William, of course, has not said the last word. He is echoed by Robert Bellarmine, John Henry Newman, and Yves M.-J. Congar, among others. Terrence Tilley, a theologian at the University of Dayton, takes up the thread in his latest book. It is a stimulating read that is both clear and precise, though the title may confuse some readers into believing the author thinks tradition is somehow "cooked up." The sweep of this book is balanced by the forthright way in which Tilley executes his writing. Tilley sees his contribution to be squarely in the Catholic camp. In many respects, this effort is an ecumenical project, too, giving attention to the Lutheran theologian George Lindbeck (who takes doctrinal development to be conditioned by language) and to Tilley's Doktorvater, Baptist theologian James McClendon (who takes doctrine's utility in practical life to be a key determinant in its value to a tradition). Both prove especially helpful to Tilley in his analysis of liturgy as "communicative praxis."

Catholic theology in North America has recently seen a flurry of articles and books on the development of doctrine, generated in part by the 1999 meeting of the Catholic Theological Society of America that took this subject as its theme, as well as the Common Ground Initiative workshops (witness the exchanges between Judge John Noonan and then Father Avery Dulles, S.J., that was given wide attention in the Catholic media). Tilley's work stands out, however, because it shifts current discussion away from interpretations of the nature of church history and doctrinal development into an engagement with "enduring practices."

That traditions are participatory is taken as a given by Tilley. This is a central aspect of his second chapter. There he writes that "other concepts of traditions have presumed that the key is to know what a tradition is. The present approach presumes that knowing a tradition is much more fundamentally a knowing how to live in and live out a tradition" (45, author's italics).

This is an important distinction because it establishes certain protocols for understanding traditions' intentions and effects both on individuals and on communities. Here Tilley points to a fundamental flaw in contemporary discussions of the tradition, namely, that if a person does not know the proper rules or etiquette for participation in it, that person may find himself or herself excluded from the group. While this may have the benefit of preserving the tradition's longevity within a particular community, on balance, it sets itself up as being far too rigid to be of any real service to one's faith. Tilley cites several examples throughout the course of the book where the concern to preserve the tradition has resulted in the exclusion of items that seek to contribute some positive good to the tradition. For instance, the effort to bring an inclusive-language lectionary into Catholic worship has met with fierce resistance by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (as well as the Congregation for Divine Worship, which Tilley omits) because that dicastery perceives it digressing from the original meaning of the sacred texts. Tilley counters that this appeal to tradition itself lies outside of established tradition, which permits language groups (in this case, the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, ICEL) to adapt the scriptures to conventional usage in the modern tongue of the people.

My own sense is that the evidence that is marshaled by Tilley against the CDF's capriciousness is sound. Moreover, it is the theologians’ responsibility to speak to procedural or interpretive questions, especially as these questions impact the Church's encounter with sacred scripture. Yet I would hesitate to ascribe motivations to the CDF along the lines that Tilley does, viz., that the Congregation's appeal to tradition has the effect of using its authority as a "social control mechanism" (40).

One other problem, even more minor, is Tilley's continued use of the word "tradition" where a more apt rendering would be "custom," and then not in the common sense of that word, but in the canonical sense. This is true especially when Tilley talks about liturgical rituals. A distinction between tradition and custom could go some distance in clarifying both. Canon 27 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law simply states that "custom is the best interpreter of laws." I would submit that many church officials (and not a few theologians) consider tradition to be a set of doctrinal pronouncements -- laws -- from the magisterium. How monochrome! The canon implies so much more. What this means for the success or failure of the Church's authentic traditions, including its liturgy, is that the sensus fidelium -- that malleable, thick, supple, lovely mind of God's people -- is the best reader of a past-that-speaks-into-a-present. To remain vital over time, the sense of the faithful shapes and becomes shaped by its customs, a kind of substrata of tradition. While customs are formative of tradition, they also call for order. Catholics need to have their customs make sense and it is for the magisterium to work with the theological disciplines in conveying just how they can be integrated into the Church's traditions. Tilley's book can be a very useful guide for this purpose. -- Patrick J. Hayes, '00

Back to Table of Contents