Churches that Teach Tradition as Inspired have Different Traditions. How do They Explain This?

Upvote:0

There is a diversity in ecclesiastical traditions (e.g., the various Catholic rites and churches or religious orders approved by the Church).

Tradition (from traditio or a "passing on" or "handing down", like a baton) is either divine or ecclesiastical. Msgr. Agius's Tradition and the Church ch 1, §3, says:

Traditions are Divine or Ecclesiastical, as they originate either from God or from the Church.

I. Divine traditions belong generally to the Faith; Ecclesiastical, to discipline.

…

II. Ecclesiastical Traditions are those that were introduced by the Apostles themselves, or in post-Apostolic times. Hence, some are called Simply-Apostolic; others Ecclesiastical.

Upvote:0

Not every tradition is of a doctrinal issue. Only doctrine is infallible, and even among doctrines there are some that never pretended to be infallible, as some of them apply to changeable circumstances. The infallibility of the Church means that what the Pope states as doctrine may be and must be accepted as the will of God. But this does not include what he says in a simple conversation for example. It's not difficult to know what is infallible doctrine and what can change with time or circumstances, such as different cultures.

Upvote:2

It seems the implicit logic of your question is the following:

  • Premise 1: group A claim to be infallible
  • Premise 2: group B claim to be infallible
  • Premise 3: doctrine of group A and B contradict each other
  • Conclusion: neither group A nor group B is infallible

As you can see, this is a non sequitur. The proper conclusion is:

  • Conclusion: group A or group B cannot be infallible at the same time.

This conclusion still allows either group to be infallible.

So, for the sake of the argumentation, let us assume group A is indeed infallible, but group B is not. How is it possible that group B declares itself to be infallible, without being so?

The answer is evident if we rephrase the question. Is it possible for group B to declare false doctrine? Of course! The alternative - no group can declare false doctrine - is nonsense! In a world were God gives human being liberty, the possibility of error (and heresy) must be allowed. What kind of faith is this if not?

In fact, the non sequitur you are implicitly assuming destroys every single religious faith in the world. The fact that there are so many different Christian (and Muslim and Jewish, and etc) denominations cannot per se imply that they are all wrong.

Ask yourself:

Different Protestant churches derive different (salvific) interpretations from the same Scripture. How do they explain this?

More post

Search Posts

Related post