In his brief The Meaning of Tradition , Congar offers some helpful arguments and analogies for understanding the Catholic meaning of Tradition. In its most fundamental sense, Tradition is the thing handed-over, which is to say, the Son Himself handed to the world by the Father: “God (the Father) gives his Son to the world, he delivers him to the world . . . . Thus the economy begins by a divine transmission or tradition; it is continued by the men chosen and sent out by God for that purpose. The sending of Christ and of the Spirit is the foundation of the Church, bringing her into existence as an extension of themselves.”

In the more usual sense, “Tradition is an offering by which the Father’s gift is communicated to a great number of people throughout the world, and down the successive generations, so that a multitude of people physically separated from it by space and time, are incorporated in the same, unique, identical reality, which is the Father’s gift, and above all the saving truth, the divine Revelation made in Jesus Christ. Tradition is the sharing of a treasure which itself remains unchanging; it presents a victory over time and its transience, over space and the separations caused by distance.” In this respect, Tradition is virtually synonymous with the church through the ages, the church as a community sharing Christ with the world and with the generations that follow.

Tradition is not confined to doctrine. Tradition and doctrine are, Congar suggests, related as upbringing and instruction:

“We do not bring a child up by giving him lectures in morality and deportment, but by placing him in an environment having a high tone of conduct and good manners, whose principles, rarely expressed as abstract theories, will be imparted to him by the thousand familiar gestures which clothe them, so to speak, in the same way that the spirit informs the body and is expressed by it. Education does not consist in receiving a lesson from afar, which may be learnt by heart and recited, thanks to a good memory, but in the daily contact and inviting example of adult life, which is mature, confident and sure of its foundations, which asserts itself simply by being what it is, and presents itself as an ideal, which someone still unsure and unformed, in search of fulfillment and in need of security, will progressively come to resemble, almost unconsciously and without effort. A child receives the life of the community into which he enters, together with the cultural riches of the preceding generations (tradition!), which are inculcated by the actions and habits of everyday life.” In the church, this pedagogy includes liturgical forms, sacraments, institutional structures, habits and patterns of life, as well as doctrine and moral instruction. It seems to be that every church possesses and is formed by Tradition in this sense.

Tradition in this sense develops. Tradition is received, and once received cannot remain unmodified by the receiver. Tradition is not a solid object that is passed from hand to hand without being modified. The goal is for the Tradition to be incorporated into a living subject, and “A living subject necessarily puts something of himself into what he receives. When he receives a teaching, whether it is by word of mouth, by example or even from a written book, it always assumes a certain quality of dialogue. Words, even when written, of their very nature include something that arouses a response in the person addressed. A message, and this is particularly true of the apostolic message, is destined for someone so that he may live by it.” So, St Francis receives the tradition but gives it a fresh embodiment that is imitated by others, and itself becomes part of the tradition. In a different way, Thomas receives the theological tradition, and in his genius gives it fresh expression that develops the tradition and becomes part of what is then passed on. Again, in this sense, it seems that every church inevitably shares in the Christian Tradition.

When Congar speaks of Tradition and Scripture, though, I lose him, or he loses me. Scripture is unique, “the supreme rule” that is “never submitted to any other objective rule.” Yet, this is not a Protestant affirmation, since Scripture is not the ” sole principle regulating the belief and life of the Church.” Given Congar’s definition of Tradition, this is in one sense an obvious point; the belief and life of the church is formed by Tradition in the broad sense. But to speak of Tradition “regulating” belief and life is confusing: The belief and life of the church is regulated by Tradition - which is the belief and life of the Church. What the church does and believes is regulated by what the church believes and does. This is circular, and it seems to me viciously so.

Congar admits that, given its fixity, Scripture will be “the indubitable point of reference, playing the same role, in matters of doctrine, as that played in the preservation of ancient monuments by what is called a witness.” He admits that the church may criticize “Tradition by means of Scripture,” since Scripta manent . But then he immediately says that the church “interprets Scripture in her Tradition and decides controversies by means of her Magisterium, with reference to Scripture and Tradition.” Again, in one sense, this is inevitable: Every church interprets Scripture from within the church, “in her Tradition” in Congar’s broad sense. But if the Tradition is under scrutiny, doesn’t Scripture have to have primacy? We’re going in circles again and I for one am getting dizzy.