.
Tradition:
Catholic Definition:
1. It's the RCC alone that determines what Tradition is:
"It is the Authoritative Voice of the Catholic Church which determines what is to be accepted and rejected as Tradition." The Handbook of the Catholic Faith, page 151
2. It's the RCC itself alone that determines the meaning of this Tradition it itself alone chose.
"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the [Catholic] Church alone. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the bishop of Rome." Catholic Catechism # 85
3. This "Tradition" as the RCC has chosen and as the RCC itself has interpreted, is not accountable to God's Scriptures but is EQUAL to it.
"The [Catholic] Church does not derive its certainty about truth from the holy Scriptures alone. But both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments." Catholic Catechism # 82
"Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the [Catholic] Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the other. Working together, they all contribute...." Catholic Catechims # 95
"Scripture is written principally in the heart of the [Catholic] Church rather than in documents or records, for the [Catholic] Church carries in its Tradition the living memory... Catholic Catechism # 113
Classic Protestant Definition:
Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodist and Reformed Protestants speak of "tradition" in several ways:
1. It refers to the historic, ecumenical, consensus of God's people, especially regarding the interpretation and application of Scriptures. This if often held in very high esteem, but at least a tad under God's Word (as indeed Protestants tend to regard the words of men as under the Word of God). Examples would be the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. While this is typically a matter of the correct interpretation of Scripture, it is not exclusively that. For example, how do we know what Books ARE and are NOT Scripture, since no verse in the Bible states this? It is Tradition in this sense. There are other things, too. For example, every Christian holds that Jesus never married. No verse actually says that, but it has been the universal, historic consensus of God's people. So while MOST of this is a matter of what the verbatim written words of Holy Scripture means, it's not entirely limited to such.
2. The historic, consensus and generally official teachings of the specific theological community. In Lutheranism, we call this type of Tradition, "Confession." This is not ecumenical since it may be distinctive to a denomination (or family of them). For example, the "Lutheran Confessions" (the Book of Concord), the Reformed Confessions, The Thirty-Nine Articles of Anglicanism, etc. This is "OUR tradition." Protestants understand what Catholics call "Tradition" in this sense; often it is THEIR tradition.
3. The historic and broadly accepted customs and practices of God's people - which may be ecumenical or perhaps more limited in terms of time or community. We celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25. We usually publicly worship on Sundays.
Notes...
You will find SOME Protestants who TRY to disregard (even condemn) "Tradition." This has actually become part of their Tradition! They may say something like, "I accept nothing that's not stated in the Bible." But ask them for the verse that tells us the content of the Bible and you'll get crickets; their whole rubric depends on Tradition telling them what is and is not Scripture. And they'll shout, "This verse MEANS...." and echo the interpretation of their denomination/faith community, imposing tradition (in the second sense). Actually, every Christian embraces Tradition in some sense, it's just some are honest about this and this "Tradition" isn't always ecumenical/historical.
Christianity is one of two large world religions that was born in one culture/milieu but was developed in an entirely different one (Buddhism, the other). Christianity has Jewish and Near East roots but all its theology developed in the Roman world. Roman culture and thinking was EXTREMELY individualistic (and obsessed with the issue of power/control/authority). In the original culture, the church was seen as COMMUNITY ("the one, holy, catholic community of saints") - that the church is US and that God gave the Bible to US; interpretation was a matter of consensus, the church needed to speak as one. But in the Roman world, the issue was only "what do I think/feel/believe....." and "can I force my opinion on others." IMO, we can see some of this in the RCC, growing with time. This attitude was multiplied greatly during the Enlightenment. So the whole issue of history.... consensus...... community..... has largely gotten lost, replaced with a strong "Jesus and ME" approach to Christianity and a flood of relativism ("what this means to ME today is...."). This has largely displaced the sense of Tradition that was significant until modern times.
There's a balance and tension here.... and a distinction: God's words (in Scripture) are inerrant (and cannot be challenged), man's words are accountable; that alone makes Tradition under Scripture and not equal to it. Luther quoted a LOT from the Early Church Fathers and from the Ecumenical Councils; he was enormously interested in the history of Christianity, the Ecumenical Creeds and in the consensus of Christians. He insisted that God's promise to lead and teach US is a promise to US, not to any individual (or individual denomination). BUT he argued that men can be wrong.... he noted that even the Councils at times erred and corrected themselves. Luther and Calvin did not throw out Tradition, they had no intention of reinventing the wheel, in starting something new, in revolution... they were reformers. There's a tension.... a balance.... an order... NOT easy to rightly attained.
Blessings!
- Josiah
.
