TRADIZIONE. – Along with the Bible, it is one of the two sources of divine Revelation, and may be defined as: “The preaching or oral transmission of all truths (revealed by Christ to the Apostles or suggested to them by the Holy Spirit), through the ever-living and infallible teaching authority of the Church, assisted by the Spirit of truth.”
I. NOTIONS
T. in general (Lat. traditio, from tradere) means “the transmission of a piece of information, a doctrine, or a practice from antiquity down to us.” It may be considered under a twofold aspect: active (subjective or formal) and passive (objective or material). The former is represented by the living organ, the qualified subject (persons, institution), which serves as the channel of transmission; the latter, on the other hand, consists in the object or deposit transmitted (doctrines, practices, customs), whether sacred or profane.Christian sacred traditions, considered under the objective-material aspect, must be distinguished into divine or divine-apostolic traditions and human traditions. The former are those truths, or cultic and disciplinary institutions, deriving immediately from Christ or the Apostles, insofar as they are promulgators of Revelation, enlightened by the Holy Spirit, transmitted uncorrupted down to us, and are objects of divine faith. The latter may be apostolic or merely ecclesiastical, according as they derive from the Apostles or from religious authority (the pope, bishops), only insofar as they are invested with legitimate authority of teaching and jurisdiction: they merit simple ecclesiastical faith.
Oral tradition does not exclude writing, since, with the passage of time, oral transmission ordinarily becomes crystallized also in the written document (inscriptions, books, acts of councils). Since writing is only a subsidiary means of oral tradition, however, the possibility cannot be excluded of authentic divine-apostolic traditions for which sufficient documentation is lacking, at least with regard to the first centuries. The living voice of the Church today is a more secure guarantee than any written document: tradition belongs to every century and never comes to an end.
When tradition is compared with the Bible, it is called “inhesive” when the same truth is contained in both sources; “declarative” when a truth attested by the Bible is more fully clarified in tradition; “constitutive” or “completive” when it transmits truths not contained in the Bible—for example, the practice of baptizing children. It is precisely on this last point that the irreducible opposition between Catholics and Protestants emerges: according to the latter, the sole source of Revelation is the Bible, which contains everything one is obliged to believe. A “constitutive” tradition is, for them, absurd.
II. THE EXISTENCE OF T
It was defined against the Protestants by the Council of Trent (sess. IV; 6 April 1546: Denz-U, 783), and again, in almost identical words, by the First Vatican Council (ibid., 1787). In these definitions, both of the Council of Trent and of the Vatican, there is reference: 1) only to divine-apostolic traditions, 2) relating to faith and morals, 3) transmitted without interruption through the teaching authority of the Church assisted by the Holy Spirit. Whenever even one of these conditions is lacking, there are merely human, highly fallible traditions.The Bible affirms both the existence of a living and authentic means of oral transmission and the existence of particular truths to be faithfully handed down (subjective-formal and objective-material tradition). “Go therefore, make disciples of all nations... teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Mt. 28:19–20); Jesus took care to preach and to have others preach, not to write or to have others write. And in the writings of the Apostles, their fragmentary and incomplete character is undeniable, as their authors themselves acknowledge (Io. 20:30; 21:25). S. Paolo gives a precise account of the nature and necessity of tradition: “faith (comes) by hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17); and more explicitly: “Therefore, brethren, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions (κρατειτε τὰς παραδόσεις) in which you were instructed, whether by word of mouth or by our letter” (II Thess. 2:15). Indeed, before appealing to writing, he appeals to his living voice (cf. I Cor. 10:2; 11:23; 15:3; I Thess. 4:2), and warns Christians to beware of those who teach differently “from the doctrine in which you were instructed” (Rom. 16:17). In the Pastoral Epistles, tradition is compared to a deposit to be jealously guarded, as he himself had done: “O Timothy, guard the deposit (τὴν παρα-
θήκην φύλαξον), avoiding profane novelties of words and the oppositions of a pseudo-science (I Tim. 6:20; cf. II Tim. 1:13–14; 2:1–2).
In the teaching of the Fathers, from sub-apostolic times onward, tradition was held in the highest esteem. In the course of time, a true theology of tradition arose, in which three successive phases may be distinguished: a) at first, no precise distinction was yet made between written and oral teaching (the Apostolic Fathers), and teaching in general was related to the undisputed and ever-living authority of the Church, whether particular or universal: first there were the itinerant Apostles, prophets, and teachers, and finally the monarchical episcopate and, above all, the Church of Rome; b) in the third century (S. Irenaeus, Tertullian), a clear distinction began to be made between Scripture and tradition as separate sources of Revelation, with preference being given to the latter; c) in the fourth and fifth centuries (the Cappadocians in the East, S. Agostino in the West), the concept of tradition was progressively deepened in relation to its organs of transmission (the teaching Church, the Fathers, and the councils), together with the criteria for identifying the true apostolic tradition.
In particular, it should be noted that the attitude of the Apostolic Fathers toward oral tradition is indicated by Papias (ca. 130): “If someone came who had followed the presbyters, I would inquire from them about the sayings of the presbyters: what Andrew, or Philip, or Thomas, or James, or John, or Matthew, or some other disciple of the Lord had said... For I was convinced that I would not derive as much benefit from what was learned from books as from the living and abiding voice” (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., III, 39: PG 20, 297). It should be noted that Papias was not unaware of the written Gospels, at least those of S. Matteo and S. Marco. For S. Clemente Romano (ca. 101), the preaching of the Apostles and of the bishops whom they appointed is “the rule of our tradition (τῆς παραδόσεως ἡμῶν κανών: I Cor. 7:2). According to S. Ireneo (d. 202), the Church “preaches, teaches, and hands down the same things as though she had one mouth. For although there are different languages throughout the world, nevertheless the power of tradition (ἡ δόναμις τῆς παραδόσεως) is one and identical. Nor do the Churches founded in Germany believe or preach otherwise” (Adv. haer., I, 10, 2: PG 7, 553). Living tradition is superior even to the Bible itself: “If the Apostles had left nothing in writing, one would nevertheless have to follow the rule of the tradition entrusted by them to the heads of the Church. This method is followed by many barbarian peoples who believe in Christ. Without paper and without ink, they have written salvation in their hearts through the work of the Holy Spirit: they carefully preserve the ancient tradition” (ibid., III, 4, 2: PG 7, 855). Tertulliano (d. 222–23), after enumerating certain doctrines and practices not mentioned in the Bible (the rite of Baptism, prayers for the dead, etc.), writes: “If you ask for the authority of the Scriptures concerning these and other similar disciplinary practices, you will find none. Tradition will instead present itself to you as authority, custom as confirmation, and faith as its observance” (De corona, 3–4: PL 2, 98–99; cf. also De praescript., 21: PL 2, 33). It should be borne in mind that some of the examples cited by Tertulliano are genuine dogmatic traditions, not merely disciplinary ones.
Thus also S. Basilio (d. 379), who was cited by the Council of Trent (De Spiritu Sancto, 66: PG 32, 188); S. Giovanni Crisostomo: “It is tradition not to seek further” (In II ad Thess., Hom. 4, 2: PG 62, 488); S. Agostino (d. 430), who systematically resorted to the argument from tradition against heretics: thus, for example, against the Donatists: “Quod universa tenet Ecclesia, nec Conciliis institutum, sed semper retentum est, non nisi auctoritate apostolica traditum rectissime creditur” (De Bapt., 4, 24: PL 43, 174); and S. Vincenzo di Lerino (fifth century), who formulated the well-known rule for recognizing, among many traditions, the true apostolic one: “In ipsa item Ecclesia catholica magnopere curandum est ut id teneamus quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est” (Commonit., 2: PL 50, 640). The idea of tradition had so deeply penetrated the minds of the faithful that in the fourth and fifth centuries they began compiling patristic catalogues or florilegia for dogmatic use. One of these patristic collections was presented by S. Cirillo Alessandrino at the Council of Ephesus (431), in defense of the divine maternity of Maria.
From the texts cited, besides the existence of tradition, several indispensable points may be clearly deduced for an accurate assessment of the matter: 1) both in the Bible and among the Fathers, the concept of tradition is always connected with the assistance of the Holy Spirit; without the Spirit of truth, oral teaching, despite every human precaution, could not fail to become mixed with inevitable errors. It is on this point that Protestantism goes astray. 2) The concept of tradition is inseparable from the living teaching authority of the Church: a tradition, even one dating from the first or second century, that is not attested by the Church today might have value as historical documentation, but could not constitute a dogma of faith: discarded material fallen by the wayside and nothing more. Therefore, the full meaning of tradition can be grasped only on condition that its two aspects, subjective-formal and objective-material, are held together, the former being predominant. For this reason, between the teaching authority of the Church and tradition in the full sense, we posit no more than an inadequate distinction: that is, we hold that the Church is like a teacher who in a certain sense incorporates Scripture and tradition within herself.
III. MONUMENTS OF T
According to what has been said, it is clear that, in itself, the Catholic Church, as she presents herself today, is the only granite monument of T. There is no need to interrogate the past when one is at the school of a teacher whose living voice is the faithful echo and, as it were, the recording of the centuries that have passed. In fact, however, this living voice, as the centuries have elapsed, has also been handed down and, as it were, engraved in written or customary documents.By “monuments of T.”, therefore, are meant “all those means, apart from the living oral magisterium, by which, over the course of the centuries, one can, as it were, reread and reconstruct the truths currently professed by the Catholic Church.” Through these monuments, the theologian and the scholar can retrace the history of dogmas. This history, however, unlike all others, neither wishes nor can discover in the past truths unknown to us, but only confirm the antiquity and primordial character of the faith professed today, which is not a human invention, but solely divine.
The documents, or monuments, of T., thus understood, may be: a) written (professions of faith, definitions, councils, books of the Fathers, doctors, theologians, etc.); b) artistic-epigraphic (sculptures, paintings, monuments in general, tombs, inscriptions, etc.); c) simply customary (the religious beliefs of the faithful, rites, ceremonies, and various liturgical or paraliturgical practices [V. LITURGIA]).
The “sensus christianus” of the faithful is also an excellent instrument for the preservation, transmission, and penetration of revealed truths. It may be defined as “a spontaneous affective impulse of the Christian people which, under the influence of the habit of faith and of the gifts of the Holy Spirit (especially understanding, knowledge, and wisdom), under the supervision of the magisterium, adheres to certain truths, engaging the teaching Church in them.” The sensus of the faithful belongs to the affective sphere, but its ultimate roots are intellectual in order, even if they are not currently perceived. St Thomas explains it as a kind of “connaturality” with supernatural realities, not yet clearly defined, but which the intellect and heart nevertheless feel as a need, and to which the devotion of the simple conform through natural adaptation (Sum. Theol., 2ᵃ-2ᵃᵉ, q. 45, a. 2). It has exercised considerable influence, above all, in the field of Marian theology, as Pius XII explicitly affirms in the constitution Munificentissimus Deus (AAS, 42 [1950], p. 758).
IV. INTERPETRAZIONE DEI MONUMENTI DELLA T
Giàda quanto precede risulta evidente la parte essenziale
che ha sempre avuto, «ex natura rei», il magistero della
Chiesa nel dare validità ai vari strumenti di t. È logico
quindi che del contenuto dogmatico di essi, anche oggi,
solo la Chiesa possa dare un giudizio definitivo, essa che
ieri tale contenuto ha garantito.
1922; A. Deneffe, Der Traditionsbegriff, Münster in V. 1931; H. Ranft, Der Ursprung des kathol. Traditionsprinzips, Würzburg 1931; D. Van den Eynde, Les normes de l'enseignement chrétien dans la littér. patr. des trois premiers siècles, Parigi 1933; B. Reynders, Paradox. Le progrès de l'idée de la tradit. jusqu'à st Irénée, in Rech. de théol. ancien. et médiév., 5 (1933), pp. 155-91; R. Bernard, Somme théol. La foi, I, Parigi 1939 (Répend., II, §§ 4-5), pp. 357-428; Ph. Alonso-Barcena, De Eccl. magisterio et de divina tradit., Madrid 1945; A. Michel, Tradition, in DThC. XV, coll. 1252-1350 (ottimo); M. J. Congar, Théologie. théol., coll. 341-502; S. Carteschini, De valore naturum theolog., Roma 1951, passim; vers. it., Roma 1953; G. Filograssi, La t. divino-apostol. e il magistero eccles., in Civ. Catt., 1951, III, pp. 137-47, 384-93, 486-501; id., T. divino-apostol. e magistero della Chiesa, in Gregorianum, 33 (1952), pp. 135-67; S. Cipriani, Le fonti della Rendez., Firenze 1955 (con bibl.). Settimio Cipriani