What do you think?
Rate this book
The Meaning of Tradition
Some Christians claim to reject Tradition in preference to a supposedly "Bible only" Christianity. Catholics, on the other hand, venerate Tradition, yet often without adequately understanding it. In this masterful book, the great theologian Yves Congar explains why Tradition is an inescapable aspect of a fully biblical Christian faith. He explores the various forms of Tradition and discusses the relationship between Scripture and Tradition, as well as the role of the Magisterium of the Church. The Meaning of Tradition clears up misconceptions held by many Evangelical Christians and even some Catholics on this important subject. Congar's study of Tradition greatly contributed to the teaching of Vatican II and to a deeper appreciation of the Church Fathers.
175 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1963
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
Read
August 14, 2026"I shall avoid all polemics" (7). Well, being less sanctified and perhaps more honest than Congar, I shall not.
This book is brilliant and well worth reading.
That being said, Congar's characterization of Protestants as isolated individuals banging their heads against the wall of the written words of Scripture is almost silly in that it cannot account for the wealth of Protestant hymns, seminaries, and theological works. And most importantly, Congar's characterization cannot be squared with the Reformers' emphasis on the preached over the written Word. For Protestants, sermons are the new sap, still living, bringing forth a new tree (116). No well-read, semi-rational Protestant is going to advance anything close to the "Protestant" sola Scriptura that Congar describes, or claim that the Church does not constitute "an essential element of the religious relationship" (162) and that anything formally absent from scripture should be rejected indiscriminately (164). They are, however, going to advance something like the Catholic prima Scriptura that Congar describes.
"The material book called ‘The Holy Bible,’ which can be bought as such at any bookseller’s, is only the true Bread of Life for God’s People when it is interpreted correctly, according to the meaning implanted in it by God, and that this is possible only in the Church, in and by her tradition” (96).
“Exactly the same value, therefore, should not be attributed to tradition and to the holy Scriptures, even if they are paid the same respect. The holy Scriptures have an absolute value that tradition has not, which is why, without being the absolute rule of every other norm, like the Protestant scriptural principle, they are the supreme guide to which any others there may be are subjected. If tradition or the Magisterium claimed to teach something contradicting the holy Scriptures, it would certainly be false, and the faithful ought to reject it. Scripture is always the supreme rule and is never submitted to any other objective rule. It is, however, not the sole principle regulating the belief and life of the Church. To this end God has established two other principles: tradition and the Church, with her pastoral Magisterium” (100).
I'm on board with every single word of that. The question then becomes who we're including in the Church and her pastoral Magisterium. Congar confirmed something I've been thinking all summer, which is that Protestants and Catholics differ more fundamentally in their ecclesiology than in their conception of how tradition and Scripture relate. “Among the differences that remain between the Reformers and ourselves, the most decisive and radical does not arise from the conception of Scripture but of the Church" (111). And “The questions concerning tradition that still separate the Protestants from us all lead to the problem of ecclesiology. There is no escaping it. Indeed, the basic question is this: Has tradition an autonomous value, albeit subordinated to that of Scripture, or does its entire value come from Scripture, which it interprets?” (167).
(It had me cracking up that for all Congar's emphasis on scriptural revelation, and all the overlap between Barth and Congar and Dei Verbum, Barth the bogeyman only shows up once on pg. 109.)
This book is brilliant and well worth reading.
That being said, Congar's characterization of Protestants as isolated individuals banging their heads against the wall of the written words of Scripture is almost silly in that it cannot account for the wealth of Protestant hymns, seminaries, and theological works. And most importantly, Congar's characterization cannot be squared with the Reformers' emphasis on the preached over the written Word. For Protestants, sermons are the new sap, still living, bringing forth a new tree (116). No well-read, semi-rational Protestant is going to advance anything close to the "Protestant" sola Scriptura that Congar describes, or claim that the Church does not constitute "an essential element of the religious relationship" (162) and that anything formally absent from scripture should be rejected indiscriminately (164). They are, however, going to advance something like the Catholic prima Scriptura that Congar describes.
"The material book called ‘The Holy Bible,’ which can be bought as such at any bookseller’s, is only the true Bread of Life for God’s People when it is interpreted correctly, according to the meaning implanted in it by God, and that this is possible only in the Church, in and by her tradition” (96).
“Exactly the same value, therefore, should not be attributed to tradition and to the holy Scriptures, even if they are paid the same respect. The holy Scriptures have an absolute value that tradition has not, which is why, without being the absolute rule of every other norm, like the Protestant scriptural principle, they are the supreme guide to which any others there may be are subjected. If tradition or the Magisterium claimed to teach something contradicting the holy Scriptures, it would certainly be false, and the faithful ought to reject it. Scripture is always the supreme rule and is never submitted to any other objective rule. It is, however, not the sole principle regulating the belief and life of the Church. To this end God has established two other principles: tradition and the Church, with her pastoral Magisterium” (100).
I'm on board with every single word of that. The question then becomes who we're including in the Church and her pastoral Magisterium. Congar confirmed something I've been thinking all summer, which is that Protestants and Catholics differ more fundamentally in their ecclesiology than in their conception of how tradition and Scripture relate. “Among the differences that remain between the Reformers and ourselves, the most decisive and radical does not arise from the conception of Scripture but of the Church" (111). And “The questions concerning tradition that still separate the Protestants from us all lead to the problem of ecclesiology. There is no escaping it. Indeed, the basic question is this: Has tradition an autonomous value, albeit subordinated to that of Scripture, or does its entire value come from Scripture, which it interprets?” (167).
(It had me cracking up that for all Congar's emphasis on scriptural revelation, and all the overlap between Barth and Congar and Dei Verbum, Barth the bogeyman only shows up once on pg. 109.)
May 1, 2026
This book was an accessible yet highly perceptive take on exactly what it sounds like: what is the meaning of the word "Tradition"?
While some seem to think of "Tradition" as merely a historical set of unwritten doctrines not found in the Bible, Congar dismisses these ideas. Tradition is not a "list" of beliefs that one will find on a manuscript, as some historians seem to demand. Rather, Congar argues that Tradition is the "life" of the Church, the whole life in which the Spirit speaks to the Church in every age as she passes on the full deposit of the faith.
The tricky part, of course, is putting a label on exactly what "Tradition" is, as we modern westerners like to do. Congar, though, challenges you to think about it more broadly: tradition is simply the handing on of the apostolic faith. Some of it is written (The Bible), some of it is unwritten (tradition). Tradition is the Church's interpretation of Scripture, it is the message the apostles preached, it is the liturgy which teaches through worship (Congar says that the liturgy is the "ark of the covenant" of Tradition because it holds and makes Scripture present), it is the faith of the laypeople, so and so forth. Tradition follows what St. Paul mentioned as the "analogy of faith," in which the Church naturally develops so as to define a conclusion from the Tradition based on other certain conclusions (ex. it was certain that Mary was the new Ark of the Covenant and the new Eve, and a time came to define from these certain propositions a certain conclusion: the Immaculate Conception). Congar defends this by citing how a mathematician named Urbain Le Verrier predicted the existence of Neptune using only certain mathematical propositions without seeing it himself.
Because of Tradition acting as a living spirit of truth in the Church, it is not simply a list of doctrines, and understanding it cannot be done by a simple historical study, as many would have it. If knowing the right docrines were simply a matter of reading scripture and other historical texts, then the Magisterium would simply be a competitor in the realm of academics. But Congar says, not so! The Church is not a historian, she is the body of Christ who lives in a unity of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium, and she guards Tradition through interaction with the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus promised would lead her into all truth. As Congar closes:
"We have seen, with the help of Maurice Blondel, that these realities in the Church are the elements of a spiritual experience by which she can understand things really contained in the deposit, but which the texts do not express formally. By meditating on the texts and events, by examining the implications of her experience of the sacred truths she possesses, by rereading the texts once more in the light of this experience, the Church gradually recognizes in the divine word a richer content than that which had been revealed by a merely historical interpretation of the texts alone. Those who wish to know nothing but the text, and to limit themselves to a scientific interpretation, will not reach this level.” (p. 141)
While some seem to think of "Tradition" as merely a historical set of unwritten doctrines not found in the Bible, Congar dismisses these ideas. Tradition is not a "list" of beliefs that one will find on a manuscript, as some historians seem to demand. Rather, Congar argues that Tradition is the "life" of the Church, the whole life in which the Spirit speaks to the Church in every age as she passes on the full deposit of the faith.
The tricky part, of course, is putting a label on exactly what "Tradition" is, as we modern westerners like to do. Congar, though, challenges you to think about it more broadly: tradition is simply the handing on of the apostolic faith. Some of it is written (The Bible), some of it is unwritten (tradition). Tradition is the Church's interpretation of Scripture, it is the message the apostles preached, it is the liturgy which teaches through worship (Congar says that the liturgy is the "ark of the covenant" of Tradition because it holds and makes Scripture present), it is the faith of the laypeople, so and so forth. Tradition follows what St. Paul mentioned as the "analogy of faith," in which the Church naturally develops so as to define a conclusion from the Tradition based on other certain conclusions (ex. it was certain that Mary was the new Ark of the Covenant and the new Eve, and a time came to define from these certain propositions a certain conclusion: the Immaculate Conception). Congar defends this by citing how a mathematician named Urbain Le Verrier predicted the existence of Neptune using only certain mathematical propositions without seeing it himself.
Because of Tradition acting as a living spirit of truth in the Church, it is not simply a list of doctrines, and understanding it cannot be done by a simple historical study, as many would have it. If knowing the right docrines were simply a matter of reading scripture and other historical texts, then the Magisterium would simply be a competitor in the realm of academics. But Congar says, not so! The Church is not a historian, she is the body of Christ who lives in a unity of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium, and she guards Tradition through interaction with the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus promised would lead her into all truth. As Congar closes:
"We have seen, with the help of Maurice Blondel, that these realities in the Church are the elements of a spiritual experience by which she can understand things really contained in the deposit, but which the texts do not express formally. By meditating on the texts and events, by examining the implications of her experience of the sacred truths she possesses, by rereading the texts once more in the light of this experience, the Church gradually recognizes in the divine word a richer content than that which had been revealed by a merely historical interpretation of the texts alone. Those who wish to know nothing but the text, and to limit themselves to a scientific interpretation, will not reach this level.” (p. 141)
December 21, 2022
The book is a concise take on what tradition means for Catholics. Congar tries to tease out some mistaken assumptions about the common division between scripture and tradition. What comes across the most is the opportunism of a lot of definitions of tradition - you can see how someone's role inside or outside of the church leads them to narrow or expansive definitions. At the same time, Congar is more offering the contours of the discussion and some basic truths about it, not offering arguments that would decisively knock down most particular theological positions. His central point is that the focus of the church is on the teachings of Jesus and the movement of the Holy Spirit through history, which is not exactly identical to the scriptures left behind and is more complex than a simple correspondence between scripture and current institutions. Some of this is familiar to basic Catholic-Protestant debates but as someone still fairly new to all this I found it helpful how subtle and precise Congar can be.
September 28, 2024
3.5 stars.
It is well known that Dei Verbum’s section on Divine Revelation is taken straight from Congar. His explanation of tradition and traditions is thorough and enlightening. What I struggled with is that in attempting to distance himself from ‘two-sources of revelation’ terminology, he adopts a position that appears self-contradictory:
“A consensus of opinion seems to have been established among us [theologians], which may be summed up as follows: it is impossible to deny the existence of truths belonging to the revealed deposit without being formally attested in Scripture. And yet the latter presents the whole Christian mystery.”
If there are truths outside of scripture, I would argue, and I believe Congar would agree, that they belong to tradition (take the Marian doctrines or the canon of scripture itself, for example). As such, it cannot be said that Scripture “presents the whole Christian mystery.” Rather, as at least three centuries of theologians believed after Trent, revelation is expressed in both scripture and tradition.
I understand that Congar is elevating the importance of scripture by arguing that it is materially sufficient, but it approaches a form of ‘Catholic sola scriptura’ and risks reducing tradition to some abstract concept that is difficult to define. That said, operating within such a perspective, Congar does elucidate the nature and role of tradition quite well. I think the relationship between scripture and tradition requires further discussion, however, even if the majority of theologians have dismissed ‘two sources of revelation’ terminology.
It is well known that Dei Verbum’s section on Divine Revelation is taken straight from Congar. His explanation of tradition and traditions is thorough and enlightening. What I struggled with is that in attempting to distance himself from ‘two-sources of revelation’ terminology, he adopts a position that appears self-contradictory:
“A consensus of opinion seems to have been established among us [theologians], which may be summed up as follows: it is impossible to deny the existence of truths belonging to the revealed deposit without being formally attested in Scripture. And yet the latter presents the whole Christian mystery.”
If there are truths outside of scripture, I would argue, and I believe Congar would agree, that they belong to tradition (take the Marian doctrines or the canon of scripture itself, for example). As such, it cannot be said that Scripture “presents the whole Christian mystery.” Rather, as at least three centuries of theologians believed after Trent, revelation is expressed in both scripture and tradition.
I understand that Congar is elevating the importance of scripture by arguing that it is materially sufficient, but it approaches a form of ‘Catholic sola scriptura’ and risks reducing tradition to some abstract concept that is difficult to define. That said, operating within such a perspective, Congar does elucidate the nature and role of tradition quite well. I think the relationship between scripture and tradition requires further discussion, however, even if the majority of theologians have dismissed ‘two sources of revelation’ terminology.
December 27, 2024
3.5 | Je m’attendais pas à aimer le livre, mais il était vraiment intéressant. Juste assez compliqué pour un ouvrage de vulgarisation, mais j’imagine que c’est parce que le concept de vitalité de la Tradition est en lui même assez complexe…
Juste, un langage parfois ambigu qui m’a perdu.
Juste, un langage parfois ambigu qui m’a perdu.
January 21, 2017
This is an invaluable summary of Congar's historical investigations of Tradition in the life of the Church. Some other reviewers expressed disappointment that Congar did not adequately answer Protestant arguments, but that was never the intent of this book. This book should instead be read in contrast with the tendencies that prevailed before Vatican II, which saw the tradition as an inspired teaching Magisterium passing on doctrine to a merely passive listening laity. In contrast, Congar shows that the history of the Church has involved a more dynamic Tradition, developing through the interaction of the laity and the hierarchy. The position of Protestantism is present in this book simply to illustrate what Congar is not advocating. Tradition is dynamic, and it must involve the laity. But unlike the Protestant view, the Catholic understanding of Tradition must also involve the hierarchy. In today's Catholic Church, the right-wing (Catholic Answers) needs to better appreciate the laity's role in forming Tradition. The left-wing (Hans Kung), needs to better appreciate the hierarchy's role in forming Tradition.
December 9, 2023
When it was first published in 1964, this was a creative and thoughtful challenge to aspects of the Catholic Manualist approach to theology, which had predominated for the previous hundred years. However, its ideas quickly became mainstream, especially in the light of the 1965 Vatican Council. So, reading the book almost sixty years later, the value and novelty of the original book is harder to see.
One of the helpful features of the book is that it provides a simple overview of some useful Patristic sources and quotes on the topic of Tradition. However, the book’s footnotes are a little inconsistent, so it is not always easy to follow up references. For example, in chapter 1 Irenaeus is referenced to a locus in Patrologia Graeca (PG), whilst Gregory of Nyssa is referenced to the actual title of his work (Contra Eunomium), as well as the PG reference. As this is a 2004 edition, of the original 1964 edition, it would have been helpful if footnotes and references could have been updated into a consistent fuller format.
A more serious issue in the book, is a question of consistency between Chapters 1 and Chapter 3. In Chapter 1 the author insists upon an interpretation of ‘Scripture and Tradition’ which rejects the (Counter Reformation) idea that Revelation is ‘partially’ contained in each. Instead, he insists that “the saving Gospel is contained entirely in the Scriptures, as it is also contained entirely in tradition’ (Chapter 1).
However, in Chapter 3 the author talks about the problem of canonicity. Christians can have no access to Scripture, until they are clear which books constitute the canon of Scripture. The author notes that Scripture does not contain a list of the canonical books. He also rejects Karl Barth’s solution that the canon is just self-revealingly obvious to Christians. (Catholics and Protestants have a different canon, so it cannot be obvious). This means that the Revelation of the Canon would seem to be a piece of information that is not contained within Scripture.
But if that is so, then how can it be the case that the entirety of Revelation is contained in Scripture, as Chapter 1 insists? This issue of the consistency of the claims in Chapters 1 and 3 is never really resolved in the book; and that leaves a question mark over the coherence of the book’s model of Tradition.
Another aspect of the book which some readers may have concerns about, is its occasional 1960s style, gender stereotyping. For example, we hear how a ‘woman expresses instinctively and vitally what a man expresses logically…’ (Chapter 1).
Overall, this may have been an insightful and original book in the early 1960s, but it is now a dated book. arguing a problematic and unresolved thesis. Readers interested in knowing more about the theological topic of Tradition might be better served by simply looking the idea up in a modern theological dictionary.
One of the helpful features of the book is that it provides a simple overview of some useful Patristic sources and quotes on the topic of Tradition. However, the book’s footnotes are a little inconsistent, so it is not always easy to follow up references. For example, in chapter 1 Irenaeus is referenced to a locus in Patrologia Graeca (PG), whilst Gregory of Nyssa is referenced to the actual title of his work (Contra Eunomium), as well as the PG reference. As this is a 2004 edition, of the original 1964 edition, it would have been helpful if footnotes and references could have been updated into a consistent fuller format.
A more serious issue in the book, is a question of consistency between Chapters 1 and Chapter 3. In Chapter 1 the author insists upon an interpretation of ‘Scripture and Tradition’ which rejects the (Counter Reformation) idea that Revelation is ‘partially’ contained in each. Instead, he insists that “the saving Gospel is contained entirely in the Scriptures, as it is also contained entirely in tradition’ (Chapter 1).
However, in Chapter 3 the author talks about the problem of canonicity. Christians can have no access to Scripture, until they are clear which books constitute the canon of Scripture. The author notes that Scripture does not contain a list of the canonical books. He also rejects Karl Barth’s solution that the canon is just self-revealingly obvious to Christians. (Catholics and Protestants have a different canon, so it cannot be obvious). This means that the Revelation of the Canon would seem to be a piece of information that is not contained within Scripture.
But if that is so, then how can it be the case that the entirety of Revelation is contained in Scripture, as Chapter 1 insists? This issue of the consistency of the claims in Chapters 1 and 3 is never really resolved in the book; and that leaves a question mark over the coherence of the book’s model of Tradition.
Another aspect of the book which some readers may have concerns about, is its occasional 1960s style, gender stereotyping. For example, we hear how a ‘woman expresses instinctively and vitally what a man expresses logically…’ (Chapter 1).
Overall, this may have been an insightful and original book in the early 1960s, but it is now a dated book. arguing a problematic and unresolved thesis. Readers interested in knowing more about the theological topic of Tradition might be better served by simply looking the idea up in a modern theological dictionary.
October 19, 2020
Yves Congar would not quibble too much with the opening song from "Fiddler on the Roof" because it is clear in his book that Tradition is very much a way of life. But it is also more than that. There is Tradition and there are traditions. Tradition (with a capital T) is the content of a faith that is passed down from generation to generation. Traditions are the ways that we do things, like celebrate certain times, which plug into Tradition but are not necessarily intrinsic to it. For example, the way that Christmas is celebrated in ethnic households (I'm thinking of Italian and Polish here) is very different but linked to the Tradition regarding the Birth of Christ.
Written not long after the Second Vatican Council, Congar's work is an attempt to counter the seemingly insurmountable divide between Catholics and Protestants over the roots of faith. The Protestant claim to base faith on sola scriptura (scripture alone) is seen as inadequate and is contrasted to the Catholic view of Scripture and Tradition. Congar shows that some elements of the Christian faith are passed down from Apostolic times outside of the Scriptures. In this, he is speaking of articles of faith like the sacraments, something that is believed always, everywhere, and by all. Latin as the language of the liturgy would not be considered in this way even though many would believe that Latin was used at the Last Supper. The use of Latin in the Church would belong to traditions rather than Tradition.
As a theological work, this book demands full attention; it's not a book to read before going to sleep (unless you suffer from insomnia). It does require a certain amount of theological sophistication but will reward the reader who attempts to read through it.
Written not long after the Second Vatican Council, Congar's work is an attempt to counter the seemingly insurmountable divide between Catholics and Protestants over the roots of faith. The Protestant claim to base faith on sola scriptura (scripture alone) is seen as inadequate and is contrasted to the Catholic view of Scripture and Tradition. Congar shows that some elements of the Christian faith are passed down from Apostolic times outside of the Scriptures. In this, he is speaking of articles of faith like the sacraments, something that is believed always, everywhere, and by all. Latin as the language of the liturgy would not be considered in this way even though many would believe that Latin was used at the Last Supper. The use of Latin in the Church would belong to traditions rather than Tradition.
As a theological work, this book demands full attention; it's not a book to read before going to sleep (unless you suffer from insomnia). It does require a certain amount of theological sophistication but will reward the reader who attempts to read through it.
February 9, 2022
Congar's theology of tradition, rooted in the Spirit guiding the church through history to make important decisions in its magisterium, a process that is revelation in Christ being filled out, interpreted, and passed on faithfully (not two sources of revelation), forming important "monuments" that root the church in the past in order to confront new situations in the future - this theology really offers an account of Catholicism that equipped it as it oriented itself in late modernity.
My own thinking, as a Baptist, has been profoundly challenged. For instance, I have long thought about how can Protesants affirm the biblical canon without the authority processes that decided it. However, on the other hand, there are decisions of councils in Catholic tradition that I just don't think is accurate to the process Congar describes, they are unwarrant innovations and insertions of theological convictions beyond the Biblical deposit. So, my own thinking is that if tradition can develop, I think it shows signs of deforming, and if that is the case, it needs to be coupled with an understanding of how it must ameliorate and innovate today. Congar, as I see, wrote more on this in another book, so I think I am going to dig into that next.
My own thinking, as a Baptist, has been profoundly challenged. For instance, I have long thought about how can Protesants affirm the biblical canon without the authority processes that decided it. However, on the other hand, there are decisions of councils in Catholic tradition that I just don't think is accurate to the process Congar describes, they are unwarrant innovations and insertions of theological convictions beyond the Biblical deposit. So, my own thinking is that if tradition can develop, I think it shows signs of deforming, and if that is the case, it needs to be coupled with an understanding of how it must ameliorate and innovate today. Congar, as I see, wrote more on this in another book, so I think I am going to dig into that next.
April 13, 2025
So... I am not a trained theologian. Books like this one take me weeks to get through because they tend to be dense with lots of terminology or references to other sources and events that I don't understand or have knowledge about. This book here is no exception.
However, I give this book 5 stars because even with such setbacks, a regular, non-theologian such as myself can still work through the book with more ease than most theology books I've come across (and given up on).
Tradition is a massive topic that I do not even begin to claim to understand how it works in the Catholic faith (especially given that I'm not Catholic), yet Congar, I think, has done an excellent job in nailing down what tradition is without confining it to any box. His goal is not to list out every tradition of the church but to define tradition itself. What is it? How does it inform the faith? How does it inform doctrine and dogma? How does it influence our understanding of Scripture? How does Scripture influence our understanding of tradition? Where does the Magisterium and church authority fit into all this?
Congar gives his answer to these questions as best he can, and his best is pretty brilliant and well-written, though I'll have to take a brain-break for a little while. (:
However, I give this book 5 stars because even with such setbacks, a regular, non-theologian such as myself can still work through the book with more ease than most theology books I've come across (and given up on).
Tradition is a massive topic that I do not even begin to claim to understand how it works in the Catholic faith (especially given that I'm not Catholic), yet Congar, I think, has done an excellent job in nailing down what tradition is without confining it to any box. His goal is not to list out every tradition of the church but to define tradition itself. What is it? How does it inform the faith? How does it inform doctrine and dogma? How does it influence our understanding of Scripture? How does Scripture influence our understanding of tradition? Where does the Magisterium and church authority fit into all this?
Congar gives his answer to these questions as best he can, and his best is pretty brilliant and well-written, though I'll have to take a brain-break for a little while. (:
September 27, 2023
This book is an excellent reflection on the meaning of Tradition in relation to Scripture, the Magisterium, and the Church. Congar excellently explains what it means for Tradition to be "living" and why it must be alive. Tradition is the deposit of faith given to us first in Revelation, which is then preserved and handed down to the new generations of the faithful. This Revelation is the life of Christ for us, and it is this life that the Church seeks to communicate to Her members first and foremost.
February 21, 2025
A disappointing read. I picked this up to read for a Catholic perspective on my dissertation, and I am still frustrated with the strange tendency of Catholics to try and own history without quoting anything directly. The book spends ample time talking about the importance of the Church Fathers but fails to produce any quotations that back up his statements about the Church Fathers on tradition from the Church Fathers. I did learn about the methodology for Catholicism and tradition vs. traditions. I am further convinced of my protestant beliefs.
March 28, 2026
A mandatory read for class, but I am glad we had to pick this one up.
Congar provides a thorough take on the constitution, origin, and authority of Tradition within Catholicism. There were a few parts that seemed a bit confusing at self-referential to me, but I think this is more due to my own lack of Theological formation than Congar's writing.
This book really showed its age in one or two sections, being very dated to the 60s, but overall I think it is a great resource for those looking to understand Catholic Tradition better, despite some perhaps obtuse sections.
Congar provides a thorough take on the constitution, origin, and authority of Tradition within Catholicism. There were a few parts that seemed a bit confusing at self-referential to me, but I think this is more due to my own lack of Theological formation than Congar's writing.
This book really showed its age in one or two sections, being very dated to the 60s, but overall I think it is a great resource for those looking to understand Catholic Tradition better, despite some perhaps obtuse sections.
October 18, 2023
The argumentation is a bit circuitous (I wonder if this is assembled from lectures or other papers) but the thesis is perspective-altering in its clarity and simplicity of faith. Reminds me of St. John Henry Newman.
January 31, 2026
A truly beautiful book. Explores the complex relationship between scripture, tradition, and the church’s teaching authority. Also offers a theory of doctrinal development that differs in interesting ways from Newman’s.
March 15, 2021
Could not put it down.
August 6, 2024
An excellent analysis and summary of what Tradition and tradition means for the Church. It's such an important topic post Reformation. This should be a textbook at universities and seminaries.
June 30, 2014
As an explanation of tradition, this is a good book that is far more readable than his two volume work on "Tradition and Traditions" and as an introduction I would give it 4/5. As a defence of the Roman Catholic principle of tradition alongside Scripture, I did not find it as convincing. Admittedly, successive Christian generations are always inheriting practices and beliefs from our spiritual ancestors. Many of these are excellent for deepening our devotional life, worshiping God and evangelizing the nations and they create a familiar, established Christian ethos (while Congar focuses on the "Catholic spirit" I believe there is a certain Christian ethos shared by the three main streams of Christianity). In this sense, every Christian can affirm traditions. It is very important for Christians today to consult what our spiritual ancestors thought about issues such as the family, sanctification, etc...But certain doctrines promulgated by tradition and its judge, the Magisterium, will inevitably cause friction within the greater Christian Church. One of the most well-known dogmas derived from tradition is the Immaculate Conception which Congar attributes to the practices of the laity, thereby including them in the process and progress of tradition, as opposed to tradition being held in monopoly by the ecclesiastical elites (a thought on this - if Marian dogmas were only finally established because of the insistence of the laity, how do we respond to evangelical Protestant laity who have developed their own, perhaps sentimental, "traditions"?). One of the excellent points Congar makes in defence of tradition is that the Christian Church is constantly needing to re-proclaim eternal truths in light of changing contexts; proclamation and practice in the fourth century Church looks different from that in the twelfth century and from that in the twenty-first century. Congar is speaking like a postmodern here! However, there are some limitations when Congar suggests believers can communicate the faith via simple symbols such as the sign of the cross; explanation will be needed, depending upon the ignorance or knowledge of the audience (particularly since every Christian is called to spread the Gospel; think of Philip and the eunuch who needed an explanation). In offering a defence of tradition, I would have liked Congar to use better examples of doctrines that require tradition to defend them and that are crucial to the faith (unlike Marian doctrines). Perhaps it's that I will simply always disagree with the distinctive Catholic traditions affirmed. All in all, a good guide on the Catholic principle of tradition and traditions.
April 16, 2016
Yves Congar (1904-1995) is a giant of Catholic ecclesiology. This work here provides a lucid, passionate, and eminently readable introduction to Tradition, the Church, and the Scriptures. Congar argues that tradition is the life of the Church, as she is filled by the Spirit, in order to faithfully meet the challenges of the future. This deposit made once and for all by the Apostles, who received it from Christ, is passed down from generation to generation, and though its content does not change, this tradition does not remain static for it is the lived self-understanding of the Church in history. Congar offers intelligent critiques of Protestants like myself along the way, and while he certainly hasn't assuaged all my fears, his work is compelling and he is certainly required reading for anyone serious about understanding what it means to be a part of the Church and her Tradition.
December 11, 2012
from the book jacket
The most important Catholic publishing project of our time . . . international in scope, comprehensive in concept, written for every intelligent Catholic . . . a monument to Catholic scholarship and faith in the Twentieth Century. Hailed by Catholic scholars on both sides of the Atlantic, it has been praised by L'Osservatore Romano as "a new means of conveying religious culture . . . which should bring Catholics much spiritual joy."
Awarded the Thomas More Association Medal for the most distinguished contribution to Catholic publishing during 1958.
November 10, 2014
I would suspect that this book would be of most value to Catholics. All of us have heard that unlike the Protestants, Catholics do not rely solely on Scripture but on Tradition. Personally I always had a vague idea of what tradition meant. Now reading Congar's book I realize how essential Tradition is to the Church and being a Catholic.My advice: Is read it slow. Do not be concerned about rereading for clarity. I think Congar has done a good a job as anyone could in explaining this to laypeople but the subject is complicated so it can only be simplified so much. But it's well worth the work. Guaranteed to have many "Aha!" moments.
April 15, 2020
A brilliant book, that I would especially recommend to every Catholic, and in general to anyone interested in Apostolic Christianity. What is tradition - is it the customs in our homes and communities, or is it something more? What does tradition mean in a Christian context? What is the role of tradition, what are the sources of tradition, how does tradition relate to other ways of finding and constructing meaning? Yves Congar presents brilliant answers to these questions in this book. Less than 200 pages, this book is a pretty quick read, and the translator used crisp, clear language to convey the author's meaning. I plan to read it again soon!
June 10, 2010
It was a tough read ... it explains tradition and its relationship to scripture and the Magisterium of the Church. It brings in the protestant viewpoint of 'sola scriptura'. I waded through it and came out unscathed and better informed. There were moments of overwhelming drowsiness however. Congar was an importantl power in Vatican II and one of the great theologians of this era. IMHO. It is short (172 pages).
January 15, 2010
Probably only of interest to Catholics, but if you want to understand what the Roman Church means by 'Tradition' and why it is held equal to Scripture, then this is a must read.
Stand up for Vatican II.
Stand up for Vatican II.
March 12, 2009
A fantastic study of what is meant by the word "Tradition", especially in the context of Catholic theology.
March 16, 2013
Very excellent treat of the theme and extreme success on theologian tradition. Two thumps up for Yves Congar
December 14, 2014
A careful explanation and a more nuanced position, than expected .
October 3, 2016
Phenomenal explanation on what the Church has in mind when she refers to "Tradition" and how a clear understanding of Tradition has drastic implications for our world today.
Read
January 18, 2019Hopeful to understand what is essential, and what is always helpful. Conger does a great job not attempting to redefine the faith-based on Modern assumptions, but to help understand how it applies to the modern world.
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews