Follow Up To Lent Stuff: Tradition Vs Tradition

[StColette]

Received the following PM from Pauly today:

[quote]Hey! I still need some more help. Obviously fasting is sacred tradition. But what about on lent specifically? How can we tell if something is sacred tradition. On catholic answer forums the priest said we have to follow all sacred Tradition, but not "tradition" And that not all of the catechism is infallible. But all of dogma is, but not "tradition"

Although it is very very unlikely that "tradition" it could still be wrong such as the persecution of Jews.

Also, can you prove if holidays of obligation is sacred tradition or not?

Thank you for the help, please respond. I know this is the right church. But I dont think lent is truly mandatory. I think we should think greatly on ourselves and give up things. but to go so far to say that we have to go to mass extra days and fast on certain days , I think is bad. ( extra burden on the people, pharisees)

But I think we should fast and etc. Thank you for your time!


Max[/quote]


I have a busy work day today. So if another Church Scholar can address this I would really appreciate it. If not, I'll try and handle it tomorrow.

God Bless,
Jennie

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='StColette' post='1791273' date='Feb 25 2009, 10:00 AM']Received the following PM from Pauly today:




I have a busy work day today. So if another Church Scholar can address this I would really appreciate it. If not, I'll try and handle it tomorrow.

God Bless,
Jennie[/quote]

Pauly,

The history of the development of Lent is a long and complicated one (which can be read [url="http://newadvent.org/cathen/09152a.htm"]here[/url]), but there are a few quick responses:

Tradition (with a capital T) is a mode of Divine Revelation, that is, as the Vatican II document Dei Verbum puts it, Tradition is on the same level as Scripture. This is not because one is against the other, but because they complement one another and each can only be fully understood in light of the other. Tradition, as such, is the oral Tradition of the Church, the things handed on since the Apostles, but not necessarily included in Scripture (although there is much overlap). For instance, exactly what the office of the Pope entails is a matter of Tradition; the Scriptures address it in a minimal way, but the apostles saw it in a more developed way than the Scriptures record, and as time went on, our understanding of that Tradition, as it was handed down, became fuller and richer. Christian teaching develops because the Church comes to a greater understanding over time (but Christian teaching never contradicts itself).

Tradition (with a lower-case t) is different. It is certainly based on our faith (whereas Revelation is the basis of our faith), but it is those things which are handed on but are not authoritative matters of the faith; traditions change and are subject to the authority of the Church, whereas Tradition, though open to development by the Church, is not subject to the Church (rather, the Church serves Tradition). These sorts of traditions include canon law, various rites, disciplines of the Church, etc. It is careful to note as I said that these traditions are based on the Truth; the fact that there is a Mass and some of the basic details about it are Tradition because that much was contained in Scripture and Tradition, but some of the specifics, for instance, things that differ between the Tridentine (Extraordinary Form) Mass and the Novus Ordo (Ordinary Form) Mass, can change by the authority of the Church.

When considering the difference between Tradition and tradition, one must consider whether a Church Council or the Pope (ex cathedra) has spoken definitively about it as a matter of faith or morals, which would definitely show that it is Tradition. Aside from that, we can be fairly sure that anything fitting the Vincentian Canon (which says that something is Church teaching if it has been taught by all (i.e. the whole magisterium is behind it), in all places (i.e. it is not just a regional practice), for all time (i.e. its roots go back to the teaching of the Apostles)) is Tradition.

Now, is Lent Tradition or tradition? The fact that we have liturgical cycles based on weekly practices and yearly practices is Scriptural, finding its root all the way back even at the foundation of the world with the Sabbath rest. We also see from the New Testament that the bishops have the authority to make alterations to the particular way that that liturgical cycle is carried out and that the faithful must follow those regulations. This is how some bishops can insist that their faithful practice a certain Holy Day of Obligation while others might move the Holy Day to the nearest Sunday. This is also how Lent can develop and even have different forms within our own time; so the liturgical year as a basic concept is Tradition, but the specific practices we use today are tradition and are subject to change. However, again, we must understand that we are bound to follow our bishops, who prescribe certain practices for our spiritual benefit. It is wrong and sinful to disobey the bishops knowingly on a matter where they are certainly within their rights and duties. Only the bishops, and not we, have the authority to make changes to Lenten practices.

I hope this helps.

God bless,

Micah