What Is the Church’s Living Tradition?

In 1995, Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais of the SSPX challenged the idea of a “living tradition.” He said:

The neo-modernists… have a false evolutionary notion of Tradition, which they call “living tradition.” (“The true notion of Tradition”)

Another critic claimed:

Rome has changed the meaning of tradition… to the concept of living tradition—whatever I say today is truth, irrespective of the witness of history. (“Rome’s New and Novel Concept of Tradition”)

Comments like those raise a question of accuracy.

To explore these issues, we will look at some different concepts of the Church’s tradition, before finally looking at the specific question of the living tradition itself.

1. Revelation

To understand the (theological) idea of tradition, it is important to begin with the concept of revelation. That is why Vatican II explained its views on tradition in a document which announced that it was

…set[ting] forth authentic doctrine on divine revelation. (Dei Verbum 1)

Revelation is God’s communication which is designed to enable humans to achieve salvation. It is communicated through Scripture (i.e., the Bible) and tradition. (See the Catechism, CCC 80.)

Older Scholastic textbooks sometimes referred to Scripture itself as a tradition, especially when a distinction was made between the explicit meaning of the text (inherent tradition) and the implicit meaning (declarative tradition). (See Gerard Van Noort’s, The Sources of Revelation, 1963.) As that terminology is no longer widely used, I will treat Scripture as distinct to tradition.

Another potential complication arises because some Catholics have claimed that even if revelation is in Scripture AND tradition, nevertheless tradition is effectively unnecessary because the entirety of revelation is in both. (See Gabriel Moran, Scripture and Tradition: A Survey of the Controversy, 1963.)

Those who claim that there is revelation which is NOT in Scripture are arguing for what Scholastics called “constitutive tradition.” Whether there is a constitutive tradition remains an unresolved matter. (See “Did Vatican II Reject Two Sources of Revelation?”) In what follows we will largely ignore those issues.

2. Apostolic Tradition

The first, and arguably most important concept of tradition, is the idea that it communicates revelation.

This concept was called “apostolic traditions” by Vatican I in 1870 (Pastor Aeternus Chap 4.5) and by Pope Pius X in 1907 (Pascendi 13). In 1950 Pope Pius XII called it “divine tradition” (Humani Generis 18). Vatican II called it “apostolic tradition” (Lumen Gentium 20), however the Council’s preferred name was “Sacred Tradition” (Dei Verbum 10). It is often called “divine-apostolic tradition” in Scholastic textbooks. (See Franzelin’s 1875 Tractatus de Divina Traditione, with Extracts in English here.)

Essentially, apostolic Tradition is an oral transmission of divine revelation. St. Paul referred to it in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, calling it paradoseis (Interlinear Greek text), which appeared as traditiones in the Vulgate Bible (Latin text).

Apostolic Tradition is significant theologically because if it is equally divinely inspired, then it is equally authoritative to Scripture. Pope Benedict XVI referred to those issues when he said:

The Church’s apostolic Tradition consists in this transmission of the goods of salvation… It was passed on under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. (General Audience, 26 April 2006)

Theologians have argued about specific instances of apostolic Tradition. Here are two possible examples.

The revelation of the Canon of Scripture (i.e., the contents list of the Bible) is not in Scripture itself. So, its revelation is in the apostolic Tradition, instead. (See “Did Vatican II Correct Trent’s View of Tradition?”)

Another example might be the Christian practice of Sunday worship (Lord’s Day). Scripture commands a Saturday Sabbath as the day to keep holy (Exodus 20:8). We can see it changing in the New Testament to Sunday (see Acts 20:7), but there is no actual Scriptural revelation of permission from God to do so. This has led some Protestants to revert back to Saturday worship (Sabbatarianism). If Scripture does indeed lack the relevant revelation on this matter, then it must have been in the apostolic Tradition, instead.

3. Apostolic Custom

Apostolic custom refers to human ideas which originated with the apostles. The older Scholastic textbooks often called it “human-apostolic tradition.” Sometimes apostolic custom is called “apostolic tradition” (with a lowercase “t”), but that can all too easily be confused with the apostolic Tradition (with a capital “T”) discussed in the previous section.

The theological significance of apostolic custom arises mainly from the dangers of confusing it with apostolic Tradition. Here are two examples where issues of confusion potentially arose.

Ever since the Apostolic era, women have worn Chapel Veils in church. The custom can be seen in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 11:5) and so the 1917 Code of Canon Law instructed women to continue doing so (CIC 1262.2). This led to a question: are Chapel Veils a human requirement (i.e., apostolic custom) or are they a revelation of God’s requirement (i.e., apostolic Tradition)? When the 1983 Code of Canon Law dropped the requirement, that was arguably an interpretation that Chapel Veils are a matter of apostolic custom, and not apostolic Tradition.

Another possible example is the ordination of women. In 1994 Pope John Paul II noted the apostolic practice of ordaining only men. He then said that the Church had no authority to change that practice (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis). That was arguably an interpretation that male ordination is not just a changeable human custom (i.e., an apostolic custom), but it was a divine revelation (i.e., an apostolic Tradition). Thus, as humans cannot change revelation (e.g., like editing the Bible), so the pope concluded that they cannot change the revelation of male ordination.

4. Ecclesiastical Tradition

Ecclesiastical tradition refers to ancient ideas and practices which were originated by humans and which have continued in theology, liturgy or other aspects of Church life. The concept of “apostolic custom” (see section 3) is just the most ancient layer of ecclesiastical tradition.

Ecclesiastical tradition was mentioned by several of the ancient Ecumenical Councils. It was also mentioned in 1554 at the Council of Trent (Profession of Faith) and in 1870 at Vatican I (Profession of Faith), where bishops promised to:

embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions.

Pope Pius X explicitly mentioned the idea in 1903 when writing about liturgical matters (Tra le Sollecitudini 10). Even though ecclesiastical tradition(s) are invented by humans, he stressed that they can still have authority in the Church, as they may represent “tried and tested” practices, or they may be otherwise well-suited to particular aspects of the Church’s mission.

Vatican II referenced the idea in a looser terminology, when it said:

Within the Church particular Churches… retain their own traditions. (Lumen Gentium 13)

One of the issues raised by ecclesiastical tradition is whether it is changeable. In 1947 Pope Pius XII affirmed that it was, when he said:

The Sovereign Pontiff… enjoys the right to… establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve… as also to modify those he judges to require modification. (Mediator Dei 58)

The Catechism makes the same point. It contrasted unchangeable (apostolic) Tradition with changeable (ecclesiastical) traditions when it said:

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium. (CCC 83)

5. Patristic Tradition

Another source of theological authority is what Pope Pius X called the “tradition of the Fathers” (Pascendi 42). This is the traditional interpretations of revelation which we can see in the saints and doctors of the Ancient Church Fathers, as well as in Scholastics such as St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274).

Scholastic theologians sometimes said that Patristic tradition was only significant because it was a witness to what counted as apostolic tradition. (See Petavius [Denis Pétau d. 1652] De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia, with Extracts in English here.)

The idea of an authoritative tradition of the Fathers can be seen in the writings of St. Vincent of Lérins (d. 445) (Commonitory, Chap 2.6) and in the Council of Trent in 1546 (Session 4). The idea was also referenced in 1870 by Vatican I, when it stated:

It is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to… or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers. (Dei Filius 2.9)

Part of what makes patristic tradition authoritative, is that it can be an expression of the universal faith of the Church (i.e., the Sensus Fidelium) which the Catechism describes as representing an infallible understanding of the faith (CCC 92).

We can see a possible example of patristic tradition, when St. Augustine used a form of lex orandi, lex credendi argument to clarify the doctrine of Original Sin. He appealed to the widespread liturgical practice of infant baptism, as showing the Church’s already existing (implicit) belief that babies were born with an original sin. Otherwise, what was the point of a baptism for babies which forgave sin? (See Against Two letters of the Pelagians, Chap 40.)

However, the interpretation of patristic tradition can be problematic, as it is not always clear whether a specific issue is an example of changeable ecclesiastical tradition (section 4) or whether it is an authoritative doctrine of patristic tradition. That is why Pope Pius XII insisted in 1947 that such matters typically need to be clarified by a judgment of the Church’s magisterium. (See Mediator Dei 48.)

6. Magisterial Tradition

Magisterial tradition is the record of clarifications of revelation which the magisterium produces over time, as it interprets and judges what counts as authoritative doctrine.

It was described in 1964 by Pope Paul VI as “authentic tradition” (Ecclesiam Suam 26). Pope John Paul II called it “Catholic tradition” in 1998 (Fides et Ratio 82). It was sometimes called “dogmatic tradition” in Scholastic textbooks, and that name was used in a 1989 Vatican publication (The Interpretation of Dogma A.2.2).

The concept was also sometimes cited in Scholastic texts as a “locus” (or theological source), especially in regard to the records of Ecumenical Councils. (See Melchor Cano [d. 1560] De Locis Theologicis; here are some extracts in English.) Some of the Latin manuals subsumed the idea into the “Spirit inspired preaching of the Church.” (See Billot’s 1929 De Immutabilitate Traditionis.) Some Church documents subsumed it under wider categories of “tradition” or “magisterium.” See, for example, this 1907 comment by Pope Pius X:

We deem worthy of praise those who… [have] full respect for tradition, the Holy Fathers, and the ecclesiastical magisterium. (Pascendi 46)

History shows the existence of a tradition of magisterial clarifications. We can see it in the records of Ecumenical Councils, especially when they introduced new concepts into tradition to explain revelation. For example, in 325 the Council of Nicaea (magisterially) introduced the new term “consubstantial.” In 1215 the Fourth Lateran Council (magisterially) introduced the term “transubstantiation.” In both cases those terms subsequently became authoritative elements of the Church’s tradition. In 1947 Pope Pius XII described that process occurring over time when he noted that

Catholic doctrine on the Incarnate Word of God [and] the eucharistic sacrament… came to be determined with greater certitude… (Mediator Dei 52)

We can also see authoritative magisterial clarifications in papal documents, such as Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 Rerum Novarum. That document explained the doctrine of social justice. Pope John XXIII described it in 1961 as having a “permanent validity” (Mater et Magistra 218). Nevertheless, on its fortieth anniversary in 1931 Pope Pius XI also noted that the document needed further re-clarification, due to new questions arising about its meaning (Quadragesimo Anno 40).

There are particularly significant examples of magisterial clarifications with the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Assumption (1950). In both cases magisterial clarifications caused tradition to grow, by changing what was permissible for theologians to say. Pope Pius XII described that process in 1950, when he said:

If the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter… cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. (Humani Generis 20)

7. Living Tradition

The concept of “living tradition” came to prominence in the writings of Johann Adam Möhler (d. 1838) and the Catholic Tübingen school. (See “Tradition and Creativity in Theology.”) The idea was used in a range of ways, including to describe the way that tradition can grow through clarifications of revelation, and through the development of doctrine.

Prior to Vatican II, popes sometimes referred to the Gospel as “living,” as Pope Pius XI did in 1931 (Quadragesimo Anno 39). But describing tradition itself as living seems to have entered the Church’s official vocabulary at Vatican II.

Vatican II used the phrase “living tradition” twice in Dei Verbum (DV). The Council said:

The words of the holy fathers witness to the presence of this living tradition… Through the same tradition the Church’s full canon of the sacred books is known, and the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly understood. (DV 8)

If the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out…. the living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account. (DV 12)

Those two texts describe the “living tradition” as contributing to the authoritative clarification of revelation. This suggests that an important element of “living tradition” is essentially the magisterial tradition. (See section 6.)

In 1998 Pope John Paul II showed a similar understanding, when he said:

The chief purpose of theology is to provide an understanding of Revelation … In this light, a careful analysis of texts emerges as a basic and urgent need: first the texts of Scripture, and then those which express the Church’s living Tradition. (Fides et Ratio 93)

Pope Benedict XVI made a similar remark in 2009 when he said that:

the interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures cannot only be an individual scientific effort but must always be compared with… and authenticated by the living Tradition of the Church. This rule is decisive to explain the correct relationship between exegesis and the Magisterium of the Church. (Address, 23 April 2009)

He repeated that understanding more formally in 2010 when he wrote:

Sacred Scripture… together with the Church’s living Tradition constitutes the supreme rule of faith. (Verbum Domini 18)

More recently, the fact that there is growth in the Church’s tradition, was acknowledged by Pope Leo XIV when he said:

The Word of God… is not fossilized, but rather… develops and grows in Tradition. (General Audience, 28 January 2026)

These are not new ideas. A similar understanding was shown by Pope Pius XII in 1944, when he said:

[The] Christian faith… has been delivered to us through the Sacred Scriptures and… is clearly and authentically set forth by the living and infallible teaching authority of the Church… It is not enough to accept willingly the ancient pronouncements of the teaching office of the Church, but… it is also necessary to believe humbly and loyally all that is subsequently enjoined upon our faith by the Church in virtue of her supreme authority. (Orientalis Ecclesiae 15)

8. Living Magisterium

Although Pope Pius XII does not use the phrase “living tradition” in the text immediately above, what he is describing is essentially the idea of the living tradition which grows over time. This is because he insists that Catholics cannot just pick a point in history and then refuse to accept doctrinal clarifications which occur after that time.

Pope Pius XII made that point by linking it to the idea of the living magisterium (i.e., what he calls “the living and infallible teaching authority”). (For further details about that concept see “What Is the Living Magisterium?”)

This means that the concept of living tradition is logically related to the idea of the living magisterium. Or, if we use a metaphor, those concepts are the obverse and reverse of a single doctrinal reality. The living magisterium clarifies revelation and its clarifications then enter the living tradition of the Church. That makes the living tradition grow thereafter and that growth influences how the living magisterium thereafter clarifies revelation. Thus, the living magisterium and living tradition are related to each other symbiotically, as two inseparable aspects of the Church’s mission to preach revelation.

9. Conclusion

We began with a critical opinion about the idea of “living tradition.” It should be clear by now that the concept contains nothing contrary to the Church’s traditional understanding of tradition.

An analysis of the idea of (theological) tradition shows that it is complex and that it can include a range of distinct aspects and implications. (See section 2-6.) The phrase “living tradition” picks up some of those traditional ideas, especially in a way which recognizes that tradition can grow, when it is magisterially interpreted and clarified. (See section 7.)

Once we understand that the concept of the living tradition is a doctrine about magisterial clarification, then it becomes clear that the living tradition is logically linked to the concept of the living magisterium, and so an understanding of each is enhanced by grasping both. (See section 8.)