Tradition fallacy? Constitution

There is actually two arguments here (how I am reading this):

1) The Norwegian Church and the Christian and humanistic heritage have characterized Norway for more than a thousand years, Therefore , must be considered central to understanding the nation's values.

It is unclear what is mean by this, specifically if "characterized Norway for more than a thousand years" = "central to understanding the nation's values." It could be a Non Sequitur if the two are not at least roughly the same.

2) The Norwegian Church and the Christian and humanistic heritage have characterized Norway for more than a thousand years. Therefore, the Norwegian Church must still have a special foundation in the Constitution.

This is interesting, because "must still" could be read two ways here:

1) No Appeal to Tradition here if "must still" refers to "it did before and nothing has changed" because the current state of affairs as in "The house foundation was made from stone so the foundation must still be stone."

2) Appeal to Tradition here is "must still" refers to "we can't change it" because it is referring to a future state of affairs. Example, "The house foundation was made from stone so the foundation must still be stone forever."

So before calling fallacy, get more clarification if possible.

I can understand Appeal to Tradition , especially if it's offered to oppose  the claims of the Church.

But not every demand to continue to be included is a fallacy per se.  Appeal to Constitution is at least more serious than "we've always done it that way".

If the Norwegians are being asked to amend or rewrite their Constitution because the nation's values have supposedly changed away from Church inclusion, the Church's assertions are a direct contradiction of the reasons proposed for amendment, and not a fallacy.