¹ Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay, (trans) Naseby, Michael and Rainborough, Thomas (New York: MacMillian, 1966), p. 213Google Scholar. Hereafter abbreviated TT.

² Cf. Milbank, John, Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990), pp. 210–219Google Scholar.

³ Blondel, Maurice, The Letter on Apologetics and History and Dogma, trans. and eds. Dru, Alexander and Trethowan, Illtyd (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994)Google Scholar. Hereafter abbreviated HD.

⁴ For example, the significant role Blondel's “hermeneutic of tradition” plays in elucidating the spiritual understanding of Scripture in the work of Henri de Lubac. See Lubac, Henri de, Histoire et Esprit: L'intelligence de l' Écriture d'après Origène (Paris: Aubier, 1950), pp. 374–446Google Scholar; as well as de Lubac's, Exégèse médiévale: Les quatre sens de l'écriture, 2 vols. (Paris: Aubier, 1959–1961)Google Scholar. For Blondel's connection to the latter work of de Lubac see Hughes, Kevin L., “The ‘Fourfold Sense’: De Lubac, Blondel and Contemporary Theology,” Heythrop Journal: A Quarterly Review of Philosophy and Theology 42 (2001), pp. 451–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For de Lubac's account of the Blondel's influence on his thought see, At the Service of the Church: Henri de Lubac Reflects on the Circumstances that Occasioned His Writings, trans, A.E. England (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1993). On the importance of Blondel's thought for contemporary theological thinking, see Henrici, Peter, “The One Who Went Unnamed: Maurice Blondel in the Encyclical Fides et ratio,” Communio 26 (1999), pp. 609–621Google Scholar; Virgoulay, René, Philosophie et théologie chez Maurice Blondel (Paris: Cerf, 2002)Google Scholar; English, Adam, The Possibility of Christian Philosophy: Maurice Blondel at the Intersection of Theology and Philosophy (London: Routledge, 2007)Google Scholar; Grumett, David, “Blondel, Modern Catholic Theology and the Leibnizian Eucharistic Bond,” Modern Theology 23 (2007), pp. 561–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar and “Blondel, the Philosophy of Action and Liberation Theology,” Political Theology 11 (2010), pp. 502–24Google Scholar.

⁵ “Dogmatic Constitution of Divine Revelation,” Dei Verbum # 7, Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, New Revised Edition, vol. I, ed. Flannery, Austin O.P., (Dublin: Dominican Publications, 1998), p. 754Google Scholar.

⁶ Magisterium here refers to the teaching authority of ecclesiastical office. Francis Sullivan has observed that in its more recent development the term magisterium has come to mean both the teaching authority of the hierarchy as well as the hierarchy as the bearer of the office. See Sullivan, Francis A., Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 1983), pp. 24–34Google Scholar.

⁷ It is beyond the scope of this essay to give sufficient theological reflection to the positive goods of protecting and safeguarding the sacramental integrity of the church that accompany the shift toward the modern idea of tradition in Catholicism. The objective of this essay is to identify the shift in theological thinking about tradition and the conceptual and theo-political dynamics that have contributed to this shift.

⁸ For an analysis of the office of the episcopate and its relation to tradition, see Rahner, Karl and Ratzinger, Joseph, The Episcopate and the Primacy, trans. Barker, Kenneth, Kerans, Patrick, Ochs, Robert and Strachan, Richard (New York: Herder and Herder, 1962)Google Scholar.

⁹ See Congar, Yves, “Aspects ecclésiologiques de la querelle entre mendiants et séculiers dans la seconde moitié du XIIIe siècle et le début du XIVe,” Archives d'histoire et littéraire du moyen âge 36 (1961), pp. 35–151Google Scholar.

¹⁰ For the latter see Tierney, Brian, Origins of Papal Infallibility 1150–1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty and Tradition in the Middle Ages (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1972), pp. 132–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹ For a concise account of the various themes under which Bonaventure and Aquinas consider the notion of revelation see Latourelle, René, Theology of Revelation (New York: Alba House, 1966), pp. 155–179Google Scholar.

¹² For a summary of the similarities and differences between Aquinas and Bonaventure, as well as twentieth-century interpretations of the two thinkers, see Knowles, David, The Evolution of Medieval Thought 2^nd edition, eds. Luscombe, D.E. and Brooke, C.N. L. (London: Longman, 1988), pp. 213–225Google Scholar.

¹³ For an introduction to the discussion concerning Aquinas's relation to the Condemnation of 1277, see Wippel, John F., “Thomas Aquinas and the Condemnation of 1277,” The Modern Schoolman 72 (1995), pp. 233–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Hissette, Roland, “Thomas d'Aquin directement visé par la censure du 7 mars 1277? Réponse à John F. Wippel,” in Roma, Magistra Mundi: Itineraria Culturae Medievalis: Mélanges Offerts au Père L.E. Boyle à L'occasion de Son 75e Anniversaire, ed. Hamesse, Jacqueline (Louvain-la-Neuve: Fédération des Instituts d'Etudes Médiévales, 1998), pp. 425–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴ Cf. Mandonnet, Pierre Félix, Siger de Brabant et L'averroïsme Latin au XIIIme Siècle, vol. 2, (Louvain: Institut Supérieur de Philosophie de L'Université, 1908–11), pp. 175–191Google Scholar; Gilson, Etienne, Reason and Revelation in the Middles Ages (New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1938)Google Scholar and History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages (New York: Random House, 1955), pp. 402–410Google Scholar; and Steenberghen, Fernand van, Thomas Aquinas and Radical Aristotelianism (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1980)Google Scholar.

¹⁵ On the relationship between reason and revelation in Aquinas's thought see Gilson, Etienne, The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, trans. Shook, L.K. (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994), pp. 3–25Google Scholar; and Persson, Per Eric, Sacra Doctrina: Reason and Revelation in Aquinas, trans. Mackenzie, J.A.R. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1970)Google Scholar. For Bonaventure see Ratzinger, Joseph, The Theology of History in St. Bonaventure (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1971)Google Scholar.

¹⁶ For an analysis of Aquinas's and Bonaventure's use of this distinction see Moonan, Lawrence, Divine Power: The Medieval Power Distinction up to its Adoption by Albert, Bonaventure, and Aquinas (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), pp. 193–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷ Knowles, The Evolution of Medieval Thought, p. 300.

¹⁸ Balthasar, Hans Urs von, The Glory of the Lord, Vol. V: The Realm of Metaphysics in the Modern Age, trans. Davies, Oliver, Louth, Andrew, McNeil, Brian C.R.V., Saward, John and Williams, Rowan, ed. McNeil, Brian C.R.V. and Riches, John (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1991), p. 20Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Knowles, The Evolution of Medieval Thought, p. 299

²⁰ Ibid. Also see Gilson, History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages, pp. 488–499.

²¹ For well-reputed works engaging the theological, philosophical and ecclesiological complexity of pre-modern Christianity, see Gilson, Etienne, Histoire de la philosophie médiévale 2^nd ed. (Paris, 1943)Google Scholar; Smalley, Beryl, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, 2^nd ed. (New York: Philosophical Library, 1952)Google Scholar; and Leclercq, Jean O.S.B., The Love of Learning and the Desire for God: A Study of Monastic Culture, trans. Misrahi, Catharine (New York: Fordham University Press, 1961)Google Scholar.

²² Cf. D'Ailly, Pierre, Quaestiones super I, Sententiarum (Lyons, 1500)Google Scholar and Oakley, Francis, Omnipotence and Promise: The Legacy of the Scholastic Distinction of Powers (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2002)Google Scholar.

²³ Cf. Tavard, George, Holy Writ or Holy Church: The Crisis of the Protestant Reformation (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959), p. 56Google Scholar.

²⁴ Cf. Oakley, , Omnipotence, Covenant, and Order: An Excursion in the History of Ideas from Abelard to Leibniz (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1984), p. 64Google Scholar. See also Oberman, Heiko, “Pierre D'Ailly and the Absolute Power of God: Another Note on the Theology of Nominalism,” Harvard Theological Review 56 (Janurary, 1963), pp. 59–73Google Scholar.

²⁵ Milbank, Theology and Social Theory, p. 14.

²⁶ See Oakley, , The Political Thought of Pierre d'Ailly: The Voluntarist Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964), pp. 14–33Google Scholar. A detailed analysis of the complex of distinctions that accompany the potentia absoluta/ordinata distinction in D'Ailly's thought is beyond the scope of this essay. Here we have offered a rudimentary sketch of the distinction in relation to D'Ailly's understanding of the notion of tradition. It is worth noting that this distinction, as it is worked out in D'Ailly's account, allots an important role to human reason, as is evidenced by the further distinction between “absolute evidence” and “conditioned evidence” (cf. p. 29). Oakley contends the potentia absoluta/ordinata distinction and evidentia absoluta/conditionata vel secundum quid prevent D'Ailly's thought from fideism or occasionalism (cf. pp. 26–33).

²⁷ Cf. Theology and Social Theory, pp. 9–26.

²⁸ Cf. Oakley, , The Conciliarist Tradition: Constitutionalism in the Catholic Church 1300–1870 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 22–25Google Scholar.

²⁹ Cf. Lubac, Henri de, Corpus Mysticum: The Eucharist and the Church in the Middle Ages, trans. Simmonds, Gemma, Price, Richard and Stevens, Christopher (London: SCM Press, 2006), pp. 75–119Google Scholar.

³⁰ Cf. Kantorowicz, Ernst H., The King's Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957), pp. 193–272Google Scholar.

³¹ For the Tridentine decree on Scripture and tradition see Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2, Trent to Vatican II, ed. Tanner, Norman (London: Sheed & Ward, 1990), pp. 663–665Google Scholar. Much of the interpretive history of the Council of Trent takes place in the twentieth century as a result of the work of Josef Geiselmann. See Geiselmann, Josef “Das Konzil von Trient über das Verhältnis der heiligen Schrift und der nichtgeschriebenen Traditionen,” ed Schmaus, M., Die mündliche Überlieferung (Munich: Hueber, 1957), pp. 123–206Google Scholar. For responses to Geiselmann see Ratzinger, Joseph, “Offenbarung, Schrift, Überlieferung,” Trierer theologische Zeitschrift 67 (1958), pp. 13–27Google Scholar and Lennerz, Heinrich, “Scriptura Sola,” Gregorianum 40 (January, 1959), pp. 38–53Google Scholar. For a detailed summary of the history of the decree see Hedin, Hubert, A History of the Council of Trent, vol. 2, The First Sessions at Trent 1545–47, trans. O.S.B.Graf, Dom Ernest (St. Louis, MO.: B. Herder Book Co., 1961), pp. 52–98Google Scholar.

³² Cf. Congar, TT, p. 173.

³³ Cf. Joseph Ratzinger, “On the Tridentine Decree on Tradition,” in Revelation and Tradition, pp. 59–60. Ratzinger narrates a more complex account of the connection between traditiones and abusus at Trent in which he suggests procedural complications at the council partly are to blame for the link between the two.

³⁴ Congar, TT, p. 176.

³⁵ For a summary of post-Tridentine Catholic thought see Tavard, Holy Writ or Holy Church, pp. 225–247.

³⁶ Cf. Congar, TT, p. 176 and p. 182. In regards to this shift in emphasis, Congar also observes that, “beginning in the sixteenth century, canonists and theologians (especially followers of Suárez) held the thesis, endorsed by the 1917 Code (c. p. 25), according to which custom [tradition] only obtains the force of law by the approbation of the competent superior. In a word, the consideration of content has been replaced by a consideration of the juridical title of authority, quod by quo, in scholastic terms.” TT, p. 181.

³⁷ Cf. Unity in the Church, or, the Principle of Catholicism Presented in the Spirit of the Church Fathers of the First Three Centuries, trans. and ed. Erb, Peter C. (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1996)Google Scholar.

³⁸ Symbolism: Exposition of the Doctrinal Differences Between Catholics and Protestants as Evidenced by Their Symbolic Writings, trans. Robertson, James Burton (New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1997), p. 284Google Scholar.

³⁹ For commentary on Möhler's theology of tradition see Congar, Tradition and Traditions, pp. 193–196; Boeglin, Jean-Georges, La question de la tradition dans la théologie catholique contemporaine (Paris: Cerf, 1998), pp. 68–72Google Scholar; and Geiselmann, Josef Rupert, The Meaning of Tradition, trans. O'Hara, W.J. (New York: Herder and Herder, 1966), pp. 19–23Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ Cf. Newman, John Henry, The Arians of the Fourth Century: Their Doctrine, Temper, and Conduct, Chiefly as Exhibited in the Councils of the Church Between A.D. 325 and A.D. 381 (London: Rivington, 1833)Google Scholar.

⁴¹ Cf. Prickett, Stephen, Modernity and the Reinvention of Tradition: backing into the Future (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 169–188Google Scholar.

⁴² Cf. Newman, John Henry, Apologia Pro Vita Sua, ed. Delaura, David J. (New York: Norton & Company, 1968)Google Scholar.

⁴³ For example, see Newman's essay “Milman's View of Christianity” in Essays: Critical and Historical, vol. II (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1907), pp. 186–248Google Scholar. Newman himself was already aware of this tension and was attempting to address it before he became Catholic.

⁴⁴ Congar, TT, p. 189.

⁴⁵ Cf. Virgoulay, René, Les courants de pensée du catholicisme français: L'épreuve de la modernité (Paris: Cerf, 1985), p. 45Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Cf. Haight, Roger D. S.J., “The Unfolding of Modernism in France: Blondel, Laberthonniere, Le Roy,” Theological Studies 35 (1974), pp. 632–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁷ Cf. MacIntyre, Alasdair, “Epistemological Crisis, Dramatic Narrative and the Philosophy of Science,” The Monist 60, no 4 (1977), pp. 453–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁸ Balthasar, Hans Urs von, The Theology of Karl Barth: Exposition and Interpretation, trans. Oakes, Edward T. S.J. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1992), p. 252.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ For example, see Schwalm, M.B., “Les illusions de l'idéalism et leurs dangers pour la foi,” Revue Thomiste 4 (1896), pp. 413–441Google Scholar; Gayraud, Hippolyte, “Une nouvelle apologétique chrétienne,” Annales de Philosophie Chrétienne 133 (1896), pp. 257–273Google Scholar and “Une nouvelle apologétique chrétienne,” Annales de Philosophie Chrétienne 133 (1897), pp. 400–408Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ For example, see Harnack, Adolf von, What is Christianity? Trans. Saunders, Thomas Bailey (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1957)Google Scholar.

⁵¹ For example, see Loisy, Alfred, L'Évangile et l'Église (Paris: Alphonse Picard et fils, 1902)Google Scholar and Autour d'une petit livre (Paris: Alphonse Picard et fils, 1903)Google Scholar.

⁵² Blondel represents his interlocutors as the two early twentieth-century Catholic schools of thought he names, “extrinsicism” and “historicism.”

⁵³ Blondel, HD, p. 264.

⁵⁴ Ibid.

⁵⁵ Ibid., pp. 264–265.

⁵⁶ Ibid., p. 265.

⁵⁷ Ibid. Blondel does not mention the important distinction between apostolic, post-apostolic and ecclesial tradition.

⁵⁸ Ibid., p. 266.

⁵⁹ Blondel, , ‘Tradition’, in Lalande, André (ed), Vocabulaire technique et critique de la philosophie, 8^th edition (Paris: PUF, 1960), pp. 1140–1141Google Scholar. Also, see Blondel's remarks on the non-textual significance of tradition in La philosophie et l'esprit Chrétien: Conditions de la symbiose seule normale et salutaire (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1946), pp. 2:79–80Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Blondel, ‘Tradition,’ p. 1141.

⁶¹ Ibid., La philosophie et l'esprit Chrétien, p. 82.

⁶² Cf. Blondel, HD, p. 268.

⁶³ Cf. ibid., p. 274.

⁶⁴ Blondel, , L'Action (1893): Essay on a Critique of Life and a Science of Practice, trans. Blanchette, Oliva (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. There are two versions of L'Action published by Blondel. The first version was published in 1893 after his doctoral defense at the Sorbonne. The 1893 version is the text of his original dissertation with the additional chapter, “The Bond of Knowledge and Action in Being.” The second version was published as two volumes in 1936 and 1937 as part of Blondel's trilogy on thought, being and action. All references in this essay are to the English translation of L'Action (1893). Hereafter abbreviated LA.

⁶⁵ Marion, Jean-Luc, ‘La conversion de la volonté selon l'Action’, in Folscheid, Dominique (ed), Mauirce Blondel: une dramatique de la modernité (Paris: Editions Universitaires, 1990), p. 160Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ Blondel, LA, p. 343.

⁶⁷ Ibid., p. 372.

⁶⁸ Ibid., p. 380.

⁶⁹ Blondel, HD, p. 274.

⁷⁰ Cf. ibid.

⁷¹ Ibid.

⁷² Ibid., p. 268.

⁷³ Cf. ibid., p. 280.

⁷⁴ Ibid., p. 286.

⁷⁵ Ibid., p. 287.

⁷⁶ Ibid., p. 286.