Questions for Orthodox and Protestants concerning Tradition

  • Thread starter Thread starter AmateurPianist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AmateurPianist

Guest
A while back I started a thread “What is Tradition” with the intent of trying to get through to my head what the various understandings of it are. The response to this thread was mostly Catholic (with 1 Protestant). So I am putting Protestant and Orthodox in the title in hopes of eliciting other responses from these sides of the various rivers so to speak.

For Protestants I am looking more to those who believe there is a valid role for Tradition whatever it may be.

So the questions…
  • What is tradition?
  • How has/is tradition passed down from the Apostolic age to the present.
  • (related to above) How does one 2000 years after the fact know true Tradition from nice man-made ideas?
  • How reliable is this method used to separate true Tradition from the false?
I guess this will suffice for now.
 
  • What is tradition?
  • How has/is tradition passed down from the Apostolic age to the present.
  • (related to above) How does one 2000 years after the fact know true Tradition from nice man-made ideas?
  • How reliable is this method used to separate true Tradition from the false?
Let’s see … It’s passed down through ceremonies and their accompanying liturgies and prayers (but liturgies have lots of prayers in them), and through the writings of widely-recognized leaders (but their writings often refer to such-and-such being the tradition).

You know the real tradition from man-made ideas through consensus spanning the centuries and countries. For illustration consider just two countries; in practice you’d look everywhere. Russians do xyz and Greeks do uvw, but they both do abc. The abc part is apostolic tradition. The other parts are merely man-made.

It’s very reliable. Think about it. Twelve Apostles go out in different directions into different lands. Afterwards the churches in all those disparate places are doing the same thing. What other conclusion is there?
 
A while back I started a thread “What is Tradition” with the intent of trying to get through to my head what the various understandings of it are. The response to this thread was mostly Catholic (with 1 Protestant). So I am putting Protestant and Orthodox in the title in hopes of eliciting other responses from these sides of the various rivers so to speak.

For Protestants I am looking more to those who believe there is a valid role for Tradition whatever it may be.

So the questions…
  • What is tradition?
  • How has/is tradition passed down from the Apostolic age to the present.
  • (related to above) How does one 2000 years after the fact know true Tradition from nice man-made ideas?
  • How reliable is this method used to separate true Tradition from the false?
I guess this will suffice for now.
Tradition is a running commentary on a love affair with God.

(not my quote;))
 
Let’s see … It’s passed down through ceremonies and their accompanying liturgies and prayers (but liturgies have lots of prayers in them), and through the writings of widely-recognized leaders (but their writings often refer to such-and-such being the tradition).

You know the real tradition from man-made ideas through consensus spanning the centuries and countries. For illustration consider just two countries; in practice you’d look everywhere. Russians do xyz and Greeks do uvw, but they both do abc. The abc part is apostolic tradition. The other parts are merely man-made.

It’s very reliable. Think about it. Twelve Apostles go out in different directions into different lands. Afterwards the churches in all those disparate places are doing the same thing. What other conclusion is there?
Thank you for answering. I probably have some follow-up questions but I want to sleep on it.

Oh…one basic question…What is Tradition?

Are you Orthodox or Catholic…your religeon thingy is confusing.
 
Here is a traditionalist Catholic (and anti-Ultramontanist) approach to Tradition. The author pinned much of the liturgical devastation after Vatican II on wrong-headed notions on what “orthodoxy” (right glory/right worship/pravoslavny) is and whether a pope can trump the received tradition tradition of the church. The essay was authored by Dr. Geoffrey Hull.

The link is here:
theanglocatholic.com/2010/04/the-proto-history-of-the-roman-liturgical-reform
Indeed Mediator Dei, so often cited by traditionalists, makes it clear that the Pope “alone has the right to permit or establish any liturgical practice, to introduce or approve new rites, or to make any changes in them he considers necessary”. The tragedy is that in making this forceful statement with the evident intention of safeguarding our liturgical inheritance, Pius XII set before the Church a Pandora’s box which his successors were tempted to open, and did…
Considering much of what has taken place in the sanctuaries of the Latin Church since Mediator Dei, Pius XII’s reversal in that encyclical of the historical principle legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi, i.e. “let the rule of prayer establish the rule of belief”, is no less disturbing:
“Indeed if we wanted to state quite clearly and absolutely the relation existing between the faith and the sacred liturgy we could rightly say that the law of our faith must establish the law of our prayer:’
This liberty taken with a theological tradition going back to apostolic times has been considered by some a most serious flaw in an otherwise excellent exposition of Catholic teaching on the liturgy. The maxim quoted above was first expressed in the fifth century by Prosper of Aquitaine in an anti-Pelagian treatise entitled Indiculus de gratia Dei, and it is commonly shortened to the aphorism lex orandi, lex credendi

The basic meaning of the teaching is that in the traditional liturgy we have the oldest witness to what the Church believes, since Christians were worshipping God in public well before the first theological treatises were composed. Living tradition is bipartite, its two aspects distinct yet interrelated. ‘The rational aspect of Catholic Tradition consists of the Magisterium which interprets Sacred Scripture and apostolic teaching, while the sacred liturgy constitutes its symbolic and mystical aspect, and the latter has a chronological primacy over the former. Given, therefore, that the sacred liturgy is not something arbitrarily devised by theologians but theologia prima, the ontological condition of theology, the Church’s teachings must always be in harmony with the beliefs that the traditional liturgical texts express. This is of course very different from George Tyrrell’s modernistic abuse of Prosper’s maxim, by which doctrines are valid only insofar as they are found in the liturgical texts and have produced practical fruits of charity and sanctification.

However, given the normative and testimonial nature of the liturgical tradition whose historical growth hag its own dynamic, there can be absolutely no question of artificially restructuring sacred rites to make them reflect new doctrines or new doctrinal emphases, which is precisely the Protestant approach to liturgy.

This rigorously conservative attitude on the question of ritual reform is also the constant teaching of the Eastern Churches. The Russian Orthodox theologian George Florovsky makes the same point rather more bluntly when he says that “Christianity is a liturgical religion. The Church is first of all a worshipping community. Worship comes first, doctrine and discipline second”. It is the Christians of the East who have best preserved the classical Catholic approach to worship and who consequently have preserved their litugical traditions intact in modern times. The present liturgical chaos in the Western Church is due in no small part to the emphasis that Latin Christians have always placed on dogma, with the consequent tendency to regard the liturgical texts as a mere locus theologicus, a means to an end, rather than a living source of doctrinal truth. Thus orthodoxia, which originally meant ‘right worship’, gives way to orthopistis ‘right believing’, or orthodidascalia ‘right teaching’. When taken to the extreme, this exclusive emphasis on the rational culminates in that heresy which rejects the living components of tradition in favour of the written records of the Early Church, the Bible and Patristic writings, and which we know as Protestantism and full-blown Jansenism. The rejection of the liturgical tradition thus implies a rejection of the Church itself.

(to be continued)
 
In the light of this typically Western aberration one can understand the Orthodox jibe that Protestantism was hatched from the egg that Rome had laid. For according to Timothy Ware,
“The Orthodox approach to religion is fundamentally a liturgical approach, which understands doctrine in the context of divine worship: it is no coincidence that the word ‘Orthodoxy’ should signify alike right belief and right worship, for the two things are inseparable. It has truly been; said of the Byzantines: ‘Dogma with them is not only an intellectual system. Apprehended by the clergy and expounded to the laity, but a field of vision wherein all things on earth are seen in their relation to things in heaven, first and foremost through liturgical celebration’”
A similar outlook is by no means absent in the Latin West today, even if it is a minority view. Commenting on Pius XII’s reversal of Prosper of Aquitaine’s dictum, American Benedictine liturgist Dom Aidan Kavanagh notes that:
“To reverse the maxim, subordinating the standard of worship to the standard of belief, makes a shambles of the dialectic of revelation. It was a Presence, not faith, which drew Moses to the burning bush, and what happened there was a revelation, not a seminar. It was a Presence, not faith, which drew the disciples to Jesus, and what happened there was not an educational program but His revelation to them of Himself as the long-promised Anointed One, the redeeming because reconciling Messiah-Christos”.
Indeed the radical impulse to destroy the entire liturgical tradition and go back to Eucharists in the manner of the Last Supper is the inevitable consequence of applying the criteria of theological analysis to the sacred liturgy which, as a slowly growing humanly-ordered thing, cannot possibly have “come from the Lord complete and perfect” as Bossuet the elder said of the deposit of faith.
I come finally to the other immediate cause of the liturgical revolution, a new and particularly destructive form of ultramontanism, which in my view is the only way of explaining how recent Popes could have made such an astonishing about-turn on the question of liturgical tradition. The term ‘Ultramontane’ first coined by the French Gallicans of the seventeenth century, normally refers to those who supported the definition of the dogma of Papal Infallibility in 1870. However, on the popular level ultramontanism has manifested itself in the cult of the person of the Pope, which hardly existed before Pius IX, but is still very much with us today. In the nineteenth century the enemies of the Ultramontanes were the Liberal Catholics; the Ultramontanes of today, who abide loyally by all the decisions of the Papacy, rejecting criticism and even discussion of any of them, are opposed not only by the heirs to the Liberal Catholic tradition, but also by the Traditionalists. Fully aware of the consequences of their action, traditionalist Catholics feel bound in conscience to criticize certain aspects of the Second Vatican Council and to reject the official and unofficial liturgical reforms that ostensibly issued from it.
To the Ultramontane mind, which is also the mind of the Popes of our day, one cannot adopt the traditionalist stance and remain authentically Catholic. It is often not appreciated that in the discussions preceding the dogmatic formulations of the First Vatican Council, Pius IX strongly favoured the interpretation of Papal Infallibility as meaning Papal inerrancy in matters of Church discipline as well as in dogmatic definitions, an exaggerated claim at odds with the teaching of the Church. But when – so the story goes – Fr. Guidi, Superior General of the Dominicans, pointed out to the Pope that his idea of Papal infallibility was against Tradition, Pius IX angrily reminded him that “La tradizione son’io!” – ‘I am Tradition’, a symptom of Papal megalomania providentially checked by the Holy Ghost.
Unfortunately, there is ample evidence today that the modern Popes consider themselves the infallible arbiters of disciplinary and liturgical tradition rather than its respectful custodians. John Paul II, for example, has been known to act arbitrarily and inconsistently in contravention of established liturgical law. One famous episode was during his visit to West Germany in 1980 when, in contradiction to the firm Papal policy of not giving Communion in the hand, he administered the Sacrament in this manner to a small boy by way of exception, thus establishing an irrevocable precedent. On another occasion, I am told, the Pope incorrectly knelt during a Papal ceremony in Rome, and when his Master of Ceremonies discreetly directed him to rise, John Paul remained on his knees and retorted pointedly: “II Papa s’inginocchia!” – “the Pope is kneeling!”. With such a subjective attitude towards liturgical tradition, unthinkable in any of the Eastern Churches, it is understandable that the modern Popes and the ultramontanist Curia should view traditionalist rejection of the liturgical reform as incompatible with Catholic orthodoxy which they narrowly understand as right belief and right morals.
From the traditionalist standpoint, it is an abuse of power for the modern Papacy; however orthodox in its dogmatic teaching, to Command the faithful to accept an anti-traditional liturgy in the name of obedience to the supreme ecclesiastical authority. If the Papacy, in an official document, can reverse a fundamental teaching of orthodox Christianity by totally subordinating the liturgy to the interests of new ‘orientations’, one is forced to conclude that recent Popes, in turning their backs on their own past for whatever noble motives, have placed themselves above Tradition and abused their position as the supreme legislators in disciplinary matters.
 
A while back I started a thread “What is Tradition” with the intent of trying to get through to my head what the various understandings of it are. The response to this thread was mostly Catholic (with 1 Protestant). So I am putting Protestant and Orthodox in the title in hopes of eliciting other responses from these sides of the various rivers so to speak.

For Protestants I am looking more to those who believe there is a valid role for Tradition whatever it may be.

So the questions…
  • What is tradition?
  • How has/is tradition passed down from the Apostolic age to the present.
  • (related to above) How does one 2000 years after the fact know true Tradition from nice man-made ideas?
  • How reliable is this method used to separate true Tradition from the false?
I guess this will suffice for now.
AP,

You’ve asked some very complex questions.

The Gospel was transmitted through oral tradition, before the written tradition–even before the letters of Paul.

Tradition is created the moment anyone speaks or writes commentary on any passage of Scripture. Many Protestants claim they base Christian beliefs on Scripture alone or Scripture only—failing to realize that Sunday School Teachers and Ministers are telling them what Scripture means. When even one word of commentary is spoken, you have left the Scripture only model.

Some oral tradition made it into written form in the Bible and some made it to written form by the Early Church Fathers outside the Biblical Canon.

Commentary creates tradition. The question becomes, do we accept the tradition of the early church or the tradition created during/after the Protestant Reformation or both?

IOW, you have a lot of reading to do to find your answer; unless you become Catholic–then acceptable “tradition” is decided for you.

Anna

P.S. I’m in the reading process right now. 🙂
 
That sounds nice. Unfortunately it is not too helpful in me getting a handle on just what it is and how it is defined.
That’s just it, Tradition isn’t something that is easily defined and fits into a neat little box. The way the Holy Spirit operates in the Church is a great mystery, and it is not a mystery in the sense of something to be solved but rather something beyond human understanding that can only be experienced. Because of that any explanations you do get are going to fall far short of reality.

In Christ
Joe
 
That’s just it, Tradition isn’t something that is easily defined and fits into a neat little box. The way the Holy Spirit operates in the Church is a great mystery, and it is not a mystery in the sense of something to be solved but rather something beyond human understanding that can only be experienced. Because of that any explanations you do get are going to fall far short of reality.

In Christ
Joe
josephdaniel29,

I’m really glad you are posting on CAF. There have been so many threads that needed the Orthodox (name removed by moderator)ut.

Anna
 
Oh…one basic question…What is Tradition?
Tradition is that which has always been done or believed. Sometimes doing and believing are inseparable parts of a whole; e.g., baptism of children, and liturgies of prayer for the dead.
Are you Orthodox or Catholic…your religion thingy is confusing.
I’m both and neither at the same time.
 
Tradition is that which has always been done or believed. Sometimes doing and believing are inseparable parts of a whole; e.g., baptism of children, and liturgies of prayer for the dead.
Getting back to this…and working backwards…

In the other thread I (or maybe somebody else) came up with “the oral teaching of Christ to the apostles and from the apostles to the apostolic church”. Does that work?

As I think about it, there really should be no debate up to this point, it is a matter of the historical record.

The more interesting question is how is this passed on. In other words how do you separate:
(1) That which originally came from Christ and the apostles
(2) That which came later (possible even soon after the apostles)
(3) That which is real and that which is false
I’m both and neither at the same time.
Not sure how exactly this works…but ok.
 
That’s just it, Tradition isn’t something that is easily defined and fits into a neat little box. The way the Holy Spirit operates in the Church is a great mystery, and it is not a mystery in the sense of something to be solved but rather something beyond human understanding that can only be experienced. Because of that any explanations you do get are going to fall far short of reality.

In Christ
Joe
OK.

Now in the other thread I squawked where tradition seemed to be personified (to be fair the Catholics rightly squawk when the Bible is personified). Now it is mystified.

To be fair, not everything needs an explanation to the nth degree. I can accept mystification for questions of the type “how does it work”. In fact in many cases I prefer mystification (example: real presence).

But as far as questions of the type “what is it” I need some type of definition. Otherwise I am believing in something that I don’t know what it is. That doesn’t make sense to me.

To be fair…some of my questions were of the type “how does it work”. Just trying to understand it thoroughly as far as possible. I can’t fairly evaluate something I don’t understand.
 
OK.

Now in the other thread I squawked where tradition seemed to be personified (to be fair the Catholics rightly squawk when the Bible is personified). Now it is mystified.

To be fair, not everything needs an explanation to the nth degree. I can accept mystification for questions of the type “how does it work”. In fact in many cases I prefer mystification (example: real presence).

But as far as questions of the type “what is it” I need some type of definition. Otherwise I am believing in something that I don’t know what it is. That doesn’t make sense to me.

To be fair…some of my questions were of the type “how does it work”. Just trying to understand it thoroughly as far as possible. I can’t fairly evaluate something I don’t understand.
Well bear in mind AP I am not Catholic. 😉

Tradition is expressed in a variety of ways. Sometimes it is written down such as the case of Holy Scripture, the conciliar decisions and writings of the fathers; other times it is expressed in the prayers, liturgy and divine offices; still other times it is expressed in the iconography and hymnograhy of the Church; and finally it is expressed in the way parents and godparents pass the faith on to the next generation.

I know the first definition I put forward seemed a little flippant but there is more truth to it that you may realize. Tradition is essentially the living experience of the Church in time, the experience of how God interacts with creation.

Fr Sergius Bulgakov said “the Church knows itself.” The reason Tradition works is that it is primarily something to be lived and experienced, not defined. The only way to experience Tradition is with and in the Church. It works because primarily the bishops, but just as importantly each Christian is dedicated to living that experience and passing it on faithfully to succeeding generations.

In Christ
Joe
 
Gonna get into detail
AP,

You’ve asked some very complex questions.

The Gospel was transmitted through oral tradition, before the written tradition–even before the letters of Paul.
Agreed. That goes back to a definition I have of the oral teaching of Christ to the apostles and from the apostles to the apostolic church. There should be no debate on this point (except that some might shy away from the word “tradition”).
Tradition is created the moment anyone speaks or writes commentary on any passage of Scripture.
Now you have lost me. I don’t even know the right question to ask. Please explain.
Many Protestants claim they base Christian beliefs on Scripture alone or Scripture only—failing to realize that Sunday School Teachers and Ministers are telling them what Scripture means. When even one word of commentary is spoken, you have left the Scripture only model.
OK…I hate to beat a dead horse…but this reminds me of the thread I started a while back called “What is Sola Scriptura”. I uncovered around 7 different definitions from very nuanced to brute force. I would accept this statement for the very brute force definitions. Of course it seems to me that for the very nuanced definitions, “Sola Scriptura” may be a very misleading title. But for now this is in the beating a dead horse category.
Some oral tradition made it into written form in the Bible and some made it to written form by the Early Church Fathers outside the Biblical Canon.
If you accept the definition I supplied above (and I am not sure you do…but it is the one I am working with) then you get to the question of how do you know whether it came from Christ and the apostles or was an early nice idea.
Commentary creates tradition.
Please explain because I really don’t get this at all. In these forums there is a lot of nice commenting going on. That is the purpose of a forum such as this. I recognize the comments as mostly the opinions of various folks (we all have 'em). But if commentary creates tradition, then there is a whole lot of tradition being created here. I shudder to think of the possibility that every time I am expressing an opinion I am creating tradition. I’d better shut up while I am ahead.
The question becomes, do we accept the tradition of the early church or the tradition created during/after the Protestant Reformation or both?
Of course the claims of the reformers is that their objective was to restore the church back to the true apostolic church. While the Catholics claim impossible, that would mean the gates of hell prevailed against the church.

Now to me both of these represent black/which thinking which neglects the possibility of shades of grey and everybody is wrong to some extent. Which is why I always come back to the issue of what is really important in my life. And the answer always seems to be to find my little place in the Kingdom of God and to be faithful to Him where I am at.
 
Well bear in mind AP I am not Catholic. 😉
…and I am Protestant, just trying to get my head around stuff.
Tradition is expressed in a variety of ways. Sometimes it is written down such as the case of Holy Scripture, the conciliar decisions and writings of the fathers; other times it is expressed in the prayers, liturgy and divine offices; still other times it is expressed in the iconography and hymnograhy of the Church; and finally it is expressed in the way parents and godparents pass the faith on to the next generation.
OK…I can get my head around this. It doesn’t tell me what it is yet, but tells me how it is expressed.
I know the first definition I put forward seemed a little flippant but there is more truth to it that you may realize. Tradition is essentially the living experience of the Church in time, the experience of how God interacts with creation.

Fr Sergius Bulgakov said “the Church knows itself.” The reason Tradition works is that it is primarily something to be lived and experienced, not defined. The only way to experience Tradition is with and in the Church. It works because primarily the bishops, but just as importantly each Christian is dedicated to living that experience and passing it on faithfully to succeeding generations.
So let me start by taking you at your word here

I know that I experience God in my life. I know that others in my congregation do also. And we are trying to pass it on to the next generation. So per your definition we are experiencing tradition,

Then we are good.👍
In Christ
Joe
 
So let me start by taking you at your word here

I know that I experience God in my life. I know that others in my congregation do also. And we are trying to pass it on to the next generation. So per your definition we are experiencing tradition,

Then we are good.👍
Tradition is the experience of the Church, not an individual. Of course individual experience is a part of it but it has to be from within the Church. And to answer your question yes, you are experiencing tradition. It is the tradition of your particular Protestant denomination. 👍
 
Tradition is the experience of the Church, not an individual. Of course individual experience is a part of it but it has to be from within the Church. And to answer your question yes, you are experiencing tradition. It is the tradition of your particular Protestant denomination. 👍
I must admit your answer caught me off guard and surprised me. I really didn’t know how or what to answer.

Then I thought about it and decided to take your answer at face value. And the more I thought about it, the more I liked it to be honest.

If tradition is experiencing God, then of course I as a Christian experience God. But it is not just me and God by our lonesome. I experience God within a community of believers.

But it is not just us as a local community by our collective lonesome. We experience God within the context of a larger community of believers. And this larger community of believers is not limited to my particular organization. It is a community that spans multiple organizations on earth but in heaven is just one organization. It is a community that started at Pentecost and will continue until the end of the church.

It sort of blows my mind to think that St. Ignatius and St. Clement experienced the same God that I do. John Wesley, Martin Luther, Pope JP II and Mother Theresa experienced the same God I do. And there are people I have never met in countries that I have never been to that experience the same God that I do. And I experience God in the context of all of these folks somehow. It is a shared experience.

So good answer.
 
Fr Sergius Bulgakov said “the Church knows itself.” The reason Tradition works is that it is primarily something to be lived and experienced, not defined. The only way to experience Tradition is with and in the Church. It works because primarily the bishops, but just as importantly each Christian is dedicated to living that experience and passing it on faithfully to succeeding generations.
Yes. The question above of who originated tradition, (a) Jesus to his Apostles, or (b) his Apostles soon thereafter, is the wrong question because it is a sterile academic book-oriented question. The right question to ask is what has the Church as a collective body of individuals SHARING THEIR LIVES TOGETHER always taught and practiced.

“Tradition” is a LIVED thing. It’s a life experience. One can find it here and there written down, yes, but tradition is not in books any more than human lives are in books. There are biographies about human beings’ lives, but those biographies are not the lives. Those books are not the people. It is that same distinction between sterile records and REAL LIVES SHARED BETWEEN PEOPLE that enables us to know what Tradition is. Church Tradition is experienced with other people. It is life lived with other people. It is smelled and tasted with other people.
 
“Tradition” is a LIVED thing. It’s a life experience. One can find it here and there written down, yes, but tradition is not in books any more than human lives are in books. There are biographies about human beings’ lives, but those biographies are not the lives. Those books are not the people.
Consider that analogy stolen my friend. 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top