Having established the necessity of Sacred Theology and Tradition in part I in opposition to a kind of primitivist approach to the Bible which sees Holy Writ as a kind of reified Transcendental that involves nothing in order to be received, I now approach the problem of "Tradition" as pluralistic phenomenon with all of the richness, competition, and confusion that such pluralism invites. 

 

In the broader history of the Church, "tradition" has always been understood in two senses: first, there is Sacred Tradition as a kind of necessity laid out in Part I; but also, tradition in its more particular sense as an embodied, interpersonal, inter-generational "handing off" of this or that particular practice or mode of instruction, devotion, or discipline that is necessarily local and thus plural. 

 

I point out the localism and pluralism of traditions, because they couldn't be "handed off" from one person or group to another if general and it wouldn't be plural if not local, etc.  For this reason, we hear of various monasteries having their own traditions or customs of doing Matins at this or that particular time of the night; or, this or that rite having their own way of doing things [e.g. the Ambrosian Rite of Milan has its own sort of chant that differs rhythmical and melodically from the Gregorian Chant, etc.].  That is what is meant by "tradition" in the lower case "t" sense.

 

Here, in Part II, I sift through specific commitments and "handing downs" against the broader observation of "Sacred Tradition" as an ideal type according to which all appeals to "tradition" operate.   Not as closely studied as the course of Biblical hermeneutics, "Sacred Tradition" is far more difficult to cover (I mean, is there a single source on the teaching of the Immaculate Conception that we can pinpoint?); even so, I am most interested in studying how Sacred Tradition is invoked, the patterns of its affirmation, and the scope of its claims in all of its complex historical and theological dimensions.  Since the term is so adamantly invoked to make judgment claims in the here and now, as an appeal to authority (and that is precisely what an appeal to "Tradition" consists of), then it might be beneficial to explore how this amorphous, yet consistent and harmonious body of authoritative teaching and practice actually worked in the past.

 

As we shall see, there are authentic and inauthentic appeals to Tradition (in fact, there must be: for if everything is part of Sacred Tradition, then nothing is Sacred Tradition, etc.).  All of these claims, as we shall investigate, tend to pivot on the criteria then of their meaningfulness, usefulness, expedience, and relevance in having been "passed down" as it were in the first instance as well as the capacity by which they may be understood in continuity from one generation to the next.  Particular traditions and customs may be lost (in fact, this is the norm), but the idea of "Sacred Tradition" is constantly observed.  Here, the appearances and the reality of this continuity can at times diverge leading to much confusion.

 

While often downplayed as "man-made", Sacred Tradition is itself intimately bound up with the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete; and by this same token, it enjoys the same prominence of inerrancy as Sacred Scripture that also constitutes the indefectibility of the Church as a whole.  This is because God's inspirations are not confined to texts but infuse the Church herself.

But just like Sacred Scripture, besides which it enjoys prominence as a source of authority, there is the risk of misunderstanding what Sacred Tradition itself teaches us (especially if it departs too radically from the Gospel).  If viewed on its own terms (say, in isolation of the Gospel), or on purely historical terms (similar to the problems of reading the Bible only according to the literal sense), what people conflate as "Sacred Tradition" falls risk of superfluity, antiquarianism, or worse. 

 

Bottom line: just as people can misread Sacred Scripture according to their own notions, people are just as liable, and perhaps even more liable, to distort "Sacred Tradition" given the amorphous and developing condition of that authoritative source of doctrine and practice.  We should not therefore use these terms unthinkingly but discern when and where a genuine claim is being made upon us by the past and why.  Otherwise, our Faith risks growing arbitrary and God's will becomes confused with the will of men.