There’s been two recent posts this week that quote at length from Yves Congar’s The Meaning of Tradition. Some of Congar’s ideas in the Intro relate to the recent discussion here re: Milinerd’s and Reno’s comments on Theological Education and Art Discourse, so I thought I would quote a small bit.
Paul Claudel compared tradition with a man walking. In order to move forward he must push off from the ground, with one foot raised and the other on the ground; if he kept both feet on the ground or lifted both in the air, he would be unable to advance. If tradition is a continuity that goes beyond conservatism, it is also a movement and a progress that goes beyond mere continuity, but only on condition that, going beyond conservation for its own sake, it includes and preserves the positive values gained, to allow a progress that is not simply a repetition of the past. Tradition is memory, and memory enriches experience. If we remembered nothing it would be impossible to advance; the same would be true if we were bound to a slavish imitation of the past. True tradition is not servility but fidelity.
This is clear enough in the field of art. Tradition conceived as the handing down of set formulas and the enforced and servile imitation of models learned in the classroom would lead to sterility; even if there were an abundant output of works of art, they would be stillborn. Tradition always implies learning from others, but the academic type of docility and imitation is not the only one possible: there is also the will to learn from the experience of those who have studied and created before us; the aim of this lesson is to receive the vitality of their inspiration and to continue their creative work in its original spirit, which thus, in a new generation, is born again with the freedom, the youthfulness and the promise that it originally possessed.
At last year’s AAR, Hans Boersma gave a paper in response to Vanhoozer’s Drama of Doctrine in which he suggested that Vanhoozer could benefit from appropriating Congar into his overall picture of how doctrine is developed and implemented. I confess that I don’t remember much of his paper and can’t find it in article form online. But I think the salient point is that inherent even to a proposal as generous as Vanhoozer’s is the tension between the Protestant and Catholic relationship to scripture, the (sometimes) radical individualism of sola scriptura and the perceived crustiness and equally rigid rules of tradition. In Congar’s words:
[S]ince the Reformation there is controversy between Christians on “Scripture versus tradition”, a controversy on the rule of faith.
And the dualism goes on…
Thanks for this Dan - the walking man is an interesting anology. What happens if he skips or leaps? I’m not sure myself, but does he still carry along the memory of tradition?
Davis, I think he might find himself writing poetry at those moments. . . but he also might pull a hamstring. Yet no matter how many sprints and steeplechases we run, there is nothing more exciting than a toddler learning to walk or a septuagenarian who is grateful to stroll in a garden at the break of dawn.
This seems a little different than John Henry Newman? Whereas Newman posits that upon further reflection on the data of Scripture and Tradition, the church can express more of the truth more clearly (e.g. with Marian dogmas). The Congar view doesn’t talk about development as such, but change in response to new situations. Both views can certainly work together, but I suppose they don’t have to– the Congar view would seem to lend itself to the making of new statements contradictory to older ones (we’ll say contradictory to 2nd order statement for now), rather than a view where there is the clear and the obscure and ‘change’ (acc. to Newman) is to turn the obscure into the clear. Perhaps these are ‘modern’ and ‘postmodern’ versions on a theme?
scott, my reading of this snippet actually led me to quiet another conclusion, that tradition - via congar - would actually lead to a vibrancy in a tradition that would resist contradictory statements and diametric transitions because of the momentum it develops, as a person walking forward develops momentum.
Following by Dan:
“But I think the salient point is that inherent even to a proposal as generous as Vanhoozer’s is the tension between the Protestant and Catholic relationship to scritpure, the (sometimes) radical individualism of sola scriptura and the perceived crustiness and equally rigid rules of tradition. In Congar’s words:
[S]ince the Reformation there is controversy between Christians on “Scripture versus tradition”, a controversy on the rule of faith.
At the dualism goes on…”
Concerning Catholics, they tend to have a poor understanding of Sacred Tradition, and hence a neglect of seeking new insights and intrepreting Sacred Scripture in a personal way. Part of this is in reaction to Protestant view as you explained Dan, but For myself I’ve embraced the definition of Tradition set forth by Dei Verbum:
“This plan of revelation is realized by deeds and words having an inner unity; the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation manifest and confirm the teaching and realities signified by the words, while the words proclaim the deeds and clarify the mystery contained in them. By this revelation, then, the deepest truth about God and the salvation of man shines out for our sake in Christ, who is both mediator and the fullness of all revelation.” (Dei Verbum, 2)
In other words, Tradition is the deeds wrought by God in salvation history. Tradition is the deeds and their meaning, and is especially the deeds wrought by Christ. Scripture are the words written by God in salvation history as a reflection and clarification of Tradition. Scripture proceeds from Tradition, just as the Son proceeds from the Father. Without Tradition there is no Scripture. These are the two fonts of Revelation. Both are wrought and written by God, and therefore are infallible. Tradition is the unwritten truths of God.
Catholics tend to confuse Tradition with the transmission of Tradition. They think that the writings of the Fathers, Saints, and Doctors are Tradition when in fact they are merely a transmission of Tradition. Also it isnt merely an oral tradition. If that were true then it could be written down and we would have two Bibles, or we could quote from it.
I am straying now, but my point is, is that if Catholics understood the significance of this, and the fact that Tradition and Scripture expresses thousands and thousands of truths yet to be discovered and that they are infallible sources of truth then they would immerse themselves in the Bible using it as a source to answer questions about their lives and as a source to ever seek new and deeper insights into the Faith.
Now concerning the Protestants. They are correct to depend on Scripture but wrong to reject Tradition(Maybe they wouldnt reject it if Catholics had a better understanding of it). Also, they are correct to acknowledge the literal sense but wrong to reject the spiritual sense and many levels of Scripture. Also, some of the radical intrepretations would be avoided if they had a spiritual authority such as the Catholics/Anglicans.
Back to Dan:
“would actually lead to a vibrancy in a tradition that would resist contradictory statements and diametric transitions because of the momentum it develops, as a person walking forward develops momentum.”
I agree. As Tradition is transmitted through the lives, words, decisions, prayers, etc of the faithful, the writings of the faithful, the liturgy, etc. from generation to generation the Faithful slowly become holier, more insightful, more united, and in your words more momentum is built up right on up to the Passion and Death of the Church and where many will abandon the Faith, those who remain will become the holiest Saints in history. Same idea with Scripture. Scripture is not merely words and their meaning but they are alive in the Faithful.
Alright well enough for now.
Nicholas