meant to use [i]cheirothesia, [/i]which would be a blessing into a minor order. This is mostly a Western argument; however, this would call into question the infallibility of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. As it stand now, the only Liturgy that exists is from the Ancient Byzantine Rite and it is demonstrably a ritual of ordination for the “servant who is to be ordained to the office of a deaconess.”[/quote]I still don't see a definitive definition regarding deaconesses, at least in regards to being admitted to the Sacrament of Holy Orders. This is sort of the problem, there is enough room in this discussion for reasonable suspicion and doubt either way, [u]because it isn't clearly defined[/u]. Many things within Catholicism lack "[i]definitive definitions[/i]". But when something of the Church is questioned it is left to the Church to interpret, which in this matter we can see there is a bit of an awkwardness and reluctance to it...

Edited October 16, 2010 by Mr Cat